6 thoughts on “Low Fat Versus Low Carb”

1. Like a lot of people, I’ve seen many of the documentaries on Netfliks about the Veggan diets and the low-carb diets and the paleo-diets and, at least according to the people interviewed, they all seem to work. Interestingly, they all have 2 things in common 1) Stop eating sugar (as in candy, soda, syrup, pastries) and 2) Eating lots of vegetables.

   The more I read (and the more I experiment), the more I come to the conclusion that refined sugar is the main culprit of many food-related pathologies (not meat or whole grain carbs). Those who practice moderation in all things are probably well off. However, moderation is NOT 24 ounces of sugary soda a day. Moderation is a piece of cake on Sunday and maybe 2 chocolate chip cookies on Wednesday.

2. What matters most is that the individual can stick to the diet over the long term.

   Then any diet, if stuck for the long term, is what matters. That would mean the raw food diet, the vegetarian diet, the potato diet and a host of other diets work just as well.

   But this does not consider whether or not the food is even nutritional. It does not consider the (possibly) harmful effects of foods such as legumes and grains (They contain lectins.) It also does not consider the harmful effects of proteins such as gluten, whey and casein.

3. The article said:

   ” “It’s possible to have a healthy low-fat diet, one rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains, but not loaded with sugar and white bread, and also possible to have a healthy low-carb diet, one not loaded with bacon and sausage. What matters most is that the individual can stick to the diet over the long term.””

   But but but…….the low fat diet they describe *IS* low carb. Or at least low on the pernicious bad carbs. You take out bread and sugars and you are eliminating the complex carbs – and huge amounts of carbs in general – that cause the fat to pile on.

   I think I know what they were trying to say but it was worded badly:

   If you take out the complex carbs ( bread, macaroni, sugars ) then you will lose weight regardless as to whether you eat a lot or a little fat.

4. “What matters most is that the individual can stick to the diet over the long term.”

   Hey researcher dude, this is actually a main advantage of low-carb. On low carb (at least, several of them), if you feel hunger, you may eat more. The extra protein (and, yes, fat) just isn’t processed the same way.

   Also, they include fruit on their list. Fruit is nature’s candy. It isn’t better for you just because it is all natural. Fruit is what makes half of the ‘low-fat’ approaches even -half- palatable. And you see people adding another handful of real fresh fruit to their yogurt/salad/whatever all the time. AKA: Cheating.

5. A lot of these studies are heavily flawed because they don’t control for protein intake – so the low carb is superior not because of low carb, but because some of those carbs are replaced with dietary protein rather than fats. If you equalize the protein across lower carb/lower fat diets I speculate a lot of the differences would disappear, due to the higher TEF of protein, higher satiation etc.

6. A lot of good points already made.
   Something I didn’t see in the piece, was 1) health outcomes and 2) what kind of weight was being lost.

   If I go on a diet, I want to be healthier. If that means losing weight, I want it to be protective rather than destructive of my health. Generally that is going to mean losing (some) fat, not muscle mass. My understanding is that going low-fat/Vegan/Vegetarian may lose you some weight, but you’ll just end up skinny-fat, hungry, with less strength than you started, and probably a lot of gas.

   Or I can go low-carb, lose fat mass, keep or gain muscle mass and strength depending on my training, and not be hungry. I’ll end up with a muscular-lean body with a lot less bloating.

   You’ll lose weight on both perhaps, but you’ll feel and look better, and be healthier, with low-carb.

Comments are closed.