tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post8651717456666921889..comments2024-02-25T02:24:14.972-08:00Comments on Whole Health Source: More Thoughts on the Recent Low-fat vs. Low-carb Metabolic Ward StudyStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-58704635007220975222015-09-16T11:57:04.130-07:002015-09-16T11:57:04.130-07:00This just shows that fat loss on a high carb diet ...This just shows that fat loss on a high carb diet necessitates low fat and calorie restriction. Which is relatively well known.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-19686133460521010602015-09-16T05:46:35.800-07:002015-09-16T05:46:35.800-07:00Our journal club summary (talking about the gender...Our journal club summary (talking about the gender differences) is here: http://bridgeslab.uthsc.edu/papers/commentary/12Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12291507118158076247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-73071184118496661712015-09-15T22:35:54.314-07:002015-09-15T22:35:54.314-07:00I agree with everything Karl said. Full stop!I agree with everything Karl said. Full stop!Gearóidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867502620689884981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-9856528533866758912015-09-13T14:39:04.599-07:002015-09-13T14:39:04.599-07:00We discussed this in our lab meeting this week, an...We discussed this in our lab meeting this week, and here is a couple of points that have been brought up above but we thought were relevant.<br /><br />* Participants were >30 mg/kg2 BMI, but nondiabetic and had reasonable HOMA-IR scores. This was part of the exclusion criteria, along with lack of medications and being weight stable. The participants might be more reasonably thought of as "healthy obese" than a more typical obese participants. <br />* For their primary outcome there was no difference between the diets on fat mass or percent fat mass. Fasting that causes loss of both fat and lean mass is not preferable. Based on the data in Table 3, reduced carbs actually <b>increased</b> fat percentage, but the difference between the diets was not significant (p=0.24). They revisit this point looking at the rates of fat loss in Figure 3D/E which is where they see the significant effect, and where again the effect is really only seen looking at total fat loss, not total percent fat decrease. This implies a fairly dramatic (but unreported) decrease in lean body mass. This is consistent with most calorie restricted diets, and the attendant decreases in muscle mass and energy expenditure make it easy to bounce back to elevated body weights. <br />* Reduced carb reduced energy expenditure even more than reduced fat. This is at odds with the weight loss, then stabilization paradigm in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.6607" rel="nofollow">Ebbeling <i>et al.</i> JAMA, 2012</a> who showed that in their paradigm low carb diets reduced EE less than reduced fat. Ebbeling <i>et al.</i> used a very different paradigm (weight loss, followed by stabilization, followed by diet changes) but its odd that the effects were going in a different direction. Again in Hall, this effect didnt quite reach significance (p=0.099) but its key that it was in the opposite direction. This suggests that this is more of an acute effect of diet, and may not be representative of chronic metabolic adaptation to weight loss (important for their projections in Figure 3. <br />* There were some really dramatic sex differences presented in the supplement. I don't have access to the supplement from home, but we identified quite a few really dramatic differences in things EE and hormone levels (Ghrelin) between males and females. In a lot of cases, it was probably confusing to combine the genders of the participants (they control for Gender, but probably not the interaction between Gender and Diet). Ill post what we thought of these when I get back to the lab.<br />* As an aside why are these longs lists of p-values not adjusted for the tons of multiple comparisons? If that was done, many of the marginally significant effects would not be present.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12291507118158076247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-8954142072830523642015-09-12T22:51:07.857-07:002015-09-12T22:51:07.857-07:00My personal experience is that eating carbs induce...My personal experience is that eating carbs induces excess hunger - and that hunger can result in eating not only carbs, but excess fats and protein - not at the time the carbs were consumed, but at the next meal. I would think that you would 'get' that food choice can influence appetite. <br /><br />Normal people maintain their weight without thinking much about it to within a few percent. The calories-in;calories out are automatically matched by high precision by 'appetite'.<br /><br />What is not spoken of is the effects on serotonin by carbohydrates - research on this goes back many decades - (see Wurtman ) and led to the development of SSRIs.<br /><br />Eating carbs increases serotonin - done on a long term basis, the post-synaptic receptors down regulate and you have a rebound effect - an addiction. To re-regulate these receptors has been reported to take 6-weeks when discontinuing SSRIs and one would have to guess a similar time frame from eating carbs - short term studies don't allow time for re-regulation.<br /><br />I would also note that there are studies that show that the people consuming fructose containing sugars prior to going out to eat ordered and ate more food. (triglycerides blocking leptin?).<br /><br />In the end, this study does not clarify why we have a pandemic of obesity or what to do about it. Clearly on one level we know it is from eating to much - the why is appetite. <br /><br /><br />I would also have to say that the editing of Taubs words did change the meaning from a speculation to a claim. (The missing ellipsis (... punctuation) merits a correction by the authors of the paper and puts their objectivity in doubt). While Taubs is a proponent of low-carb diets he has been very clear that the high quality research to understand the question of metabolic differences has yet to be done. <br /><br />Taubs has also said on many occasions that while the calories-in : calories-out ratio matters - but that the supply side is effected by appetite - and when people are told to simply eat less they fail - almost all the time. Appetite really really does matter. Eating addictive 'comfort foods' (carb heavy food) apparently increases appetite. <br /><br />We desperately need studies with synthetic diets that test the effects of PUFAs on appetite. (Synthetic diets during the Apollo program taught us that fructose spiked triglycerides (but no one paid attention).) Today we are eating 5x the PUFAs than in 1960's and these are not 'human foods' and have not been studied in careful long term studies on their effect on appetite. (We do know that they have effects at the mitochondrial level that could theoretically change appetite ).karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490274388549702613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-7509098333612624522015-08-31T09:51:55.200-07:002015-08-31T09:51:55.200-07:00Hi Gearoid,
I agree that hunger is important. Ho...Hi Gearoid,<br /><br />I agree that hunger is important. However, one of the major points I've tried to make in my writing and speaking is that food intake is the result of many interacting motivations. Hunger is an important motivation, but I'm not convinced it's the primary driver of food intake in the modern world. Most people eat/drink out of habit, because they seek the reward value, because they're self-medicating stress or depression, because it's easy, because they're hungry, and for many other reasons.<br /><br />One clear example of this is alcohol. One beer contains ~150 calories; one drink of wine or spirits contain ~90, and people rarely drink alcohol because they're hungry. Even moderate drinkers can easily ingest hundreds of excess calories per day purely because of the reward value of alcohol. Most other foods are eaten due to some combination of reward, hunger, habit, and ease of access.<br /><br />Hi Mikko,<br /><br />Fat oxidation rate is higher on low-carb than high-carb, given equal calories. However, what is often overlooked is that fat intake is higher on low-carb. What determines changes in body fat mass is fat balance, in other words, fat intake minus fat oxidation. The low-carb group had a less negative fat balance than the low-fat group.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-23040909909053013782015-08-31T09:12:42.545-07:002015-08-31T09:12:42.545-07:00Thanks Stephan!
So - fat oxidation on a low carb ...Thanks Stephan!<br /><br />So - fat oxidation on a low carb is slightly lower or about the same as with low fat?<br /><br />What would you speculate, if they did this experiment with 8% fat and 8% carb version, allowing for an adaptation period of say 2 weeks - would the results change significantly?<br /><br />I would think that the low carb group here spent less energy just because before the adaptation, you at last feel like you are starving. In the low fat group there was possibly less of a feeling of starvation. <br /><br /><br />Mikko Järvinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13324063037156255434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-13340184984962178412015-08-28T22:29:31.223-07:002015-08-28T22:29:31.223-07:00What is MUCH more relevant to fat mass is hunger o...What is MUCH more relevant to fat mass is hunger or lack of it. Hunger is the elephant in the room. An artificial experiment in which input is controlled by a metabolic ward will not translate into success in the real world if the subject is constantly hungry. Neither, will it succeed if the patient isn't hungry but is not willing to stick to the diet which controls his hunger. In the latter circumstance, one of the big reasons for slipping is cheating. This is analogous to the smoker deciding to have the occasional cigarette.<br />The low carb diet is much more successful is the subjects get proper psychological support and have it explained to them ab initio, rather than be assigned to limb A or B of a trial by people who are actually trying to show that it won't work longterm.<br />It's working fine in me. 40lb down and at target weight for 15m. I don't cheat.Gearóidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867502620689884981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-19633080756131033092015-08-28T15:44:31.101-07:002015-08-28T15:44:31.101-07:00Hi Mikko,
I think full adaptation can take longer...Hi Mikko,<br /><br />I think full adaptation can take longer, but there are multiple facets to adaptation. The point I made in this article is that total fat oxidation plateaus rapidly, which is what is relevant to fat mass. But that doesn't mean the body has fully adapted to all metabolic aspects of greater fat oxidation. I'm not knowledgeable in this area but I know there is research suggesting that it takes longer than a few days for the body to maximize physical performance after switching to a higher-fat diet. That could be relevant in other contexts like athletic performance, but fat oxidation is what is relevant to fat mass.<br /><br />Hi Alex,<br /><br />The run-in period of the study design makes that an unlikely possibility.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-59485537385123497692015-08-28T08:20:41.871-07:002015-08-28T08:20:41.871-07:00Isn't it possible (perhaps even likely given t...Isn't it possible (perhaps even likely given their obesity) that the low fat group was still restricting carbohydrates when compared to their previous diets? I don't think that this is necessarily the proof against Taubes' statement that you propose it to be.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069436126808900990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-37806411940127575262015-08-28T06:37:29.667-07:002015-08-28T06:37:29.667-07:00If there is no adaptation period to using fat as a...If there is no adaptation period to using fat as a fuel - why do the ketone measurements with a blood ketone meters or breath ketone meter like Ketonix start producing ketosis level measurements only after several days, even weeks on a nutritional ketosis diet?<br /><br />Not disputing what you are saying, just would like to understand what is going on then in the body - is ketosis irrelevant, is the body utilizing fat as a fuel equally well in ketosis or out of ketosis? If that is the case, then of course it seems that it is equally easy to lose weight with low fat high carb diet.<br /><br />That then leaves only the issue of who is able to maintain high carb eating without overeating - very few, it seems when you look around. Mikko Järvinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13324063037156255434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-28308307942260420392015-08-26T03:55:01.477-07:002015-08-26T03:55:01.477-07:00@yaakov
Nitrogen balance: see e.g. http://www.fas...@yaakov<br /><br />Nitrogen balance: see e.g. http://www.fastbleep.com/biology-notes/40/116/753<br /><br />Carb metabolism / DNL : see e.g. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12932996_De_novo_lipogenesis_in_humans_Metabolic_and_regulatory_aspects<br /><br />After reading that, being afraid of eating carbs will hopefully seem nonsensical (at least if you are not diabetic).Aegirssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09286194307810507615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-88925684280967167482015-08-25T14:55:37.471-07:002015-08-25T14:55:37.471-07:00Have we seen over feeding studies of carbs in insu...Have we seen over feeding studies of carbs in insulin resistant people? The DNL studies I saw were in healthy people - and not for a long period of time.<br /><br />I'd suspect at some point the body would get wise to what's going on and up regulate carbs -> fat no matter how costly that process is. <br /><br />Anecdotally, all one has to do is hit up youtube and look at the 30BAD crowd and see how many people abandon the diet because of weight gain.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16243131367695683582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-25484179330585832562015-08-25T10:15:41.938-07:002015-08-25T10:15:41.938-07:00Where did you get that from?Where did you get that from?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019357989365444613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-92001681162955669652015-08-25T07:49:57.001-07:002015-08-25T07:49:57.001-07:00@yaakov
I read your post. There is more to it as ...@yaakov<br /><br />I read your post. There is more to it as the body regulates carbs and proteins quite tightly, as opposed to fats. You can stuff yourself with proteins and carbs but it would be hard to gain weight. You would eventually but it is much harder than when you stuff yourself with fats (more so when these fats come with carbs and proteins). Protein regulation is due to the nitrogen balance. Carbs are used by the brain, glycogen store replenishing, and some increased body heat. You;d have to eat an excessive amount of carbs for days and days without basically moving your body before it would trigger an excessive weight gain. DNL is basically insignificant in normal people, and the little created fat is mostly oxidized right then as far as I could read.When it comes to fats, we just suck at regulating excess in terms of increased oxidation and body heat. It is usually stored and burned only when needed (fasting period, inter-prandial phase, etc).Aegirssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09286194307810507615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-43197068123742076212015-08-24T22:27:33.952-07:002015-08-24T22:27:33.952-07:00Let's take a moment to thank Stephan for bothe...Let's take a moment to thank Stephan for bothering to (1) write this piece, and (2) to continue to reply to all of these comments. Let's practice some gratitude, and get rid of this snarkiness I'm seeing in some of these posts. We don't need that here. Let's be good consumers of science and thoughtful conversationalists about the science. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400274254475065917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-46463855701691321832015-08-24T10:21:49.551-07:002015-08-24T10:21:49.551-07:00If you have time can you reply to my postIf you have time can you reply to my postAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019357989365444613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-86709306611002742882015-08-24T09:59:54.927-07:002015-08-24T09:59:54.927-07:00Hi Peter,
Sorry, I don't really want this to ...Hi Peter,<br /><br />Sorry, I don't really want this to be a personal conflict with Taubes, it's just that he has articulated a particularly popular and rigid version of the carb-insulin hypothesis, so the conversation in this area often focuses on his ideas. Add on top of that the fact that Taubes has taken an extremely adversarial/insulting stance toward researchers who disagree with him, including me. I try to keep it civil in my posts, but when I have to defend the most basic facts against some of his acolytes in the comments section, it can sometimes go too far. I acknowledge that.<br /><br />Hi Christopher,<br /><br />No doubt it would have been useful to include individual data. Hall has indicated that he will be publishing other papers on this study, so perhaps we'll get to see some of it. But you could make the same critique of 90 percent of other human RCTs, so I think Feinman is taking a legitimate point and applying it a bit too disproportionately to this particular study. To call the paper "distressing" on that basis seems a little much to me.<br /><br />Hi Dennis,<br /><br />I have a general understanding of respirometry but I don't know all the details of Hall's methods. I do know they accounted for DNL. Your point about the validity of respirometry for people on different diets is a valid one that has been debated in the field for some time. I don't know what the final verdict is, or if there is one. These are questions that Hall would be able to answer better than me. <br /><br />Hi Raz,<br /><br />Thanks. I view energy balance as a link in a longer causal chain. It's a very informative link but it certainly isn't the ultimate explanation for obesity.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-36627878221339399222015-08-24T04:17:00.492-07:002015-08-24T04:17:00.492-07:00I'm really bored to know that people is still ...I'm really bored to know that people is still talking about the disappointing debate carbs vs fat vs protein...hey folks, the greatest thing we learned observing traditional cultures that it's about real food. Food is much more than carbs and fat...we learned that our body can adapt to different macronutrients ratio from the high carb kitava to the high fat inuit, going through hadza who are able to eat more than 4kkalories pet day and stay skinny...fat is much more about the chronic inflammation triggered by grains and other non species appropriate food that set off leptin and insuline resistance.<br />Really, are human beings so stupid to refuse the evidence for the sake of "science"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09464191224206172095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71817023618860258102015-08-23T09:11:54.071-07:002015-08-23T09:11:54.071-07:00Excellent insight in your above comment, Stephan. ...Excellent insight in your above comment, Stephan. Very nice.<br /><br /> It is only the ignorant Internet diet guru charlatans who abuse the conservation of energy principle and do not understand it who claim that any metabolic advantage contradicts "the first law of thermodynamics." It does no such thing. I am not saying a metabolic advantage does or dos not exist ( I do not know) , but the conservation of energy principle is not at all "contradicted" by its possible discovery etc., nor is it a limiting factor in any way. <br /><br /> There are no "laws" in science, and the "calorie is a calorie" dictate does not even have the same level of support as the actual conservation principles. It is just "unscientific dopey fitness industry speak" often repeated. How our bodies handle this energy is a whole other story.<br /><br />Even the conservation of energy "law" is a theory. Much remains to be learned about matter and energy. very well supported in the classical world, but energy is ONLY conserved in a time translational invariant system. We tell school kids lies a bit. I suppose it is too complex for them.<br /><br />As Dr. George Bray himself personally told me , the conservation of energy principle is merely a "state equation", nothing more. He admitted it cannot and does not explain obesity. It is only "relevant" , not sufficient at all. It applies no more to muscular Belgian cattle than it does to overly fat humans, and it "explains" neither scenario at all. And it says absolutely nothing about where the energy came from, how it is stored, how it is used, partitioned, handled, wasted, or absorbed. Dr. Bray totally agreed with me. I bet that would chap the butts of the gurus. LOL !<br /><br />The "a calorie is a calorie" in the human body rests on a DEEP misunderstanding of what the conservation of energy principle actually means. It does NOT "have to be this way" as fitness gurus claim. Not to any physicists, that is for sure... The conservation of energy would be totally "content" if we ate a large chocolate bar and crapped it out whole again. (Not that the universe operates by OUR models and mandates etc.) It does what it wants. The onus is on us to see how we were wrong. <br /><br />How the body handles, uses, absorbs, wastes or partitions this energy is definitely not addressed in any way, shape or form by the conservation of energy principle. Those questions are biochemical/genetic/physiological in nature, NOT physics matters. There is lots of money to be made marketing physics to the gullible public who are science illiterate and being hoodwinked by marketing.<br /><br /> And as you noted in the Chris Kresser podcast of May 2010, energy partitioning is a CENTRAL factor in obesity and too much adipose tissue matter and rarely discussed. That was an excellent point. Dr. Garret Fitzgerald stressed to me that energy can be led to many different pathways in the body.<br /><br /><br />Quantum Chromodynamics explains what is responsible for the mass of our human bodies- at the most fundamental level. It is because of the confined kinetic energy of quarks and gluons. When we gain a kilogram, we are gaining a kilogram of energy. Thanks Albert Einstein. A hot cup of tea has a slightly greater mass than a cold cup of tea. <br /><br />Take care and I hope you had a great summer, :))<br />RazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-81937314644141816142015-08-23T03:47:03.136-07:002015-08-23T03:47:03.136-07:00Stephan,
Thanks for your balanced review.
There...Stephan,<br /><br />Thanks for your balanced review. <br /><br />There is a topic which seems not to have been covered though. The determination of the net amount of burnt macro nutrients is based on the measurement of the amount of oxygen used, CO2 produced and nitrogen excreted. These values are input to some formulas in which several constants are used. The values if those constants is based on a number of assumptions. The results are influenced by de novo lipogenesis, but also by the amount of ketone bodies that are being burnt (see for example Fryan 1983, referenced by Hall et al). The latter do seem to have been accounted for in this study.<br /><br />What I am wondering is whether or not these constants are actually valid for these two very different nutritional patterns. For instance one might expect that the RC diet may indeed result in ketone bodies being formed, potentially requiring different constants to yield the correct results. If the calculations really do require different constants, the results may be drastically different.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02525242442964049790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-49779164469214950752015-08-22T07:27:15.247-07:002015-08-22T07:27:15.247-07:00Hi Stephan, thought you might like to see my lates...Hi Stephan, thought you might like to see <a href="http://www.nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/very-low-fat-vs-lowish-carb-study-inconclusive-due/" rel="nofollow">my latest podcast</a>.<br /><br />Why report averages? It's not that much data. <br /><br />To quote Dr. Feinman from the transcript:<br /><br />Well, it's worth my attention because I know Kevin Hall and he's a pretty smart guy and this is a pretty distressing paper. One of the reasons is that all of the data is reported as group averages. And the problem is that nobody loses an average amount of weight. The assumption of group averages is that there's a normal distribution or at least essentially limited distribution and the underlying idea behind that is that people are roughly the same and that minor variations account for the spread of the data. Those aren't good assumptions.<br /><br />But they're okay if the data do not have big variation. Now, that's not true in this study.Christopher Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01151842946777503050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-17784463499075768902015-08-22T04:15:02.423-07:002015-08-22T04:15:02.423-07:00I've been reading this blog for years, as many...I've been reading this blog for years, as many of the ideas have been helpful in trying to figure out how to eat. All the trashing of Gary Taubes annoys me, though, because I feel so grateful to him. Not for his speculations about how our bodies work, but for his observation that when relatively healthy cultures start importing our food, principally sugar, flour, and vegetable oil, their rates of obesity and diabetes seem to skyrocket. I feel like the dietary changes I made after I read that have served me well, so I feel defensive when you run him down, not just in this post but in others.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02266618729820780848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71559316825211613002015-08-20T14:12:36.669-07:002015-08-20T14:12:36.669-07:00Hi Christian,
The "calorie is a calorie"...Hi Christian,<br /><br />The "calorie is a calorie" thing is more of a rule of thumb than a strict law. At least that's how I view it. There is pretty good evidence that it holds approximately true over most of the macronutrient spectrum in humans. It MAY break down at the extremes, and I think that's part of what we're seeing here (and it is what Hall's model predicts). We may see something similar with the results of the 8-week NuSi metabolic ward study that is currently being conducted on a super-low-carbohydrate diet. Hall's model predicts that at extremely low levels of carb intake, there will be a modest fat loss advantage vs. the typical diet, independent of calorie intake. If this is the case, my prediction is that it will be trumpeted as a huge victory by the low-carb crowd, most of which will ignore the fact that the same thing seems to happen at the other end of the macronutrient spectrum, and therefore cannot be attributed to carbohydrate or insulin per se.<br /><br />Also, keep in mind that the biggest explanation for the difference in fat loss in Hall's study was glycogen depletion in the LC group, an effect that would have become negligible over longer periods of time.<br /><br />There is tons of animal work demonstrating that a calorie isn't always a calorie. Rodents will become fat on a refined high-fat diet, even if you restrict their calorie intake to the same as rodents eating regular unrefined chow. I'm pretty convinced that as science advances, the "calorie is a calorie" heuristic will turn out to be approximately true over most of the macronutrient spectrum in humans, but we'll find exceptions.<br /><br />Hi Subject,<br /><br />What you're saying is consistent with the evidence.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-52215637162762514792015-08-20T13:24:54.696-07:002015-08-20T13:24:54.696-07:00Stephan,I've read every page of GCBC and my ta...Stephan,I've read every page of GCBC and my take on what Gary says is not how you take it. It's that carbs are fattening because of hyperinsulinism. If they don't cause it, they're not.I myself think that sugar in excess is the big Cahoona Gearóidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867502620689884981noreply@blogger.com