
Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat? - terio
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mummy-says-john-horgan-is-wrong-abo-2011-05-19
======
joshklein
I think there are a number of issues:

1 - People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the
word "fat". Not much to do there. In high school I was taught that
carbohydrates were "energy" and fat was "waste". People should probably be
taught the right way our biological systems operate.

2 - Medical authorities have worked with the best science they had available
at the time, and are almost always managed by bureaucrats, not physicians.
This isn't limited to the governmental level; hospitals, medical
organizations, medical schools... the people in charge often have
administrative training, not medical training. As a subpoint; sure, medical
authorities have led us astray with nutrition information, but let's not jump
to the conclusion that they have done something intentionally evil here.

3 - It's hard to prove any one way is the right way because of so many
variables, including genetics, activity level, co-morbidities, and so on. More
importantly, when something is right for 95% of people, that also means it is
wrong for 5% of people. In the absence of easily testable datum, those
anecdotes get a lot of attention. And even if it were easily testable, 5% of
the time it would be wrong.

To me, the key is two-fold:

1 - People need to be educated about the facts of how their biological systems
function. They need to know how calories work, insulin and blood sugar
regulate, and gain a general appreciation of the science of their bodies.

2 - People need to be willing to "listen to their bodies" and experiment.
That's the only way to know what really works for you, because you ARE
different than everyone else. A healthy diet isn't just about finding
mathematically optimal foods, it's about finding stuff you like to eat, that
fills you up, that you can eat in moderation, that is easy to make. You need
to be willing to mix health and convenience, taste and availability, etc...
and that takes a bit of time to figure out.

~~~
jpk
Related to your key #1, this[1] talk by Robert Lustig (who's work has seen
some exposure on HN in the past) has a pretty good run-down of how some of the
carbohydrates are metabolized. Specifically, he points to fructose as the
culprit when it comes to obesity.

I recommend watching the whole thing, but skip to about 36:00 to see the
biochemistry.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

~~~
matwood
Sigh. A good criticism of Lustigs demonizing fructose:

[http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-
ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-
fructose-alarmism/)

Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way:

 _Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to
2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase._

~~~
djackson
And Lustig responds to those criticisms here:

<http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000>

Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by
eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on
the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially
different.

~~~
matwood
I'll listen when I have some time later. Does he also address the dose
dependent problem in his cited studies? Of course if I'm drinking 6-7 sodas a
day that's generally going to be a problem, but it doesn't mean sugar is evil.
Too much water can kill me also, but I don't see people saying water is evil.

~~~
djackson
Like I said, he talks about metabolic pathways, which are independent of dose,
though not your body's current state of glycogen deficiency.

He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid
metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to
insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat,
without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and
have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.

~~~
watmough
Thanks for giving such a great summation. This was the key point for me from
Lustig's presentation.

Essentially, if you treat sucrose and fructose as a condiment, rather than as
a key source of kCal, you will be consuming simple sugars, protein and fat,
food that actually nourishes and sates you directly, versus sucrose and
fructose that in high doses simply transform to fat.

Per Lustig, it's important to differentiate between starches found in bread,
potatoes etc., that break down to simple sugars like glucose that are
metabolized directly by the body, and added sucrose and fructose that are
metabolized in the liver to fat. For people saying that our carb consumption
was the same back in early 20th Century, take a look at how much of that was
likely breads and the like, versus the highly sweetened cereals of today.

edit: added a para on why looking at 'carbs', misses Lustig's point.

------
ajscherer
I'm always surprised at the theories people are willing to believe about
obesity, particularly people on hn. It really sounds reasonable to so many of
you that the cause of the obesity epidemic is people actually listening to
nutrition advice from the medical establishment and following the food
pyramid?

My view of what has happened is this: technologies and ingredients were
invented by food manufacturers over the past half century. Foods manufactured
using these technologies have the following advantages: cheap, high mouth
appeal, non-perishable, convenient. They also have the following
disadvantages: calorie dense, difficult to metabolize, addictive for some
people.

For most peopele not explicitly making food decisions with a mind to control
their weight, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

At the same time as this was happening, most of the reasons for people to
expend calories vanished. As far as I can think of, the only reasons left to
burn calories are pleasure and weight control.

In this sort of context most normal, perfectly rational people will end up
getting fat. The only people who won't are: athletes, people with strong
metabolism (this usually goes away with age), and people who dedicate
themselves to not being fat.

~~~
david_p
While I have to agree with you, your theory fails to explain why people in
Europe (who have the same access to calorie dense and convenient food) are
less obese (in proportion) than North Americans.

I believe that culinary customs AND some additives used in industrial food
play an important role.

Just check out High Fructose Corn Syrup : this is in very product in the USA
and is (almost) never used in Europe.

~~~
adw
Your portions are bigger. (Seriously.)

~~~
potatolicious
This is the absolute _core_ of the problem.

I'm a Canadian currently living in the US; our two countries are culturally
very similar, and diet-wise practically identical (save poutine, sweet sweet
poutine). But the obesity epidemic hasn't swept Canada nearly the same way it
is commonly seen in the US.

I just got back from a trip to Canada, and I can say with absolute confidence
that the typical restaurant dish in the US is _more than twice_ the size it is
up north.

It's this way in Asia too, and probably Europe (though I haven't been, shame).

It doesn't matter how much you exercise (or don't), nor does it matter if
you're eating steaks vs. granola bars. If you're eating _twice as much_ as the
rest of the world, you've got big problems.

The US needs to _halve_ their serving sizes in restaurants, and reduce the
appetite of the general population. You can improve what you're eating, and
you can exercise more, but none of that will do diddly squat until you cut
down on intake.

~~~
GregBuchholz
See: [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/c-g/adults-
adu...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/c-g/adults-
adutles/4053577-eng.htm)

From:
[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults-
adultes/8060-eng.htm)

"The racial make-up of the two countries might explain some of the
differences, as research has shown that obesity rates vary by ethnic origin.
Nonetheless, when obesity rates of White Americans and Canadians are compared,
White women in the United States were significantly more likely than those in
Canada to be obese: 30.3% versus 24.8%. However, the percentages of White
American and Canadian men who were obese did not differ."

------
forensic
The "fat is evil" thing that happened in the latter half of the 20th century
is going to go down as the biggest scientific fuck up ever.

The very people who were given all the authority and trust, and who were
supposed to protect human life, actively killed people by pushing carbs as
healthy and fats as unhealthy.

They directly caused spiking obesity, the #1 medical issue in our society.

Repeat after me: The biggest health issue in our society was directly caused
by the health authorities. This means doctors, medical researchers, and
governments.

Heart disease, cancer, and obesity are all linked to carbs now. Millions and
millions of people have died because they followed the advice of the
scientific authorities.

When the general public figures out how wrong the scientific and medical
authorities were for SO LONG and SO LOUDLY... public trust in science is going
to be maimed for generations.

If you can't trust them on the #1 public health issue - the #1 killer of
humans - what can you trust them on?

~~~
kzaragoza
You can trust them to continue diving into the science of nutrition. The
interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful
illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about
diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they
gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and
made recommendations based on those conclusions.

Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more
data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the
nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new
evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.

I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities
themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's
for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other
authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.

As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the
issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As
the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also
sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines
in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and
vice versa every few years.

Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature
of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple
moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are
willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing
lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a
press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash
attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.

I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up
to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll
start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.

~~~
danssig
>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a
wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here
is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were
wrong? What system _couldn't_ do that?

To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science
today:

Today: "Ok, it looks like it's probably fat that's bad. Ok, everyone! No more
fat"

And everyone laughs and points at all the stupid uneducated fundies still
eating fat.

Tomorrow: "Oh, we were totally wrong about everything we said. Ok, everyone!
Stop what ever you're doing!"

And now we get to laugh at all the stupid people who don't eat fat anymore.

Scientific method never _proves_ anything, it's only good for disproving
things. If a (valid, i.e. falsifiable) theory doesn't get proven wrong we
develop more and more confidence. That still doesn't mean it's right though.

~~~
jinushaun
The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and
salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The
studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and
caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil.

Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and
acai berries. Suddenly people are buying gallons of juice. The scientists
didn't do that.

~~~
forensic
You haven't looked into the scientific bungling behind this particular issue.

It was not a political failure, it was a flat out scientific failure.

------
DavidBishop
People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better
than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.

It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat
good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out.
Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out.

Eat healthy food: the right meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lots
of water. Don't eat crap. Exercise.

It really isn't rocket science, but when we make one food group "bad" and the
other one "good" just so we have another excuse to eat junk, we lose.

~~~
matwood
I totally agree, the problem is that it's harder for people to eat healthy
than simply pick a single thing and demonize it. Plus, telling people to eat
healthy doesn't sell a lot of books.

~~~
jdminhbg
I'm pretty sure Michael Pollan's bank account disagrees with your second
sentence.

~~~
DavidBishop
True, but I think the sentiment is correct at least in selling food. It's hard
to get rich selling spinach, but it's easy to get rich selling Sugar-Frosted
Excitement Pops - now made with whole grain-like substances!

------
weego
God I remember when everywhere (even in school) was hooked on the "you are
killing your kids with butter, eat margarine" line.

Of course, then they banned it most sensible places because of the
hydrogenated/trans fats. Shocking that something made by chemical process by
companies with large sums of money will be heavily advertised and pushed to
people over, say, something that can't be patented by any one body.

Similarly, carb laden foods are cheap to produce and will last even if stored
badly, you just have to try going out to dinner to an "average place" and try
not to eat something where the dish is not mostly potato, noodles, rice, or
flour based (pasta, bread, pizza base) to see why industry wouldn't think it
was great if carbs came with health warnings.

Having said that, It strikes me from experiences in the past that everyone
reacts differently to the mix of carbs and fats in their diet, but everyone
seems to react to good amounts of protein, so while I'm not sure either should
be demonised, clean sources of protein should be made more important.

~~~
hvs
You just used the words "potato", "noodles", "rice", and "flour" in a
distinctly negative tone. Those are some of my favorite foods, preferable
doused in butter.

And I'm 6'1", 170 lbs.

~~~
lsb
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

~~~
pyre
Though "carbs are evil" implies that it affects everyone.

------
matwood
I resist the idea that carbs (and HFCS for matter) need to be demonized. The
article mentions peoples tendencies, but one tendency the anti-carb crowd
relies on is how people want to find a smoking gun or silver bullet solution.

The article doesn't really do much to prove anything since rarely did the
elite eat the same thing as the peasants. Throughout history kings and queens
usually ate much better than the peasants. This would include more meat,
alcohol, spices, sugar, etc...

~~~
mentat
"Throughout history kings and queens usually ate much better than the
peasants."

Those terms post date this by thousands of years. Please cite research that
supports this statement.

~~~
matwood
The article says "Mummy Says _Princess_ Had Coronary Disease." This leads me
to believe they are talking about Egyptian royalty, even if they were not
called kings and queens.

------
tokenadult
What's more radically different between people who are healthy and people who
are not is how much they exercise rather than what they eat. There is much
more worldwide cultural variation in what people eat, and much more individual
variation within each culture, among healthy people than there is variation in
the exercise level of healthy people. But seeking to change diet to change
health sounds easier than getting more exercise, so that's what gets in the
news (and on HN, over and over and over).

Doing serious scientific research

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

with controlled experiments and careful observation and follow-up on human
nutrition is extremely hard. I recall a local television news documentary
about a dietary study from the 1970s in which experimental subjects were
confined 24/7 in a lab for many weeks (they must have been compensated
handsomely to agree to participate in this experiment) and fed EXACT portions
of food that were weighed with extreme precision. Oddly, I don't recall
particularly what hypothesis that study was set up to test, but I do recall
that it was described as the first experiment that relied on feeding subjects
exactly measured portions of known foods (and excluding subjects from access
to foods they chose for themselves) while involving lengthy (weeks of time)
follow-up. It's still exceedingly rare for studies of human nutrition to have
careful experimental designs. (And even at that, I suppose most of the
subjects of that experiment are still alive, but I don't know if anyone is
doing follow-up observations of those subjects in any manner.) Instead, we get
inferences from Egyptian mummies (as in the submitted article) or from other
uncontrolled case studies that never even had careful observation to begin
with. That really isn't science;

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

that is trading anecdotes, and third- or fourth-hand anecdotes at that.

~~~
ohyes
What compounds this is that 'healthy' is a particularly ill-defined catchall
term. If you are, for example, morbidly obese or horribly malnourished, you
probably do need to change your diet. If you get winded going up a flight of
stairs, or maybe worried about general physical fitness, you probably want
exercise.

What is our ideal for a healthy person? An underwear model? someone who lives
to 93?

I don't know.

~~~
tokenadult
_What compounds this is that 'healthy' is a particularly ill-defined catchall
term._

Thanks for asking an important follow-up question implicitly by commenting on
what the term "healthy" (used in my first post here) might mean. To make that
explicit, when I refer to "healthy" people in the context of a human nutrition
study, I refer to people who have longer lifespan (less mortality) and fewer
documented diseases and disabilities (less morbidity) than the general than
the general population baseline. (By symmetry, unhealthy people have more
mortality and more morbidity than the population baseline.) Ideally, a
hypothesis on nutrition and its relationship to health would be backed up by
EXPERIMENTALLY OBTAINED data on both the central tendencies of groups given
one treatment or another, and by similarly obtained data on individual
outcomes before and after differing treatments. We have a long way to go to
get data of this quality. And it may be that eventually (although this
promised future seems farther away now than it did a decade ago) individuals
will be able to obtain testing to allow them to receive individualized advice
on diet, adapted to their individual peculiarities. Right now we are still
trying to figure out very general patterns of advice, which surely won't fit
all individuals equally well.

------
endtime
I've found the fat hypothesis - 'fat makes you fat' - to be false, or at least
not to apply to me. I am not exactly anti-carb - I eat potatoes, and a little
rice - but I have been eating a diet that I guess you could call 'Paleo 2.0'
for the last 7 months or so. The basic goal is to minimize my intake of
grains, fructose, and legumes, and maximize that of saturated fats. I also
happen to be vegetarian, so for me this means a diet of mostly dairy and
vegetables (and limited fruit). I eat a lot of full fat Greek yogurt (Fage
brand, typically), butter, cheese, eggs, very dark chocolate (85+%), potatoes,
etc. I eat until I'm full and I never count calories. I probably cheat 1-2
times a week on average, usually by eating something rice- or corn-based
(Chipotle, corn chips, an Indian meal with rice, etc.).

I didn't do this to lose weight - I wasn't exactly a big guy - but there were
some surprisingly quick effects. After about 5-6 months I'd dropped from
around 155 lbs to 135 (+/-2), and I've been stable there for a couple months.
My waist went from 33" to 30" and my body fat went from around 21% to 12%. Had
a checkup a few weeks ago and, other than very low vitamin D, the doc said I
was pretty much in perfect health.

<http://archevore.com> is probably a good resource, if you want to know more
about the diet itself.

~~~
zwieback
Fage, butter, cheese, eggs, chocolate. Sounds yummy! Not exactly cheap,
though.

~~~
pyre
I somehow don't think that 'cavemen' were eating cheese. :P

~~~
endtime
The point isn't to eat what cavemen ate, it's to look at what their bodies
were optimized for and eat things with similar components. Dairy is a very
good source of saturated fat, especially for a vegetarian like me.

~~~
o_nate
And the average life expectancy of a caveman was what, maybe 20 years? Cavemen
perished too soon to have to worry about the diet-related health problems that
we deal with today.

~~~
endtime
Ancient life expectancy numbers are misleading because of very high infant
mortality. And even if that weren't the case, your reasoning is faulty. I have
more or less the same gut as a caveman, so it makes sense to eat what they
were optimized for. The fact that we have surgery and antibiotics and aren't
at significant risk of being eaten by saber-toothed tigers isn't relevant to
diet.

~~~
o_nate
The human digestive system evolved over millions of years, and there is not
much that is known with certainty about the human diet over that span of time
- however, it is known that humans have a better ability to process starchy
foods than other primates. So the assumption that a 'paleo' diet wouldn't
include lots of starch is not based on science. Take a look at this article:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6983330.stm>

~~~
endtime
If you read my comment a little more carefully, you'd know I'm not anti-
starch. I avoid anti-nutritious and harmful grains like wheat, but I eat
potatoes with zeal.

------
andrewcooke
Well, my guess would be: Because "evangelists" on both sides use words like
"worse" to reduce complex issues to sound bites.

~~~
jobu
I just wish the "evangelists" would stress "for some people" when they talk
about these diets.

Some people stay healthy and trim on a low-fat diet. Some people do much
better on a low-carb diet. Some people are physically harmed by eating meat
(<http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gout-diet/MY01137>).

Unfortunately we just need to experiment a little as individuals to find what
works best - and hope for a day when we doctors/scientists can recommend diets
based on genetic traits.

------
narrator
A more subtle reason for the pro-carb bias is it provides justification for
vegetarianism since most vegetarian diets are much higher in carbs than fat.
Vegetarians, animal rights advocates, and people who may eat meat but
nevertheless are against promoting it because of their concern for the
environment want to believe that their more moral diet is also healthier. The
easy way to do that is by lending their confirmation bias to any scientific
study that maligns high fat diets and thus meat eating and to ignore contrary
research findings that does not confirm their bias.

~~~
MikeCapone
I'm afraid this might be true, and I say this as someone who was a vegetarian
for almost 3 years partly for environmental and moral reasons. I started
eating meat again after reading Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

I still agree that it's better for the environment and for the animals to have
a vegetarian diet, but I couldn't find a way to stick to it without eating way
more carbs than I felt was good for me.

I'll be the first in line when 'grown' meat that doesn't come from an animal
with a central nervous system that can feel pain/stress/anguish/etc comes on
the market, though...

~~~
cpeterso
How did you reintroduce meat into your vegetarian diet? Was it a gradual
process? Do you eat the same meat diet (dishes and frequency) as before you
were a vegetarian?

I've been a (ovo-lacto) vegetarian for 12 years for the reasons you describe.
After reading Gary Taubes, I am conflicted. Taubes has little advice for
vegetarians or vegans except "eat some cheese and eggs".

------
fanboy123
I think the real answer is because it is more systematically profitable to
sell carb products and (food) companies are really really good at selling
things to people.

It is interesting to see comments on this forum that involve the strategy of
reasoning with the public to get them to accept their idea.

Next time you see somebody drinking a soda explain to them what fructose does
metabolically to their bodies. Your message is a lot less effective than
seeing a polar bear mommy drinking a coke on a wintery day or seeing kobe
bryant dunk a basketball and popping open a bottle of sprite.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
I think, first, one should differentiate between the part of the food industry
that is actually the sugar industry - products like Coke and Gatorade and
Snickers - and the part that is packaged convenience food that also contains a
lot of sugar. (High-fructose corn syrup is just another sugar with 5-10% more
fructose.)

The convenience food industry is highly motivated to sell what the public
wants to buy. They follow food fads assiduously. When fiber was in, suddenly
all products had added fiber. When that fad (which was actually a mildly good
thing) passed, the fiber went away. Now that partially hydrogenated vegetable
oil is out of fashion, packaged foods remove it and advertise "0% Trans Fat!"

There was a time when carbs were bad and there were plenty of packaged foods
that upped the fat and protein and advertised "Low Carb!" When Dr. Atkins died
of heart failure and overweight, the steam went out of low-carb. Now low-fat
is ascendant, and packaged foods trumpet "Low Fat!"

The problem with this latest fad is fat makes food taste good. When you take
it out, recipes taste like crap. Try a spoonful of fat-free cream cheese and
tell me what you think. So the packaged food industry has to add something
else that makes the low-fat garbage palatable: sugar!

It's evil, but it's not a conspiracy. People buy packaged foods because
they're convenient and taste ok. They do this in preference to cooking, which
may or may not taste better, because they're lazy or too busy. That's human
nature. The problem is the low-fat food fad.

If the culture turned a corner and demanded low-sugar food, the food industry
would fall all over itself taking sugar and corn syrup out and adding back in
fat and protein to make the stuff taste better. They did it in the low-carb
era and they'd do it again in a heartbeat.

~~~
fanboy123
I don't really think its a conspiracy unless you consider advertising to the
public to be very secretive and back-room.

I agree mostly with what is said above but I think it is important to
emphasize that what the public wants to buy is heavily influenced by what they
see on TV.

------
leftnode
Because people say, "I am getting so fat!", not, "I am getting so carbed!" So
they equate calories from fat being converted directly to adipose tissue.

------
NIL8
There's money in carbs and not in fat.

This answer may sound glib, but not if we consider the facts surrounding the
issue.

\- The propaganda for carbs and against fat has been overwhelming over the
years. Most people are not likely to believe anything other than what they've
been taught.

\- Our economy relies heavily on what we can generally call "the carb
industry." If people are being harmed by too many carbs, they'll take medicine
(like they're trained to) and that builds another industry. Why would anybody
(politicians, industry leaders, corporate science) want to change that?

\- Besides, carbs are beautifully packaged, cheap, and readily available. Why
would anyone want to re-think that?

------
Florin_Andrei
"Fat is worse than carbs" is a very successful meme because it passes a
superficial "evidence-checking": it's fat, so it's gotta make me more fat,
right? A mechanistic, false-newtonian, 17th century understanding of biology.
A fallacy of common sense.

Plus, it's been touted all over the place for decades. Of course it catches
on.

Keep calories in general low, paying special attention to carbs. Don't forget
to lift some weights. Feel free to do other types of exercise if you wish.
Voila, instant fat management.

------
wisty
Correlation != causation.

Let me guess the root cause of this "fat is evil" meme. People who love fat
are often gluttons. They eat what they want, in large quantities, and don't
care about the consequences. They also consume huge quantities of processed
sugar, which is now found to be "bad", and don't eat their greens.

Health freaks avoid fats and sugar, living on lean meat, veggies, and grains.
This may not be optimal, but it's better than Big Macs, Cola, and fries.

------
guelo
I guess I haven't been paying attention but I thought the Atkins diet from a
few years ago had been discounted as an unhealthy fad diet. But now I'm
reading that it has been scientifically proven to be the healthiest diet. Is
that right? Are carb-filled fruits and vegetables supposed to be less healthy
than for example fried bacon?

~~~
jinushaun
Wrong. The problem is that people think low-carb equals bacon grease and no
vegetables. It really just means little to no bread, grains, rice or potatoes.
A low carb diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables, but for some reason,
people really like to focus on the meat and fat aspect.

~~~
Afton
Speak for yourself. :)

I've been on a high-fat, moderate protein diet for almost a year now. I eat
occasional small servings of vegetables because it's easier than arguing with
my wife, but my diet is probably 95-98% meat/eggs/(dairy). "Low-carb" means
'low carb'. There are lots of ways of doing it, and frankly, we have no idea
which way is right for most people (let alone for outliers).

Meta point on this whole discussion (and I don't mean to single you out).
There are a lot of posts of the sort "come on people, this is easy"+(some
simple dietary advice). But it isn't easy, and nobody really has a clue right
now. The evidence is contradictory and poor. What we need is more individuals
engaged in personal experimentation, and more methodologically sound research.
It's a hard, complex problem.

------
sophacles
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that studies and/or those who do
them are not very trustworthy? I have watched studies conclusively prove that
eating chicken eggs will:

kill you sooner, make you live longer, have no measurable effect, cure cancer,
cause cancer, and defeat communisms (joke)

Similar cycles for other types of food. Similar cycles various types of
activity.

Having watched this for so long, am I really going to suddenly believe that
carbs are evil, that I should found a new moral system (and a new diet) on the
latest studies which, in my experience are going to be shown wrong in a few
years anyway. Or should I just go ahead an eat the way I've observed the
people who live to be old eat?

Related: look up the story of the boy who cried wolf.

------
kstenerud
My beef is that nutritional "experts" tend to reverse their "advice" every
5-10 years.

\- X is bad \- No, actually X is good. \- No, it turns out X is actually bad
after all. \- No, actually it's Y that's causing all our problems. \- Wait,
no, it's Z.

And then along comes the marketing blitz.

"No salt", "Sugar free" "glucose free" "gluten free" "made with cane syrup"
"cholesterol free" "fat free" "no saturated fat" "no trans fat" and now "carb
free", no doubt.

And then the vitamin supplement and herbal crowd come out to flog their latest
crackpot diets and exercise regimens and trans-yogic-meta-druidic-ninjutsu-
meditation.

Yes, I rage much :P

------
jseifer
So many of these articles do not distinguish between simple and complex carbs
and lump them all together. There is a difference between 20g of carbs from a
piece of fruit vs 20g carbs from, say, pasta.

~~~
babblefrog
I'm not sure the difference is that big. Amylase in your saliva starts
breaking down starches to glucose even before you swallow. Non-digestible
carbs (fiber), protein and fat can slow down the process, however.

------
PagingCraig
Neither should be demonized.

~~~
terio
Of course. If it wasn't for wheat, potato, rice, and other grains and
tubercles, most of humanity would starve. Simple carbs are cheap.

~~~
jnorthrop
The point of the article wasn't to discuss the opportunity cost of keeping or
eliminating carbs. It was a discussion of what is optimal for our health.

------
Goladus
There are many reasons why people resist the idea that carbs are worse that
fat. For one thing, no one has proved that "carbs are worse than fat." It's a
silly, over-simplified assertion.

Also, fats are the most calorie-dense macro-nutrient. If your calorie intake
is greater than your calorie expenditure you will gain weight. You could
easily supplement your diet with a 300 calorie bar of chocolate twice a day
and your daily calorie intake skyrockets from 2,000 to 2,600. Over time this
will lead to obesity if your activity level doesn't rise or if muscles don't
grow.

Each tablespoon of oil adds 100+ calories a the dish.

2 slices of bread: 160 calories, 60g of peanut butter: 350 calories.

Carbs are good. You need carbs. Without carbs, your body overuses ketogenesis
for energy, releasing toxic byproducts into the blood that cause kidney and
liver damage.

Too many carbs at once leads to unstable blood sugar and insulin levels. The
consequences of this are poorly understood, especially in healthy, active
people. But intuitively, daily large spikes in blood sugar and insulin
response are probably not a good thing. The good news is that eating high GI
carbs with fiber, protein, fats, and sugars mitigates the spikes.

While not as calorie-dense as fatty foods, lots of high carb foods are low
fiber, low protein, and low moisture with minimal micronutrients and still
have very high calorie/weight ratios.

(Calories-in > Calories-out) in a sedentary lifestyle leads to increased body
fat and weight gain which leads to cellular stress inflammation causing
insulin resistance, which leads to more weight gain and more severe metabolic
problems.

The whole carb vs. fat debate is a waste of time.

~~~
mortehu
It is possible for a person who is unaware that insulin promotes glycogenesis
and lipogenesis to write what you just did. However, I'm not convinced that a
person who IS aware could do so. Can you help me out?

------
dkarl
_My reading led me to believe that sugars and grains in my diet were the
culprit and, sure enough, once I cut those out and increased the amount of
animal fats in my diet, I lost 50 pounds. (I always had and continued to eat a
lot of vegetables, too.) I have never felt more energetic or clear-headed.

So, yes, my personal experience tells me Taubes is correct, just as Horgan’s
experience tells him Taubes is incorrect. But, importantly, I would not have
had my experience if I had not read the nutrition literature with an open
mind._

The last sentence is unjustified and probably incorrect. A lot of people get
fed up with their weight, resolve to make a change, and then lose a bunch.
Adopting an exciting new idea and making a change is the crucial part, not the
validity of the idea. I lost a lot of weight as a vegan (over thirty pounds),
got into the best shape of my life, relaxed my rules, and gained a little bit
back. Did I gain that little bit back because veganism was the answer and I
failed to be faithful to it? No, it was because the initial novelty and
enthusiasm wore off. It's the same pattern no matter what the actual
composition of the diet is. Low-carb diets' biggest contribution to weight
loss has been to provide a psychologically viable option for meat-and-potatoes
people who felt unsatisfied or alienated by the "hippie" food that low-fat
diets would have had them eating.

 _the health effects of a high-carbohydrate diet often are not visible as
weight gain—that Egyptian princess, no doubt thin as a rail (have you ever
seen a fat mummy?), had a level of atherosclerosis that today would have
doctors scrambling for a bypass operation_

Now, this part is actually interesting and I await more information concerning
the heart health of people who exercise and maintain a healthy weight on
different kinds of diets.

------
ljf
Since moving to only /expressly/ eating carbs once a week (as in the 4 hour
body book) I've lost a stone and gone from 24% body fat to 17% - all in about
8 weeks.

Plus my /gut/ feels a hell of a lot better now I'm not eating bread, and
when/if I do I get a pretty rough stomach.

People don't realise just how bad processed carbs are. We didn't them for
centuries and only do now as they are sold to us cheaply.

------
tfinniga
These anecdotal arguments back and forth are interesting, but they're not
science. I mean, where's the details on the methodology? Where are the data?
Why do we listen to/argue about the various experts, instead of digging into
the actual research that's been done?

If you're looking for studies on the topic, check out these two videos:

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-847196066367535747>

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1719204869171202407>

It's basically a survey paper in video form, presented by one of the
researchers. It has actual graphs! With error bars!

The corresponding book is pretty good too, it's called the China study.

Personally, I trust statisticians on health much more than biologists. It's
nice that there's a biological basis for the conclusion, but trying to argue
diet based on the metabolic process seems like a stretch, especially when it
conflicts with what's observed.

------
mannicken
Over-consumption of everything is bad. Cake is great, cake is fun, but if you
eat it everyday you'll probably get fat because it has a lot of calories. And
hey, a lot of calories isn't bad, it's just if you eat more calories than burn
you'll gain fat. And that's OK, until you start to get so fat that it
decreases your quality of life. Body like a loosely tied ballon, if push air
into it -- it'll get big, but on itself it'll lose weight.

On another topic, I'm usually pro-legalization of every drug that's out there.
But there's a lot of people out there who just put random shit into their
bodies in unreasonable quantities without understanding of what they are
doing, making stupid excuses. AND IT'S JUST FUCKING FOOD. If heroin or coke
become legal, we'll probably see a lot of people overdose. Which I'm fine
with, technically. I just now start to understand why some drugs are illegal.

------
bproper
We are predisposed by our Victorian ancestors to assume that anything which
gives us great pleasure must also be bad for us. Hence fat is believed to be
worse than carbs.

~~~
terio
Following that logic, people with different tastes would conclude that carbs
are worse than fat.

------
DuqE
Blame the media, they portray fat for the reason people are fat, the do not
educate these people with the truth behind complex carbs and simple carbs and
how the body responses to these. Some fats are good for you such as olive oils
contain mono saturated fats which is great for your body and those can be
found naturally in meats. But trans and saturated fats are hard for the body
to respond to. It comes down to educating people of what they are eating.

------
paganel
I eat lots and lots of bread (what you would call "carbs") but basically no
meat, and I'm quite skinny nevertheless. I do no sports (I've only recently
started to ride my bicycle after a 10-year pause), nor am I on any diet or
anything similar. So, yeah, I don't see how carbs are worse than fat.

------
mixmastamyk
They are not worse, just different. People are desperate for a single villain
to blame for their fat asses.

Maintain a balanced diet, keep the total calories down, stay away from cheap
processed food, get exercise. It's very simple, but unfortunately there is not
a single villain, so people resist.

------
tsuipen
Argh. This is what I don't like about non-tech, -IT, and -CS articles posted
on HN: people go off on tangents with so little (useless) information. I'm
sorry to say this article is poor on information.

Let's stick to the facts. Complex carbs (brown rice, whole wheat bread,
bagels, whole wheat pasta, beans - the list of delicious, healthy complex
carbs is long) in moderation does not hinder your health. In fact, your body
needs them because it is stored energy. Other sources of energy are used up
quicker, such as protein. That's not to say carbs are better than protein.
Your body needs both!

Now, refined SIMPLE carbs (table sugar, fruit juice, "packaged" cereals,
chocolate bars, etc.) are not good for you, and only certain types of bodies
with certain physical activity should consume them (e.g., if you are a
bodybuilder or if you lift weights a few times a week, etc.). It is still
absolutely tantamount that you consume unrefined simple carbs such as
strawberries, raspberries, oranges, apples, plum, pear, a long etc., and the
number one fruit because of its flavanoid content: blueberries!).

Put simply, fruits and complex carbs help you convert what you eat in slow-
releasing energy that has less content that is turned into fat (as opposed to
refined simple carbs). This steady release of energy is part of "moderation is
key". If you have your body working too hard, your heart
fluttering/palpitations and overworking it are not healthy, neither is when
your body processes everything too slow.

The biggest factor when consuming carbs (both simple and complex) is the
glycemic levels in your blood. You can't have this fluctuate so much,
especially if you're pre-disposed to it, otherwise you throw it out of kilter
and it may cause diabetes.

I'll keep the fat part short. We need fat, too! Let me be less "headliney". We
need polyunsaturated fatty acids; in part, to keep our metabolism going. Foods
like avocado, fish, flax seed, leafy vegetables, soybeans, walnuts (nuts), and
shellfish. Sure, saturated fats may not be the major cause of heart disease,
but lessening it while consuming a healthy amount of polyunsaturated fat and
complex carbs might. You can read an article on that here (it's better than
the OP's article, but still has its flaws):
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/rethinking-
satura...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/rethinking-saturated-
fat-its-not-your-hearts-enemy/article1462757/) (By the way, this article was
published over a year ago.)

Having said all that, each body is different. You should tailor your diet to
what your body reacts positively to. For example, flax seed is healthy for
you, but I know people who get diarrhea from it. Obviously, don't force
yourself to eat something your body doesn't like. Listen to your body,
because, unfortunately, the science doesn't fully understand all body types.

I'm not a fan of fallacies from defective induction, so I shall refrain from
an argumentum ad verecundiam on this, but on a separate note, I will say my
friend studied nutrition and she has expressed a keen dislike toward the "Food
guide pyramid".

------
Feynmanist
On a relevant note, I think Gluten is the main culprit in carbohydrate related
health problems. [http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-
diet-s...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-
solution/)

~~~
terio
Although grains don't seem to be very healthy, don't forget about sugar.

------
krakensden
Because you told them fat was the source of all evil for at least twenty
years?

------
racketeer
Better question - Why are people always trying to subtract something from
they're diet? Wouldn't it be better to just eat a well balanced plate?

------
bborud
why is everyone suddenly a nutrition expert?

I know a lot of people who have opinions on what is good for you and what
isn't in terms of food. none of them are doctors, of course. in fact, most of
them have never taken any science subjects at all, and wouldn't know their ass
from a redox equation even if you threw a shelf-full of chemistry books at
them.

------
Gupie
Simple advise - don't over-eat

~~~
sudonim
That's simplistic advice. Food additives like High Fructose Corn Syrup cause
you to crave more food even though you're calorically fine. If you listen to
what your body says while eating poorly, you will over eat.

[http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructo...](http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_corn_syrup_makes_your_brain_crave_food/)

~~~
afterburner
Did you implicitly define overeating as eating past the point where you stop
being hungry? Because that's not necessarily what the parent comment meant.
They could have meant eating too much for your activity level.

------
jdq
Because they are so dang delicious...mmmMMMmmm donuts.

------
jradakov
That's funny. There are many studies showing that vegetarians live longer,
more healthy lives than omnivores.

~~~
terio
Many vegetarians eat some food from animal sources, like eggs, milk, yogurt,
etc. On the other hand, I have heard cases of people that tried to be pure
vegan and had serious health problems.

~~~
jinushaun
Veganism isn't a diet. It's a lifestyle. And a poor one at that. It's the
anti-paleo diet, because you can't be vegan without modern technology and
supplements. There are just too many gaps in nutrition.

------
ironparlance
The agriculture industrial complex is invested deeply in corn/soy/wheat
processed foods and chemicals. Mega billions are at stake. The options for
"low effort" and "low price" food are virtually all unhealthy from a diet
standpoint. Yet, these foods have been engineered to be nearly addictive. That
is why there is rampant obesity. Any diet that largely avoids these foods and
maintains reasonable variety is going to be vastly more healthy.

------
acron0
I did quite a bit of research into carbs after being diagnosed Type One
diabetic and I wholeheartedly agree with this article. Turns out, carbs
weren't a staple part of our diet until the agricultural revolution (17th
century?) and then only really caught on because it was cheap and easy to
farm, compared to fruit and meat. So there you go. Capitalism has been fucking
us for centuries.

