May 18, 2014
Low Fat, High Carb Diet Making Us Always Hungry?

David S. Ludwig and Mark I Friedman lay out an argument for why the demonization of fats in foods has been a health disaster.

They advocate lower glycemic index foods. If you want to lower the glycemic index of the carbohydrates you eat you really need to look at glycemic index tables of foods. Their glycemic indexes are not intuitive. So, for example, sweet potatoes get digested more slowly than russet potatoes and carbohydrates from yams are broken down in digestion even more slowly than sweet potatoes.

Rice eaters: The rices vary greatly by glycemic index. The sticky rices are worse, broken down and absorbed very rapidly. One of the lowest glycemic indexes of rices is Uncle Ben's Converted Rice.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2014 May 18 07:51 PM 

XVO said at May 19, 2014 10:02 AM:

As someone who has been finding success with a low carb diet. I can attest that this is true. You feel a lot less hungry on a low carb diet and you will lose weight. This is almost certainly the cause of the obesity epidemic. The government and food industry have been pushing people to have a high carb diet based on faulty evidence and profits.

Cahokia said at May 19, 2014 10:38 AM:

And yet if you look around the world, you won't see a strong negative correlation between carb intake and life expectancy.

Nick G said at May 19, 2014 11:24 AM:

Nor will you see a strong negative correlation between over-weight and life expectancy, despite the fact that we see that in lab animals that eat a controlled diet.

The likely reason: most people eat a low quality diet. An excess of calories is needed to ensure getting most of the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, EFAs, etc) needed.

Wolf-Dog said at May 19, 2014 2:09 PM:

Here is a very important book that documents how exactly high glycemic index foods damage brain cells:

Placebo said at May 20, 2014 11:58 AM:

Low carb and high fat is one option.
Jeff Volek, PhD has some interesting research.

bob sykes said at May 20, 2014 12:47 PM:

And not a mention of Atkins.

mattbg said at May 25, 2014 5:52 AM:

I'm glad to gradually see more things questioning the "calorie counting" idea. I'm not sure it's a bad idea to count calories, but I think it's significant to understand how your body deals with different types of calories, and how it motivates your desire for further calories.

In the glycemic index tables, there's a huge difference between "instant oatmeal" and "rolled porridge oats". When people say that oatmeal is good for you because it's a slow-burning type of food, they're talking about the minimally-processed rolled oats that take 10-15 mins to cook (or other styles that take even longer). But how many people consider "instant oatmeal" to be the same as any other type of oatmeal in this regard?

I've experienced this myself - a noticeable sugar rush from sticky oatmeal that has a lot of "dust" and particles in the bag and cooks in 6-8 mins (and this even "instant" oatmeal) vs. a bag of whole, thick rolled oats that need to cook for 10+ mins and comes out more like individual flakes than a sticky mass.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright