Kempner has shown nearly a century ago that you can use table sugar and high glycemic index food to reverse the most common chronic diseases (obesity, hypertension, diabetes). I’m aware the low carb promoters also have their own studies. The people advocating a mediterranean diet also love olive oil and they do publish their own studies. The point is, why people are being lectured that sugar is their enemy #1 and that olive oil is good? Where is the difference? They’re both highly refined substances and they both taste very pleasant for most people. They both contribute significant amounts of calories. They’re both associated with health problems. For both there is some scientific evidence that show they may be good for health in some special cases.
So many points raised… I’ll probably miss some of them, but here goes.
Lower than 50% calories from cabs does NOT make a low carb diet. Lower than 30% would be more on the mark, but there isn’t a generally accepted figure.
“Over the course of the last 100 years or so, the consumption of meat and dairy and eggs has increased” - this is based on what? I did a quick search and found this https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm which shows meat consumption has generally DECREASED since 1995. Uruguay And Argentina have the highest meat consumption and lower rates of obesity, but countries with lower rates of consumption also have low rates of obesity. The point is that eating more or less meat is not really relevant to the rate of obesity.
The article you mentioned is actually not a study into anything. It is a summary of results from other studies, the key one being reference number 4 in that article (also on ajcn). In this ‘well designed’ study 13 test subjects overfed in different ways over 96 hours. THIS IS NOT A WELL DEFIFINED STUDY!!! Clinical trials 101 say you need to have a statistically significant test set. This is a tiny sample size and a ridiculously small test duration so it’s almost completely meaningless. Nevertheless, looking at the results - let me paraphrase “If you eat too much for 96 hours you won’t get fat, although genetic differences may need to be considered”
The first thing you should do when looking at any article, is check whether it is reliable. Many cigarette companies paid MDs to write articles explaining how smoking was good for chest and lung problems. If your self study has involved reading anything with a catchy title and seeing which bits feel right then you are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias
Sugar = simple carbohydrate. In my comment, I’m specifically referring to foods that have little nutritional value but large amounts of sugar.
I believe the USA and UK and many developed countries are the victim of Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc. I don’t blame them - they’re just trying to make the best product they can. ‘Best’ = what will the consumer buy more of.
The blame should rest with the researchers, dietitians, books, magazines, TV shows, etc, etc. that generate or propagate fake information. Eating low carb will not leave you feeling short of energy - there are certainly more than 13 marathon runners who thrive on low carb / paleo diets. Eating animal fats will not clog your arteries and give you heart disease. Even simple things like “1 pound of body fat is 3500 calories”, which we’ve been hearing for decades is complete BS. The blame should be with our governments for allowing this misinformation.
Why would big industry prefer one macronutrient - if it’s not clear from my previous point - let me summarise. Coca-cola wants to sell sugar water by downplaying the health effects of sugar (ok - I know it’s actually HFCS, but you get the point). Big Aspartame wants to sell artificial sweetener by saying sugar is bad and by ignoring various studies that say it causes cancer
Humans do get addicted to the wrong macronutrient. The entire history of humans, and most animals, involves feast and famine. In the summer and autumn there was abundant food. In the winter there wasn’t enough. Humans would feast when they could, consuming the highest calorie food they found and this would be sufficient to carry them through lean days in the winter. The human body hasn’t changed in 300 years, but it was only 300 years ago that refined sugar became available. Even 100 years ago it was still a luxury food. So yeah - I think humans are addicted to the wrong macronutrient as we are preparing for the next famine that will never come.
Do humans get addicted to high fat, high protein? I don’t know. But try this… If you’re a coffee drinker, stop drinking coffee for 2 or 3 days. You get headaches and fell pretty bad. By day four you feel fine. Repeat this with alcohol (if you’re alcoholic), cigarettes, heroin, etc. - exactly the same thing happens! Now try it with carbs… Guess what happens.
Sweeteners and oil do not have significant effect on our brain as far as I know. I’ve never seen any study that says this and I’ve personally gone from drinking about 2 litres of coke a day to 2 litres of diet coke to no artificial sweetener with no effects at all! Carbohydrates certainly are known to have a hormonal effect (stimulating release of insulin for a start). Heroin and many drugs cause release of serotonin. Fat does not.
Kempner’s diet was a treatment for chronic hypertension and kidney disease. Calories are reduced to 800-1000 per day. While it worked, it would probably have been better if sugar was not included (recent versions have dropped the amount of sugar allowed). Unfortunately, by Kempners admission, it is a very bland diet and the sugar was probably added to make it palatable. Kempmner certainly didn’t think hypertension was caused by lack of sugar in the diet!
Diabulimia is actually caused when “people with Type 1 diabetes deliberately give themselves less insulin than they need” according to the wikipedia article. It’s an eating disorder akin to anorexia or bulimia
@Michael_Rozdoba - I think sugar addition should be thought of in the same way as drug addiction. It has been shown to use the same reward pathways in the brain as alcohol and heroin.
This is from a guy with PhD in “Nutritional science”, I hope it’ll please Michael Rozdoba.
Taff, fat also affects dopamine in the brain, as you can learn here:
Just because you don’t know something, it doesn’t mean it’s false.
Same thing for meat and eggs and dairy consumption. Just because you don’t know that consumption of animal food has increased massively in the last 100 years, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Why would you think that? That person also seems to think two thirds of the population are “protein types” for whom vegetarianism is not suitable, Archived Article Notice.
We’ve to decide a reference point on what is a normal amount carb. Given that people living in normal climates (i.e. not in far north) and eating their traditional diets eat approximately 80% of calories from carbs, I would say 80% is normal. We could also take athletes and we would get same results. We could take healthy populations and we would get same result. In summary, everything below 70% is definitely low carb.
It’s a summary because we’re educating people here. To counter the low carb disinformation, we need to spread some information. There are plenty of studies proving again and again that fat makes you fat very efficiently, with any design you want. It’s also just common sense. Do you really think that the bacon (the belly of a pig) won’t efficiently go into your belly and make you fat? Seriously? Hello? Anyway, you can tell me what exact proposition you want to prove exactly and I’ll look up the study for you if you want. Or you can also go on nutritionafacts.org and do this job for yourself.
I do look at the authors. When i see a low carb author, I expect all kind of cheats. They always cheat and they always mislead. I didn’t bother checking the authors of these studies I’ve cited because they’re just summarizing common knowledge. It’s only the people that make extraordinary claims (i.e. that carbs make you fat) that have to be scrutinized.
Ok, so do you think fruit makes people unhealthy because of simple carbohydrates?
I believe that food industry and the crankly doctors are to blame, but it’s the people that have the ultimate responsibility for their own health. It’s obvious that eating a low carb will leave you without energy, especially for the brain. Oh, and yes, there are some young people that do perform well despite low carb diet. Do I really need to point out that we don’t have counterfactual? Do I really need to point out that fat is used to power your muscles when you do extreme endurance sports like running marathons? If you’re running a marathon, or if you want to eat more than 5000kcal a day, i would recommend less than 80% of calories from carbs. We would also have to distinguish race day from training protocols. Obviously during race day you want as much glucose as possible.
It’s not yet clear to me why food industry would prefer simple sugars instead of oils or meat. It’s clear that quality oil and meat is more costly per calorie and that there is a bigger profit margin. As I’ve shown in previous post, oil has a dopamine effect in your brain. Salt also has dopamine effect. Why do you hate sweeteners but don’t hate oil and salt?
Well, let me reassure you, they don’t get addicted to wrong macronutrient. First, sugar is not the wrong macronutrient at all. Second, they get addicted to both pure fats and pure sugars.
Yes they do, see previous post. Do your homeworks. I don’t drink coffee. But when I’m forced to eat olive oil (i usually don’t eat it), my brain is flooded by its pleasant fatty taste.
Sweeteners and oil do have significant effect on the brain! That’s precisely why people eat them. Because they taste good. People are not addicted to high glucose in their blood (just ask any diabetic about this), they’re addicted to sugar and oil in the mouth.
Don’t forget that he has also healed diabetes with it. You need low protein and low fat when you want to clean your body. Indeed, when you’re losing body fat, the last thing you want is more fat in your mouth. It’s just common sense, isn’t it? Anyway there are endless studies from any angle and any design. All well designed studies say the same thing. Even the low carb studies say the same thing if you interpret them intelligently.
Well, it’s a disorder caused by the low carb cranks demonizing insulin hormone.
(EDITED:) Give me a reference for that if you can. It’s possible that he didn’t know what he was speaking about when he said that, maybe it was more than a decade ago?
EDIT: And there are a few people with specific known and unknown genetic mutations for which veganism isn’t currently viable. In future we hope to find ways to help them too.
2nd EDIT: Indeed it seems he is promoting paleo-style diets in his website. Well, this reduces his credibility to my eyes, but to your eyes, he is more credible? I’m writing for you not for me.
I’ve also to say, among the low carbers, I think that the paleo guys are the least bad. And the worst people in my view are those promoting ketones/ketosis for satiation and appetite control. (In fact science says that one of these ketones is psychoactive and this is why people report positive feelings about these diets).
Ancel Keys told people to eat less saturated fat (animal fat). In summary, less cheese. Cheese consumption is up tenfold over the last 100 years. Now tell me, who is to blame for obesity? Ancel Keys?
There are several reference points for normal carb amounts. For example USDA recommendation for NORMAL cab intake is 45-65%. Every low carb diet specifies a figure much lower than 45%, although some like Atkins are adaptive and start with around 5% and increase from there.
Your USDA article seems to be on another tangent. It does say that average calorie consumption has reduced by 2% - that kind of disagrees with many of the other references you posted which promote the calorie deficit idea of losing weight.
1970 is arbitrary, but there is good data for that period. Like I said - if you can show me any data that the consumption of something has increased or decreased over 100 years then I’ll review it.
The next section is just complete rubbish. I don’t know where to start. Your common sense isn’t actually based in any fact!
a. Most people couldn’t afford meat - NO - https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-was-life-like-200-years-ago/
b. Common people were more healthy than rich people - How is this common sense. Rich people had medicine for a start.
c. China has gone low carb. Have you ever been to China? I travelled in SE Asia for months and almost every meal is based on rice or noodles - that’s street food not some posh restaurant in the Hilton. Your comment is not common sense and is far from correct
I’d like to see any study that shows eating a high carb diet is healthier than a low carb diet for normal people (i.e. not suffering from some chronic disease). Sample size more than 100 people, duration more than 6 months.
Again - your common sense does not have any scientific basis and is wrong. btw. The url does not work, even when I correct the spelling mistake.
You have a seriously bad case of confirmation bias. You do not have an open mind and it is therefore a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to you. Hopefully this will be read by people who have an interest in learning.
Every answer you have today seems to be “It’s common knowledge”. Common knowledge is not fact. For example there are billions of Christians and billions of Muslims and 600M Hindus. At least one of the groups must be wrong yet they will all tell you their beliefs are common knowledge.
Fruit CONTAINS simple carbohydrates. Fruit contains a lot of other useful things too, like vitamins and fibre. But still, I wouldn’t recommend eating just fruit for the rest of your life.
Again ‘it’s obvious that’. This is a completely biased opinion and you should learn to look at facts and not ‘common sense’. Most of the rest of this point is extremely confused. I expect you need to edit it.
Let me try again. The food industry wants to make money - it’s a business, but it’s not a single company. Coke is selling sugar water - they want sugar to seem less unhealthy and their advertising concentrates on how enjoyable it is to have a coke. Coke does not sell beef or oil, so they don’t care if their sales affects the sale of beef or oil. I can’t name an ‘oil’ company without looking on google, but you can bet they want to sell oil and don’t give a damn how that affects the sugar industry.
You’ve not shown that oil has a dopamine effect on the brain btw - I’d be interested to see that but the link doesn’t work. Also you can’t just say that salt has a dopamine effect without evidence. I don’t hate sweetness btw, but some have been shown to cause cancer and banned in most of the world (except USA). Salt is pretty bad for you - I try to avoid it - but we’re talking about low carbs and the effect on weight loss and having yet another tangent isn’t going to help
Thanks for the reassurance. You are a doctor? btw - if they get addicted to pure fats and fat is bad, doesn’t your second point contradict your first?
I’m talking about the withdrawal symptoms not taste. I didn’t say ‘can you taste it’ or ‘it tastes good’. I said if you consume it (for days / weeks) and then stop, does it make you feel bad.
Who said people are addicted to high blood glucose? I’m saying (and offering a test you can do yourself very easily) that you will get withdrawal symptoms if you remove sugar from a high sugar diet but you will not have the same withdrawal when removing fat from a high fat diet.
Where does it say that?? I use shower gel to clean my body. Again you common sense argument that is totally meaningless
Then how is it relevant? Why did you bring it up?
So, in summary, you don’t believe anything low cab people say because they are biassed. You only believe your own common sense and low fat advocates regardless of who pays them. Can you seriously not see this is completely mad? At this point I’m 90% convinced you’re just a mindless troll who doesn’t really have anything to offer just empty arguments.
According to the article it’s up threefold in 40 years. How do you extrapolate the other data?
The article also says that this is a reaction to less consumption of full fat milk, and does not make any conclusions about the total amount of fat consumed.
Ah - I just started watching the youtube and that’s where it comes from - 3.8g in 1908 to 33.4 in 2013. This is progress.
btw - Ancel Keys told people to eat the Mediterranean diet including loads of olive oil.
btw - Within the first five minutes he says that the number 2,3,4 and 5 most ‘addictive’ foods are ice cream, cookies, etc. which are based on sugar (which does overturn several of your arguments) and see what I can learn about cheese. Even though I love cheese, I have an open mind, and he seems to know his stuff so far. Item 1 is not cheese btw, it’s pizza.
Edit:
Comments -
He seems to have an audience of people who know almost nothing about nutrition. He had to explain BMI for gods sake
He explains how cheese companies try to sell more cheese. This is the same as my argument about coke companies selling more coke! It applies to every food and it’s why you have to look carefully at sources of research
He talks about withdrawal from cheese and compares it to being addicted to coffee. This is exactly my augment except he’s swapped cheese for simple carbs.
Katherine ate mac and cheese boxes for 48 days straight and got ill. Really. That’s such a surprise. Maybe the lack of veggies is part of the problem…
Most milk comes from pregnant cows - not true, although it used to be 15 years ago.
Hahahahah - he’s talking about an Australian study saying cheese is good that has been sponsored by Dairy Australia and therefore he doesn’t believe it. This is EXACTLY the same argument I made!!!
Refers to “Hospital for Sick Children, London”. This does not exist, so I don’t trust the results from them!! Maybe he means the world famous “Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital” or a charity called “Sick Children’s Trust”. They are nearby in London but not affiliated - you’d think a doctor would know this.
He claims saturated fat is bad fat. He doesn’t show this to be true, it’s just assumes it and then continues discussing from there
Lots of stuff about climate change and veganism which is not really relevant to health
Altogether it was pretty interesting. He’s used the same type of argument as me to say that cheese is bad. This does not negate anything I’ve said about sugar!
I hadn’t heard about Casomorphins - I’ll have a read into that, but also I’ll immediately stop eating cheese and see what the effect is. I had some this morning and yesterday so there should be some withdrawal symptoms in a couple of days.
Hormonal effect of milk / cheese has been pretty much debunked. The male body produces 6000 times as much estrogen per day as you’d get in a glass of milk, the female body 28000 times more per day. I’ll see if there is new research on this though - who knows what’s out there.
Well, even assuming you’re right on the recommended (by USDA) amount of carbs (I don’t bother to check this), average for USA is around 48% (if i recall correctly). So it’s on the very low side of the recommended amount, and so it’s by your own definition a low carb diet.
I don’t care if it is very high relative to say Atkins diet. It’s still low relative to USDA. And I didn’t propose to use USDA for reference, you see? Because they want to promote US food. In fact USDA has a dual mandate, to promote US food producers and US health at same time. This is clearly an impossible mission and they’re just mediating between these two goals.
I propose to use healthy populations as reference. They can be foreigners, they can be Americans, they can be athletic, they can even be sedentary. The result is the same no matter what healthy population you choose. The only people that can eat high fat without getting fatter and sicker in short time are people with massive caloric expenditure such as ultra-marathon runners. But over the long run they don’t get a great health anyway.
I don’t think 2% more or less will make any difference. Especially if you’re eating more fat food and less carbohydrates. Remember, fat calories go straight to your belly. Carbs have to be converted and it takes away 25% of their energy. Proteins also have to be converted to carbs first and then to fat, so they’re even more inefficient at making you fat.
I cited that article not to discuss the 2% calorie deficit, but to point that people have decreased their consumption of carbs and increased their consumption of fat in the 2000-2010 period. So there you have it: low carb theory has influenced health of people in recent times. I think the results speak for themselves right? And this is not the same argument as your. Because your argument is based on blaming Keys for giving recommendations that most people didn’t follow. But there were some people that followed them, and these are the healthy people now.
I’m not at your service, you know. I’m here to help the victims of your bad advice, not to convince you that your advice is bad. You can eat fatty foods if you want. In fact if people eat unhealthy food and they die sooner, maybe it’s better for our pension systems. Anyway, when I’ll have the data at hand I’ll give it to you, if I come passing here.
Do I need to point out it’s about all about quantity? And I repeat, if you don’t know what you’re speaking about, it’s a problem for you, not a problem for me. I don’t bother.
Well, to be precise, poor people had nutritional deficiencies. Rich people had the same problems that “modern” people have: those that derive from consumption of animal products. If you had some common sense, you would know that I’m saying nothing about medicine or life expectancy. And anyway medicine can’t fix your body if you eat crappy food.
Again, some common sense? You have to compare with what they were eating. Not what the americans are eating. You have to take healthy people as reference. My country for example is Italy, and after WW2 we were eating plenty of carbs and we were very healthy. Now we’ve 2nd worst child obesity in europe. Thanks to junk food and also thank to low carb promoters.
I would like to be paid to provide nutritional education to you. How about that? Nutritionfacts.org has all the research you may want anyway. Wikipedia is also a very good start if you follow the references and apply some of your intelligence to it.
Just go on nutritionfacts and search “fatty food addiction”.
I would say I’ve a natural distaste for bad arguments. I think it’s rational and healthy.
At least they know their beliefs aren’t based on evidence, no? My beliefs also aren’t based on evidence. They’re based on rational interpretation of limited evidence. I can’t force you to interpret data you already know in a rational way. I can only point out this irrational behavior. I think it can be explained with psychology. People love to blame authorities for their errors.
Well, the distinction between “simple” carbohydrates and “complex” is obsolete for all practical purposes. It has been made obsolete in the 90s. Do you know why?
Yeah it’s biased for the truth and against the false. If there is something that isn’t clear to you can ask me specific questions. I think the point is intelligible at least.
I’ve already shown you that people get more calories from added oils than from added sugar. I’ve already pointed out fats are more easily stored as fat. I’ve said that they’re addictive, even if the link is broken (who cares if it’s broken, it’s up to you to research truth). You already know that fats are associated with plenty of cardiovascular problems. The only rational conclusion is that oil industry is at least as bad as sugar industry, no? Do you accept this conclusion?
You pay me for consulting and I’ll provide you the evidence you want ok?
If when eating both sugar and oil people would get addicted only to the oil, then yes, you could apply my argument. But they get addicted to both. So your argument fails.
It does make you feel bad because you’re missing the brain stimulation. The taste is what gives you the brain stimulation. Not the glucose or the fatty oil in your blood. Clearly you don’t know what you’re speaking about. Glucose in the blood in fact is very satiating. I’ve also heard that people stop taking coffe after they start eating proper fuel for the brain.
It was implied by what you’ve said. But I guess you’re not rational and it’s impossible to deduce a coherent message from your writings. There is no coherent message.
Given that you’ve failed to clarify what is the supposed mechanism for the addiction, we can’t do any experiment. Do you want me to reduce consumption of sweet tasting food? I can’t do that because I already eat too few sweet tasting foods. Do you want me to reduce simple carbohydrates? Again, I already eat too few simple carbohydrates. Do you want me to reduce added and refined sugar? I don’t use any added and refined sugar already.
In fact when I was using Huel a few months ago, I was using the unsweetened version. The sweetened food has always been disgusting for me since when I was a children. What version of Huel do you use, if any? How much oil do you use? You can do experiments on yourself.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t want to reduce total carbohydrate intake either. Why should I want to reduce that? I want clean fuel for my body, not crappy fuel. I also love that I get hungry when my body is depleted of carbohydrates. I need hunger to overcome my tendency to skip meals.
Do your own research. Simple carbohydrates are very useful to cure diabetes. You can take a look at the MasteringDiabetes.org guys if you’re interested in this. They eat a ton of fruit.
Because when people give out bad advice, then there are consequences for that. If you attempt to lose weight by manipulating your insulin level, you will get very sick.
Not exactly “loads”, but anyway, it’s not that Ancel Keys is infallible. Most if not all of his studies were observational studies and so he couldn’t distinguish the effects of consumption of animal fat and animal protein. He also couldn’t distinguish the effects of animal food consumption and total fat consumption. Today we’ve much better information available if we care about truth.
Perhaps he does overrun your ability to read and understand my arguments. Let me restate my beliefs again in compact form: 1) sweet tasting food and fatty tasting food are addictive 2) the addiction is due to taste and not due to the glucose or fat in the blood 3) if you don’t eat these additives (table sugar and oil) your taste perception will revert back to healthy and you’ll feel disgusted by the taste of refined sugar and refined fat 4) the desire to eat due to the depletion of carbohydrates is physiological and beneficial to people with healthy diets. 5) the same healthy desire can easily lead to obesity if your meals don’t contain enough carbohydrates. Low carb diets usually use the repulsive effects of protein and meat to prevent people from overeating. Extreme low carb diets also use psychoactive ketones to confuse your brain further.
You know, you need to dig deeper to find truth. All the low carb arguments have some plausibility for the uneducated. It’s our job to be educated so we don’t fall for them.
What you’ve said about sugar is not even wrong. It depends on interpretation. But you do not seem aware of the fine points. I hope my post clarifies what’s right and what’s wrong.
I’ve also to say, once you stop eating cheese and butter and oils, it’s very hard to find a very concentrated source of fat. The reality is that you should not be eating concentrated fat, and you should eat more natural food. In this respect I agree with “Paleo”. You can still eat high fat by eating fatty cuts of meats or fatty plant food like nuts, fatty seeds and olives/avocados.
EDIT: I’m pleased that you liked the video but you’re misunderstanding. He says it’s primarily the fat and the salt that do make it addictive. Casomorphins are interesting but their practical importance isn’t that clear yet. I suppose it’s a research topic.
I don’t suppose you realise the breathtaking arrogance of your response, so I’ll just comment on the ignorance.
You are completely unwilling to read anything I suggest, even refusing to google “USDA recommended carbs”. Anything you accidentally read that does not agree with what you already believe is deemed to be fake news. You even disowned someone you referenced when Michael showed you he’s pro-paleo! Your only sources of truth are what you consider ‘common sense’ and your own memory. When you make a specific argument which is not backed up by any kind of evidence (80% of the time so far) you refuse to provide any. You are so closed minded that you don’t even realise it!
Seriously - you may be 100% right in everything you say, but do you know how you sound when you tell someone “This is common sense - just believe it or find your own evidence, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re not interested in the truth, etc.”. Best of all “I’m here to help victims of your bad advice”!!! By giving them your unverified, badly argued, borderline unintelligible drivel I suppose. The height of your argument is youtube videos referring to research from non-existent hospitals, tests on 13 subjects sponsored by Coke and 100 year old work from Kempner that actually KILLED 12% of his initial batch of patients!
There’s an old adage - “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”. You are conclusive proof of that.
If you want to have a have a rational discussion on this science, then pick ONE or TWO points from the previous discussion and lets discuss it. You need to read research and not just ignore it because it doesn’t agree with your position. I will (and have done) the same. Also stop introducing new topics without resolving the first one - that’s just a confusion tactic.
On the other hand, if you just want to lurk and post random comments about coconut oil being bad because … common sense then fine, just don’t expect me to be an enabler. We will be able to judge what your decision is from your next post.
Hopefully you want to discuss and not just troll, because that’s the purpose of the forum.
Taff, common sense says, if you take one piece of a plant/animal, and you extract one nutrient and then throw away the rest, and then you base some meals around this nutrient, then you’re not getting a natural, balanced and varied diet. This applies to coconut oil, olive oil, sugar, caffeine, and practically all other substances too. Almost everything taken in absurd dose and concentrated form can be very unhealthy. Do you agree with this?
So what’s the topic i want to discuss? Well, none in particular. But when I see dangerous nonsense, I feel compelled to call it out, even if I don’t have research at hand to prove it’s nonsense. I think it’s my duty to inform people so that they can do the research and arrive at same conclusion. I’m being arrogant? Yes indeed. I’ll concede this. I want to warn people.
EDIT: On the other hand, please note that my “do it yourself” approach is also respectful of your intelligence. I’m not trying to spoon fed you my beliefs. I’m saying, these are my beliefs, they may be right, they may be wrong, if you’re interested, then verify for yourself.
Another thing, perhaps you think I’m closed minded because I refuse to consider your arguments. The problem is, I’ve heard these already so many times, and they’re just boring.
Just look at this video, this explains exactly how I feel:
If you say something uncommon that I’ve not heard (EDIT: and is not in total opposition with what most of us know for sure to be true), I promise to spend 1 hour researching it ok?
Also take a look at this website, he does try to refute low carb (pseudo)science in the most respectful and gentle way possible: http://plantpositive.com/
It takes months to do something like this, and it’s entirely for free. I can’t afford to do it. Another website that’s really valuable and always updated, beside wikipedia, is NutritionFacts.org.
Oops.