The life expectancy of a person in the paleolithic era was somewhere between 33 and 39. Not that I have anything against the diet. I just think it’s funny that modern Los Angeles is aspiring to be like people who would be dead at their age.
Go ahead people. Hunt. Gather. And for the love of God, don’t eat anything from a farm!
Bikers, fried seafood and beer… A perfect Sunday afternoon.
Everything should be fried. EVERYTHING.
We pretty much destroyed the crab. Sorry little guy.
After two years, it didn’t matter. 65% carbs or 35% carbs, 15% protein or 25% protein, IT’S ALL THE SAME. So much for things like “The Zone” and other fad diets. In the end, Weight Watchers wins the battle. It’s the reduced calories that matter.
ABSTRACT
Background The possible advantage for weight loss of a diet that emphasizes protein, fat, or carbohydrates has not been established, and there are few studies that extend beyond 1 year.
Methods We randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets; the targeted percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the four diets were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. The diets consisted of similar foods and met guidelines for cardiovascular health. The participants were offered group and individual instructional sessions for 2 years. The primary outcome was the change in body weight after 2 years in two-by-two factorial comparisons of low fat versus high fat and average protein versus high protein and in the comparison of highest and lowest carbohydrate content.Results At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels.
My friend and I were looking at this yesterday. I just thought it was funny. While a low-carb diet may be detrimental to your performance, at least you’ll look and feel like an athlete!
Low-carbohydrate diets and performance.
Cook CM, Haub MD. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007 Jul;6(4):225-9.
Athletes are continually searching for means to optimize their performance. Within the past 20 years, athletes and scientists have reported or observed that consuming a carbohydrate-restricted diet may improve performance. The original theories explaining the purported benefits centered on the fact that fat oxidation increases, thereby “sparing” muscle glycogen. More recent concepts that explain the plausibility of the ergogenicity of low-carbohydrate, or high-fat, diets on exercise performance pertain to an effect similar to altitude training. We and others have observed that although fat oxidation may be increased, the ability to maintain high-intensity exercise (above the lactate threshold) seems to be compromised or at least indifferent when compared with consumption of more carbohydrate. That said, clinical studies clearly demonstrate that ad libitum low-carbohydrate diets elicit greater decreases in body weight and fat than energy-equivalent low-fat diets, especially over a short duration. Thus, although low-carbohydrate and high-fat diets appear detrimental or indifferent relative to performance, they may be a faster means to achieve a more competitive body composition.
*This post is not funny or amusing, so don’t pay to read it. I wouldn’t want you to waste your money.*
Here’s another diet comparison. We haven’t talked diet much lately, but I rather enjoy the diets that tell me I can eat all the unrestricted meat I want. I celebrated by eating a package of salami. You may think I’m joking, and that’s okay. But I’m not.
Two-Year Comparison of Three Popular Diets: Low-carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets are effective alternatives to traditional low-fat diets.
Although many weight-loss diets are touted as “the best” by their advocates, few high-quality comparative studies have been conducted. In this randomized trial, Israeli researchers compared three diets — a low-fat calorie-restricted diet based on American Heart Association guidelines, a moderate-fat calorie-restricted Mediterranean diet, and a low-carbohydrate non–calorie-restricted diet based on the Atkins diet — in 322 moderately obese adults (mean body-mass index, 31 kg/m2; 86% male). The trial was based at a workplace where lunch (the main meal), tailored to the three diets, was provided in the cafeteria and where study participants met frequently with dieticians.
At 2 years, mean weight loss was significantly greater in the low-carbohydrate and Mediterranean groups than in the low-fat group (4.7 kg and 4.4 kg vs. 2.9 kg). HDL cholesterol levels increased and LDL cholesterol levels remained similar in each group, but the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol improved most in the low-carbohydrate group. Among 36 diabetic participants, fasting glucose improved most with the Mediterranean diet. Adherence rates at 2 years were 90%, 85%, and 78% in the low-fat, Mediterranean, and low-carbohydrate groups, respectively. Only 16% of participants withdrew from the trial.
Comment: The authors draw a reasonable conclusion from these results: Because low-carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets are effective alternatives to traditional low-fat diets, any of them can be offered and individualized depending on patient preferences and metabolic needs. This trial, given its relatively long duration and high adherence rate, is an important addition to the literature. However, the results have limited generalizability, because the study was workplace-based and quite labor-intensive.
Published in Journal Watch General Medicine July 29, 2008
I ate this raw vegan shit last night. I now I have terrible food poisoning. I am vomiting up bright green liquid that smells like sewage and my other end is like that dam that burst open and the little Dutch kid had to put his thumb in it but I don’t have any one to stick a thumb up there so it’s just sort of a mess. Anyway. NO MORE RAW VEGAN POISON for me. Raw is the devil.
Thanks to CrossFit and myself not wanting to be one of the sheep following blindly without thinking for myself, I’ve become caught up in the low carb vs. “a calorie is a calorie” debate. It seems the low carb people are
making more money right now (though weight watchers does pretty well), but what does that mean exactly? There is no doubt that low carb diets do work for people, however I’m having trouble finding evidence that shows they work via their purported mechanisms. For most people, they work via calorie restriction, which is not fancy at all and really indicates that everyone should just try to get along and eat less, regardless of how they do it.
(Note: I’m also rather interested in this whole “low carb works and no one wants to admit it” crap that I’ve been hearing from way way too many people. Um, people have admitted it. Why do you think there are South Beach bars in the store and Zone frozen entrees in the freezer section, and every low carb book that comes out these days is on the bestseller list? People have admitted it, time and time again, and I’m still reading over and over that people haven’t accepted it.)
So today, we will look at 3 articles that say macronutrient composition (namely, carb restriction) is important for weight loss, and 3 articles that say it doesn’t make any difference. I am attaching abstracts for all 6 articles. Note that I am focusing here on weight loss. Nothing else.
****Low carb diets are the answer****
Twenty men were put on either low carb or low fat diets for 4 weeks. They could pretty eat as much as they wanted to within the guidelines. Low carb people averaged about 22g carbs/day and 1732 calories/day. Low fat people averaged about 170g carbs/day and about 1900 calories/day. Weight loss: low carb averaged a loss of 13.9lbs, low fat averaged a loss of 8.8lbs. While the calories weren’t kept consistent, it appears the amount of difference in weight loss cannot be entirely accounted for by calories differences if you use the general rule that 3500 calories = 1 pound, the difference would only be a pound and a half, not 5lbs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 1, 44-55, January 2008
Background: Altering the macronutrient composition of the diet influences hunger and satiety. Studies have compared high- and low-protein diets, but there are few data on carbohydrate content and ketosis on motivation to eat and ad libitum intake. Objective: We aimed to compare the hunger, appetite, and weight-loss responses to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate [(LC) ketogenic] and those to a high-protein, medium-carbohydrate [(MC) nonketogenic] diet in obese men feeding ad libitum. Design: Seventeen obese men were studied in a residential trial; food was provided daily. Subjects were offered 2 high-protein (30% of energy) ad libitum diets, each for a 4-wk period—an LC (4% carbohydrate) ketogenic diet and an MC (35% carbohydrate) diet—randomized in a crossover design. Results: Ad libitum energy intakes were lower with the LC diet than with the MC diet [P = 0.02; SE of the difference (SED): 0.27] at 7.25 and 7.95 MJ/d, respectively. Over the 4-wk period, hunger was significantly lower (P = 0.014; SED: 1.76) and weight loss was significantly greater (P = 0.006; SED: 0.62) with the LC diet (6.34 kg) than with the MC diet (4.35 kg). The LC diet induced ketosis with mean 3-hydroxybutyrate concentrations of 1.52 mmol/L in plasma (P = 0.036 from baseline; SED: 0.62) and 2.99 mmol/L in urine (P < 0.001 from baseline; SED: 0.36). Conclusion: In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic diets.
Forty-eight women were studied over 4 months and were put into one of four groups, either high protein/low carb (about 100g protein and 130g carbs per day) or lower protein/higher carb (about 57g protein and 200g carbs/day). They were also divided into exercising or non-exercising groups. Average caloric intake was between 1900 and 2100 calories per day and was pretty even between the groups. High protein/low carb group lost about 20lbs, and the higher carb/lower protein group lost about 16lbs. A significant difference, though not huge. The exercising groups didn’t lose significantly more weight than the non-exercising groups, but their body fat percentages decreased significantly. J. Nutr. 135:1903-1910, August 2005
This study examined the interaction of 2 diets (high protein, reduced carbohydrates vs. low protein, high carbohydrates) with exercise on body composition and blood lipids in women (n = 48, ~46 y old, BMI = 33 kg/m2) during weight loss. The study was a 4-mo weight loss trial using a 2 x 2 block design (Diet x Exercise). Diets were equal in total energy (7.1 MJ/d) and lipids (~30% energy intake) but differed in protein content and the ratio of carbohydrate:protein at 1.6 g/(kg · d) and <1.5 (PRO group) vs. 0.8 g/(kg · d) and >3.5 (CHO group), respectively. Exercise comparisons were lifestyle activity (control) vs. a supervised exercise program (EX: 5 d/wk walking and 2 d/wk resistance training). Subjects in the PRO and PRO + EX groups lost more total weight and fat mass and tended to lose less lean mass (P = 0.10) than the CHO and CHO + EX groups. Exercise increased loss of body fat and preserved lean mass. The combined effects of diet and exercise were additive for improving body composition. Serum lipid profiles improved in all groups, but changes varied among diet treatments. Subjects in the CHO groups had larger reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, whereas subjects in the PRO groups had greater reductions in triacylglycerol and maintained higher concentrations of HDL cholesterol. This study demonstrated that a diet with higher protein and reduced carbohydrates combined with exercise additively improved body composition during weight loss, whereas the effects on blood lipids differed between diet treatments.
26 people (half diabetic, half not) were studied over 3 months, eating either a low carb diet (average 56g carbs/day) or a healthy eating UK diet (average 163g carbs/day). This was NOT controlled for calorie intake, and the low carb people averaged about 1300 calories per day, whereas the other group averaged about 1600 calories per day. The low carb people lost more weight. They also ate less. Diabet Med. 2007 Dec;24(12):1430-5. 2007 Oct 29.
BACKGROUND: Low-carbohydrate diets are effective for weight reduction in people without diabetes, but there is limited evidence for people with Type 2 diabetes. Aims To assess the impact of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), ketone and lipid levels in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. METHODS: Thirteen Type 2 diabetic subjects (on diet or metformin) and 13 non-diabetic subjects were randomly allocated to either a low-carbohydrate diet (< or = 40 g carbohydrate/day) or a healthy-eating diet following Diabetes UK nutritional recommendations and were seen monthly for 3 months. Subjects (25% male) were (mean +/- sd) age 52 +/- 9 years, weight 96.3 +/- 16.6 kg, body mass index 35.1 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 6.6 +/- 1.1%, total cholesterol 5.1 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1.3 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 3.1 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, triglycerides (geometric mean) 1.55 (1.10, 2.35) mmol/l and ketones range 0.0-0.2 mmol/l. RESULTS:Analysis was by intention to treat with last observation carried forward. Twenty-two of the participants (85%) completed the study. Weight loss was greater (6.9 vs. 2.1 kg, P = 0.003) in the low-carbohydrate group, with no difference in changes in HbA(1c), ketone or lipid levels.
****A calorie is a calorie is a calorie****
This study watched people for 12 weeks and very carefully controlled the amount of fat, protein, and carbs. Everyone lost weight. Hooray! And the composition turned out to be insignificant. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.
The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition, studies that measured the metabolizable energy of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an approximately equal to 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
This study I’ve mentioned before. In 1992, they locked up 16 people and gave them liquid diets with varying levels of fat or carbs. Low carb/high fat proponents would hope that people on the 70% fat/30% carbs diet would lose more weight than the people on 100% carbs/0% fat diet, but in the end, it was all the same. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Feb;55(2):350-5.
Diets rich in fat may promote obesity by leading to a greater deposition of adipose-tissue triglycerides than do isoenergetic diets with less fat. This possibility was examined by a retrospective analysis of the energy needs of 16 human subjects (13 adults, 3 children) fed liquid diets of precisely known composition with widely varied fat content, for 15-56 d (33 +/- 2 d, mean +/- SE). Subjects lived in a metabolic ward and received fluid formulas with different fat and carbohydrate content, physical activity was kept constant, and precise data were available on energy intake and daily body weight. Isoenergetic formulas contained various percentages of carbohydrate as cerelose (low, 15%; intermediate, 40% or 45%; high, 75%, 80%, or 85%), a constant 15% of energy as protein (as milk protein), and the balance of energy as fat (as corn oil). Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.
Here we have 43 people locked up for 6 weeks. They either had a diet made up of 15% carbs or 45% carbs and they went about their business. In the end, in fact, there was no difference in the amount of weight they lost. Oh well.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 63, 174-178, Copyright © 1996
The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.
I got sucked into the nutrition reading again. Came across a few interesting things.
For 16 people over 33 days, a calorie is just a calorie: carb or fat, they’re all the same. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 55, 350-355, 1992.
Diets rich in fat may promote obesity by leading to a greater deposition of adipose-tissue triglycerides than do isoenergetic diets with less fat. This possibility was examined by a retrospective analysis of the energy needs of 16 human subjects (13 adults, 3 children) fed liquid diets of precisely known composition with widely varied fat content, for 15-56 d (33 +/- 2 d, mean +/- SE). Subjects lived in a metabolic ward and received fluid formulas with different fat and carbohydrate content, physical activity was kept constant, and precise data were available on energy intake and daily body weight. Isoenergetic formulas contained various percentages of carbohydrate as cerelose (low, 15%; intermediate, 40% or 45%; high, 75%, 80%, or 85%), a constant 15% of energy as protein (as milk protein), and the balance of energy as fat (as corn oil). Even with extreme changes in the fat- carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.
Gina Kolata explains why I sleep 10 hours a night now. This might explain a lot.
Excerpt from Kolata’s book that suggests no matter how we diet or exercise, it really does come down to genetics. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html
A Swedish study of 42,000 women finds that a low carbohydrate/high protein diet will kill you faster.
Journal of Internal Medicine Volume 261 Issue 4 Page 366-374, April 2007
Conclusions. A diet characterized by low carbohydrate and high protein intake was associated with increased total and particularly cardiovascular mortality amongst women. Vigilance with respect to long-term adherence to such weight control regimes is advisable.
High fat/low carb diets make rats fat – we’ve gotta watch the ketones! Appetite Volume 48, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 135-138
High-fat diets produce obesity in part because, per calorie, glucose produces greater post-prandial thermogenesis than lipids, an effect probably mediated by glucose-sensing neurons. A very low-carbohydrate/high-fat/high-protein Atkins-type diet produces obesity but is marginally ketogenic in mice. In contrast, high-sucrose/low-fat diets, and very low-carbohydrate/high-fat/low-protein (anti-epileptic) ketogenic diets reverse diet-induced obesity independent of caloric intake. We propose that a non-ketogenic high-fat diet reduces glucose metabolism and signaling in glucose-sensing neurons, thereby reducing post-prandial thermogenesis, and that a ketogenic high-fat diet does not reduce glucose signaling, thereby preventing and/or reversing obesity.
Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories says that exercising does not help you stay thin. And that carbs cause Alzheimers, heart disease and cancer. If the dude’s right, expect him to win the Nobel Prize sometime soon. I sort of want to read the book. I’m willing to be the $700,000 he got in the book deal that he could write a book with the exact opposite opinion and be just as convincing. If his point is that science is biased, well, where are all of the studies with dissenting conclusions? We know they’re out there.
Sigh. I know I can’t write about this on my gym website or the Crossfit website because I’ve learned that within the Crossfit community, regardless of what you think, you don’t question the dogma. So I’ll just talk to myself here to alleviate the pain. Forgive me for I have sinned.
I found a free copy of the Crossfit journal on diet and metabolism, and I read it a few times and started to get upset and frustrated that they charge people for this and even worse, that people pay for it and believe everything it says or pass it around saying things like “great article!” and I have to bite my tongue and walk away.
The first section entitled “food” can be summed up as follows: “Nanny nanny nanny, we were right, you were wrong, fat is fine, carbs are bad, we are great.” Then they go onto make a bunch of presumptively brash statements like, “We have the science and we showed it proudly. No one would read it” and “the science supporting our position, while being produced at an increasing rate, was always there and is not responsible for the dramatic change over the past two years.” Um, okay. How about you summarize and reference that “science” because I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about and you can’t call it science if you can’t even tell me what it is.
Within this whimpery whiny presentation, they manage to say “the cry for peer-reviewed evidence is almost always a smoke screen. The guys who write it read it – the rest pretend.” What sort of argument is that (if I even dignify it by calling it an argument)? And secondly, while most people may not scour Pubmed the way I do, peer reviewed articles are summarized on a daily basis on msnbc, the health section of the Times, various fitness magazines and journals, etc. Most people do read, and have opinions, but for some reason it seems we count on them not asking questions or being critical of what we write. And if we are critical, then we get called a smart ass or “too negative” rather than “independent thinking” or “interested in learning more.”
They then go on to list “responsible” diet books and authors. Their criteria for “responsible” is merely that the theories presented in the books support the Crossfit Zone/low carb dogma. There is no requirement that these authors use valid “science,” and this list was not reviewed by an objective party. I’m not sure what’s responsible about that. Kickbacks?
Next there’s a nice chart about “the deadly quartet” and hyperinsulinemia and a quote “there are two serious problems with medical science today: first that correlation and causation are tragically confused by many researchers and second, that there is low regard and little interest among academics with the often highly successful protocols employed by clinicians.” (Huh?) They also state that Atkins had “proven in thousands if not millions of persons who’d followed his book” that “hyperinsulinism was the cause of heart disease risk factors.” Note that they said cause, not correlate. It all sounds really important and smart until you look at the actual data and find that for the most part the decrease in hyperinsulinemia is merely correlated with low carb diets (and weight loss) and the causation studies are less impressive. For example, two JAMA articles show that over the course of a year, insulin levels drop both with low carb diets (Atkins and Zone) and high carb diets (Ornish and LEARN), and the drop correlated most closely with weight loss, not carb intake. So where’s the causation there?
The amount of weight loss predicted the amount of improvement in several cardiac risk factors . For each diet, weight loss was significantly associated with changes in total/HDL cholesterol ratio (r = –0.36), C-reactive protein (r = –0.37), and insulin levels (r = –0.39), regardless of diet type (P = .48, P = .57, P = .31, respectively, for difference between diets). No diet significantly worsened any cardiac risk factor in association with weight loss or dietary adherence at 1 year. ( JAMA, 2005; 293: 43-53)
Insulin and glucose measurements were obtained from the same aforementioned 84% of the total sample for lipids. Neither the overall trajectory (ie, across all time points) nor the 12-month differences were significantly different among groups for either fasting insulin or fasting glucose concentrations. (JAMA. 2007;297:969-977)
Well there’s my “peer-reviewed science” and I’m posting it not as a “smokescreen” but as empirical data.
Look, there is no doubt that low carb diets work. They do. So do high carb diets. And so does weight watchers. And Jenny Craig. And calorie limitation. And exercise. And all of these other things that have been talked about forever and ever. There’s no reason to start whining about it and call it a “battle for the hearts and minds of the public” (Crossfit Journal Issue 15, page 1) and then start attacking “academics” and “doctors, nutritionists, trainers and family” who ask for evidence (when you don’t even really have it).
Let’s just all hold hands and sing kumbaya and accept that there are a whole lot of theories out there and no one is really sure what’s the best way to do things and not turn this into an all out war over good vs. evil. It’s really not. Some people are out to make a lot of money by spreading their dogma and discounting everyone else. And some people (like me) really just want to be healthy for now.
A few studies have come out in the past 3 months about dietary carbs, glycemic load/index and their association with disease.
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Nov 26;167(21):2310-6. Prospective study of dietary carbohydrates, glycemic index, glycemic load, and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged Chinese women.
Villegas R, Liu S, Gao YT , Yang G , Li H, Zheng W, Shu XO.
Basically they studied 64,227 Chinese women over 4 and a half years, and they found that “high intake of foods with a high glycemic index and glycemic load, especially rice, the main carbohydrate-contributing food in this population, may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Chinese women.”
Okay. Simple enough. Eat more carbs, eat more rice, get diabetes. Good. I have an answer, right?
Then, less than a month later, this comes out.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):988-94. Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load are associated with high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol at baseline but not with increased risk of diabetes in the Whitehall II study.
Mosdøl A, Witte DR, Frost G, Marmot MG, Brunner EJ.
They studied 7321 people and followed them for 13 years. In this study, high glycemic load was NOT associated with the development of diabetes. In fact, high glycemic load was associated with decreased risk of diabetes. However this study had 71% male subjects. Hmmmm.
In the same journal as the first article, we find this:
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Nov 26;167(21):2304-9. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and cereal fiber intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in US black women.
Krishnan S, Rosenberg L, Singer M, Hu FB, Djoussé L, Cupples LA, Palmer JR.
The conclusion is simple: “Increasing cereal fiber in the diet may be an effective means of reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, a disease that has reached epidemic proportions in black women.” Okay, except last I heard, cereal is made out of carbs. And we’re talking about women again, right?
Okay, so maybe diabetes is too confusing, so let’s look at heart disease….
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1521-6. Dietary glycemic index, dietary glycemic load, and cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older Swedish men.
Levitan EB, Mittleman MA, HÃ¥kansson N, Wolk A.
Their conclusion for the men: “Dietary [glycemic index] and dietary [glycemic load] were not associated with ischemic cardiovascular disease or mortality, but dietary [glycemic load] was associated with a greater risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Good. Bring out the carbs, your heart is safe (but your brain is not, though it seems few actually care about that).
Basically, it’s just women who can’t eat carbs, as this study shows: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jul 3;50(1):14-21. Epub 2007 Jun 18. High dietary glycemic load and glycemic index increase risk of cardiovascular disease among middle-aged women: a population-based follow-up study.
Beulens JW, de Bruijne LM, Stolk RP, Peeters PH, Bots ML, Grobbee DE, van der Schouw YT.
Their conclusion? “Among women consuming modest glycemic load diets, high dietary glycemic load and glycemic index increase the risk of [cardiovascular disease], particularly for overweight women.”
Basically carbs are sexist. Fuck them.
(Oh wait, I forgot. I’m a misogynist too…)