Excess Carbohydrates Triggers New Body Fat To Accumulate, Researchers Learn

Dr. James Ntambi says some obesity attributed to high-carb diet

Although his September 2007 release Good Calories, Bad Calories has been met with much skepticism and criticism by those deeply entrenched in the conventional wisdom about diet and health who have interviewed him over the past couple of months since its release, New York Times science journalist Gary Taubes is adamant that the more than five years of research he conducted is merely the BEGINNING regarding the hypothesis that it is carbohydrates that is the root cause of obesity and other health-related diseases in people with a certain genetic disorder making them highly susceptible to rapid weight gain when they consume carbs of any kind. And he's definitely not alone now in this assertion within the medical community.

Dr. Andrew Weil understood it right away after reading Taubes' bestselling book as does Dr. David Ludwig who shared his own study recently on the ill effects of carbohydrates on the condition known as "fatty liver" disease. Now brand new research on the negative impact of carbs on weight and health sanctioned by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is adding yet another layer of scientific truth and confirmation to what most of us who are livin' la vida low-carb already knew.

Lead researcher James M. Ntambi, PhD, Katherine Berns Von Donk Steenbock Professor of Biochemistry and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his team of researchers have discovered a specific gene in the liver known as SCD-1, short for stearoyl-Coenzyme A desaturase 1. I like SCD-1 better, don't you? :)

It turns out this SCD-1 gene may be the culprit in why some people who eat a high-carb diet keep gaining and gaining weight while others who consume the same diet don't. Apparently, this gene actually causes dietary carbs to be turned into stored body fat rather than being broken down for energy. Conversely, mice that did not have SCD-1 in their liver were able to use the carbohydrates instead of having it turn to fat. Hmmmmmm...

Dr. Ntambi even fed a starchy, sugary diet to mice without SCD-1 in their liver and the excessive carbohydrates were used up and not stored. In other words, the carbs were not a contributing factor to any weight gain in the mice without SCD-1. But normal functioning livers in the control mice with the presence of SCD-1 saw just the opposite happen--the high-carb diet they consumed quickly poured on body fat by eating the exact same food.

In the battle against the bulge, Dr. Ntambi said his study shows that genetic liver function seems to play a more critical role than thought that may react differently in people with varying levels of the SCD-1 gene.

"It looks like the SCD gene in the liver is responsible for causing weight gain in response to a high-carbohydrate diet, because when we take away the gene's activity the animals no longer gain the weight," he said. "These findings are telling us that the liver is a key tissue in mediating weight gain induced by excess carbohydrates."

The results of this study were published in the December 5, 2007 issue of Cell Metabolism.

Well, look what we have here. As much as the so-called health "experts" like Glenn Gaesser go around ignorantly spouting off their mouth about how consuming a high-carb, sugary diet is perfectly fine for people to manage their weight, along comes a monkey wrench in that theory that is invariably tied to genetics. It makes you wonder just how many people are walking around and have this SCD-1 factor going on in their liver. While I don't know for sure, I'd be willing to bet with high probability that this explains how I got to 410 pounds back in 2004 and why carbohydrate restriction worked so well for me to shed over 180 pounds.

And the eye-opening results of this study are not lost on Dr. Ntambi who believes this study should open the door for even more research into the damning role of carbohydrates in weight gain and producing excessive stored fat. He sees this as a solid first step in bringing about major changes in how obesity is treated in the future.

If it can be determined that SCD-1 exists in a more concentrated form among the overweight and obese, then the golden opportunity to offer a natural, dietary solution like livin' la vida low-carb to them exists and should be actively promoted to them.

"We think that obese individuals, in general, may have higher SCD activity in both the liver and in adipose tissue," Dr. Ntambi explained. "So, they may have a higher capability of converting carbohydrate into fat."

This is some of the most amazing research in favor of low-carb as a viable option for people struggling with weight issues to come out over the past few years because it lends credibility to the idea that lowering your carbohydrates is a very good thing for a whole lot of people. We already know from this Harvard study that people with high insulin levels don't do well on a high-carb, low-fat diet. Perhaps they have this SCD-1 gene, too. It's an exciting development for people like me who found merit in this way of eating independent from what my doctor and common societal knowledge told me was right. I believe this study could be a godsend for others who struggle being overweight, too, because it could convince them to take charge of their own weight and health like I did.

Sadly, the Standard American Diet (SAD) is chock full of carbohydrates galore no thanks in part to ridiculous food ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that shows up in just about everything nowadays, especially soft drinks and candy. It's disgusting how little outrage there is over the presence of HFCS in so much of what we eat while people go around getting their panties in a wad over seeing a little bit of saturated fat on a food label (scaremongering by the American Heart Association and their "Bad Fat Brothers" campaign hasn't helped matters either). UGH! Are we bassackwards regarding nutrition nowadays or what?

Perhaps this is the kind of research that will FINALLY get the traditionalists to think outside the box and realize there is something more to the idea that consuming sugar is unhealthy and not conducive to weight management because of a genetic predisposition. Whether that has ever been clearly articulated before, it certainly has now with this study.

"This is a very good example of a diet-gene interaction," Dr. Ntambi noted.

In fact, this latest research is part of an ongoing look at other parts of the body where SCD-1 may exist, such as the liver, muscles, brain, pancreas and adipose tissue to see what would happen. When SCD-1 was nonexistent, it didn't matter how many carbohydrates the researchers fed the mice--THEY DIDN'T GAIN A POUND! It makes me wonder if my wife Christine is fortunate enough to have a low amount of SCD-1 in her body since she can get away with eating A LOT MORE CARBS than I can and maintain her weight (ya know, it makes me sick!). :D

Interestingly, Dr. Ntambi found a rather peculiar and distinctive dichotomy among those mice that lacked the SCD-1 gene--they GAINED weight on a diet higher in fat versus a diet high in sugary carbs and low in fat which protected their health as well. In other words, a low-carb diet provided no weight management benefit to them which lends credence to my philosophy that people need to find the nutritional plan that works for THEM and follow that individualized program to properly take care of their own weight and health.

So what does all this mean? The first thing that pops in my mind is how utterly meaningless and ridiculous it is to have universal health recommendations for the general population. While a low-fat diet has long been trumpeted as "healthy" for everyone, that's obviously just not true. Now more than ever we need to see the low-carb diet promoted alongside the low-fat diet as another option for those people with this SCD-1 condition. Otherwise, you're destined to keep those people fat for the rest of their lives because they'll constantly get frustrated when their weight fails to stabilize on a fat-restricted diet.

I'm thinking out loud here, but there ought to be a test where people can determine what the level of SCD-1 in their liver is. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't seem like this would be very hard if you did a biopsy or blood test of the liver to see. Those who have a strong presence of the gene should be placed on a strict low-carb diet regimen and those with little to no SCD-1 (ostensibly thinner by default) would be placed on a strict high-carb, low-fat diet.

In the mice that did not have any SCD-1, glucose production was basically shut down which prevented excessive insulin to be created in the body but subsequently led to an increased risk of hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar (which is why a high-carb diet is necessary for blood sugar management for them). Additionally, glycogen stores are not able to be created because the oleic acid, which helps with the breakdown of carbs, is rendered useless since the body converts them into energy.

"It looks to us that if you don't have enough oleic acid - which the SCD enzyme makes - then the carbohydrate does not proceed through normal glucose metabolism," Dr. Ntambi concluded.

To confirm this, the researchers added oleic acid supplements to the diet of these SCD-1 lacking mice and their metabolism returned to normal function. But it looks like the more carbs consumed, the higher amount of SCD-1 is present which can produce an overflow of oleic acid which then leads to stored fat and thus obesity. So it's never a good idea to go too overboard on the carbohydrates, simple or otherwise, as has been previously suggested and encouraged many times before by supposedly educated health "experts."

Dr. Ntambi agrees.

"Too much carbohydrate is not good," he remarked. "That's basically what we are saying."

Well, it's about time SOMEBODY in the medical research world said it and I hope this is merely the start of an exciting new trend. My desire is that this research will continue forward by Dr. Ntambi and other courageous researchers willing to let the data speak for itself without being dictated b any preconceived notions or low-fat dogma. And it looks like Dr. Mary C. Vernon's dream that the NIH would begin funding more low-carb studies is coming to fruition. The ball is now moving forward on the research, so I'm ready to see even more of it in the coming years! BRING IT ON!!!

You can e-mail Dr. James Ntambi about his remarkable research on the role of the SCD-1 gene in the liver and the negative role it plays when combined with a high-carb diet at ntambi@biochem.wisc.edu. We need to encourage MORE of these kind of studies to be conducted, so share your positive comments with him about this one.

12-7-07 UPDATE: Here is Regina Wilshire's take on Ntambi's study.

'Dogma Instead Of Data' Low-Fat Diet Recommendation Dogging Doctors

Pick a health ailment, any old one will do. Now think about what your family doctor would tell you about it in terms of your diet in order to help alleviate the symptoms of that condition. Whether it's diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension...you name it, the answer is always the same--EAT A LOW-FAT DIET!

Doesn't that just frustrate the heck out of you? Without any real evidence pointing to WHY the low-fat lie which has been such a miserable failure is so strongly recommended, doctors unfortunately take on a mob mentality and just do what everyone else in their profession does. They dutifully write out those prescriptions for Lipitor, promote eating grains and sugar to diabetics as long as you are taking your medicines and insulin, urge hearts patients to engage in hours upon hours of exercise which only make them hungrier, and then the granddaddy of them all--EAT A LOW-FAT DIET! UGH!!!

But is the low-fat diet recommendation actually based on any consequential long-term scientific data that has been proven to be highly effective for managing disease? Or has this dietary dogma been allowed to run rampant for decades without the necessary checks and balances that come from the results of actual data from real people who have actually survived living that way?

More and more people are beginning to see through this charade thanks in part to the September 2007 release of the book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. But we're probably still at least a generation away from the practicality of overcoming this "dogma instead of data" mode of thinking we are currently in as you will see from the following e-mail I received from a concerned reader.

Here's what she wrote:

Hi Jimmy,

I've been a lurker for many years and I'm now signed up at your forum page. I did a quick search on Dr. Eades archives but couldn't find anything on this subject.

I have a very close friend who for over a year has had 3 tests come back with her Liver Enzymes being very high. She is only slightly overweight, but doesn't really follow a decent diet. However, her cholesterol numbers were all good.

She is not a heavy drinker, only occasionally, and doesn't take a lot of medications (in fact, she hardly ever takes ibuprofen or Tylenol). The tests they ran for hepatitis came back negative.

My concern and the reason I am e-mailing you is that they tell her the only way to solve the high Liver Enzyme problem is to eat a low fat diet--which of course gets my hackles up immediately!

Are there any studies you can point me to, or articles that I could print out and give her before she starts on this path and ends up wrecking the good cholesterol she already has? Thanks a bunch.

Although I have blogged a couple of times about the subject of a "fatty liver" this year with Dr. David Ludwig predicting it will be the next major health crisis and that this condition is made worse by a low-fat diet, there are some serious questions about what to do as my reader shared in her e-mail. This calls for some backup.

Since I am not a doctor, I decided to pose this reader's e-mail to a low-carb one who I personally know and trust--Dr. Mary C. Vernon from Lawrence, Kansas. I love the way Dr. Vernon looks at all the possibilities based on what she has seen in her own patients and then shares her thoughts in language that anyone can easily understand.

Here was her response:

Liver enzyme elevation, in my experience, can, of course be due to infections (Hepatitus C, etc.), drugs (alcohol, acetaminophen) and abnormal glucose metabolism (high insulin levels). In my simplistic brain, I think this is because the high levels of insulin cause the liver to make fat, but block the liver from moving the fat out as fast as it is made.

It is still important to consider all the other causes. Even though carbohydrate restriction causes almost miraculous improvement in many patients, one would not want to leave a treatable infection untreated. If the triglycerides are elevated or the HDL depressed--and the GGT is not elevated--then this is the picture most likely to respond to carbohydrate restriction.

Of course obvious glucose abnormalities such as Type 2 diabetes would be a clue, too. Dr. Eric Westman from Duke University did a study showing liver biopsy documented improvement in "fatty liver" after CHO restriction.

Finally, I don't really know what to say regarding the low-fat recommendation. Doctors (with the exception of a few renegades like myself) do what they are told and they don't actually look at the evidence behind the recommendation. This is a fine system if the recommendations are actually valid science and not just dogma.

However, when the recommendations are "faith based" rather than grounded in science--or as I say "dogma instead of data"--then you have the situation in which we find ourselves in today.

We truly need more people like Dr. Mary C. Vernon, the current President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP), who are willing to buck the trend and choose to look at the data rather than adhering to the dogma as 99.99% of the doctors in the United States have chosen to do. We could blame it on them for not knowing any better, but they are merely doing what they've been taught over the years. The Taubes book can help educate them, but we need examples like Dr. Vernon to continue to SHOW what can be done when low-fat is NOT the answer to everything.

What can be done to change the hearts and minds of those medical professionals who care about their patients but don't know about the amazing weight and health benefits of livin' la vida low-carb? Will we EVER begin to see even an incremental change in their philosophy in light of decades upon decades of dismal failure with the low-fat diet? Share what YOU think should be done to turn the tide so that doctors and patients will at least have a choice between a low-fat or a low-carb nutritional approach.

'Fatty Liver' Made Worse By A Low-Fat, Not Low-Carb Diet

A "fatty liver" like this not caused by fat, but rather carb intake

I just love bringing up common myths about livin' la vida low-carb and shooting them down with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If we are ever going to convince people that this way of eating is indeed the healthy nutritional approach that we claim it is, then educating them over and over again with solid evidence until it finally sinks in should be our life's mission. It's my distinct pleasure to do just that on a daily basis!

Such is the case today with an issue I've never really addressed before in the more than 1700 blog posts I have written over the past two years. But a recent e-mail from a reader has given me the perfect opportunity to address this issue directly and provide some useful information for you, a friend, or family member who may have similar concerns.

Here's what my reader wrote to me in her e-mail:

I am concerned about my "fatty liver" problem. I've contacted several people about this, but I haven't gotten a response. Can you help me? My doctor tells me it's not a big deal, but my liver function tests keep coming back elevated. Of course, his recommendation is for me to go on a low-fat diet. Now I'm very confused. I do best on the low-carb lifestyle, but I'm scared that I will damage my liver eating this way. With all the people you know, has anyone ever talked about a "fatty liver" being a side effect of low-carbing?

The dreaded "fatty liver" issue certainly deserves some quality space here at my blog and I'm happy to share what I know about this very serious medical condition.

For those of you who are not familiar with what this is, a "fatty liver" is known in medical circles as Non-Alcoholic Steatosis, aka non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which can then lead to a much more serious medical problem called cirrhosis which is the precursor to liver failure. If your liver shuts down, then you need a transplant ASAP or you will die.

Currently, nearly one-fourth of Americans are believed to have a "fatty liver" and it occurs most often in males who are obese and/or diabetic. It is estimated that by the year 2020 non-alcoholic liver failure will be the #1 reason for liver transplants in the United States. But the sad part is liver donations are in short supply which makes them very expensive to obtain. Plus there may not be enough to meet the rising demand.

This possible life-threatening health issue needs to be taken more seriously if we are going to prevent certain catastrophe from happening in a little more than a decade from now. What's amazing is the fact that a "fatty liver" is actually made worse not by the consumption of the much-vilified saturated fat (no, contrary to popular belief, a "fatty liver" is not created by fat consumption), but rather with something even more devious and dangerous to your health--CARBOHYDRATES!

Specifically, I'm referring to those starchy high-carb foods like those cereals being touted for weight loss and other such crazy whole grain products that have been heavily marketed to the public as "healthy." Even the popular and convenient cereal bars are destructive to your health no matter what their manufacturers tell you is good about them in their advertising.

Interestingly, a study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine found that the traditional high-carb, low-fat diet recommendation for obese patients suffering from a "fatty liver" actually INCREASES their risk of liver inflammation SEVEN-FOLD compared to the obese patients placed on a low-carb, high-fat diets which were actually found to be "protective" and even reversed the progression of the "fatty liver." WHOA, that's a major finding!

These "fatty" deposits on the liver can indeed be improved by simply lowering the insulin levels in the body. How do you do that? By lowering your consumption of refined carbohydrates like you do when you are livin' la vida low-carb. Cut out the sugar, refined carbohydrates, and bleached flour from your diet. In fact, any foods containing added sugars and even those so-called healthy whole grains should be removed from your diet. Don't get fooled into thinking you can have them just because they are promoted as "healthy." Clearly, they are NOT!

It's a good idea to do this recommendation regardless of why you are livin' la vida low-carb, but make sure to eat protein with every meal you consume throughout the day. Consult with your physician or dietitian about what amount would be best for you in treating your "fatty liver."

For more info, check out these studies on low-carb diets and a "fatty liver":

- The Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Pilot Study
- The fat-derived hormone adiponectin alleviates alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases in mice
- Dietary Composition and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
- Metabolic Syndrome in Patients With NAFLD
- The effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on the nonalcoholic fatty liver in morbidly obese patients before bariatric surgery

So, to my reader who was concerned about causing damage to her liver with a low-carb diet because she has a "fatty liver," I think the better question she and others with NAFLD should be asking themselves is how much damage is that high-carb, low-fat diet recommended by her doctor to treat this condition harming her, hmmm? There's some food for thought!

'Shrinkdown' Nutritionist Discusses Her 'Concerns' With The Low-Carb Lifestyle

My blog post from last Friday about the nutritionist who wrote the educational materials for the South Carolina "Shrinkdown" event where literally thousands of people in my home state are seeking to lose weight and get healthy caused quite a stir, primarily among the family members of the author of the nutritional information being distributed to the participants.

A nutritionist from Furman University in Greenville, SC named Kelly Frazier unfortunately took my criticisms of her anti-low-carb viewpoints as exhibiting "hostility" towards her and she believed all I did was "bash" her personally. Of course, that's not true since my comments were directed at the substance of the "Healthy Living Guide" worksheets she authored as dietary truth about carbohydrates. None of my comments were about her as a person.

It also led her two sisters--Paula and Julie Anne--to post similar comments that I should not "bash" Kelly and explaining how everyone knows just how unhealthy livin' la vida low-carb is. Yadda yadda yadda! We've heard that so many times before while refuting it point-by-point here at my blog ad nauseam.

Even still, I'm willing to defend what I believe even when the tough questions are asked of me by people like Kelly who wonder how I can support such a paradoxical nutritional approach that is in the minority of support among the so-called health establishment these days. Just because we don't conform doesn't mean we're wrong!

Nevertheless, although Kelly originally expressed to me the "pain" she felt from my original post, she was very open and willing to share her genuine questions about the low-carb lifestyle and was interested in hearing my responses back to each of them. This post today will serve to offer those answers and provide Kelly with feedback to help her understand where we are coming from as low-carb advocates.

I applaud Kelly's willingness to exchange ideas about this subject and I am proud of her for having the courage to do it when so many other nutritionists and dietitians would simply ignore whatever a low-carb supporter would have to say. That says a lot about her character and I'm honored she would at least listen to what I have to say. THANK YOU, Kelly!

I'd like to give a special thanks to my low-carb blogging friend Regina Wilshire from the "Weight Of The Evidence" blog for assisting me with answering some of these questions from Kelly. I will add links to previous posts I have written that are relevant to each question as well to give context to my answers.

Here's what Kelly wrote to me in an e-mail and my responses:

Hi Jimmy,

I am going to try to explain some of my concerns about low-carbohydrate diets below (get ready for the longest email of your life). As I mentioned during my last email, I realize that some people can achieve long term weight loss on low-carb diets.

However, our sponsors (including major universities, hospital systems, and YMCAs statewide) have decided to stick with the guidelines of worldwide nutrition authorities. I welcome your reactions to the comments below. I am glad that we can have a peaceful discussion about our differences.

Yes, I'm glad we can discuss this openly so that everyone can benefit from the curiosity of your questions since these are some of the most oft-repeated "concerns" that continue to get spread about livin' la vida low-carb. I'm anxious to set the record straight for people who believe these are actually true.

1) Nutritional deficiencies

The perception of a low-carb diet varies from person to person and diet to diet. Let's make sure that we are talking about the same thing. The traditional Atkins style low-carb diet consists of large amounts of meat, bacon, pork rinds, butter, etc.

Just as I will acknowledge that an all vegetable diet is not balanced, I hope that we can agree that an all meat diet is also unbalanced. A nutritional analysis of the meal plans recommended during the early stages of Atkins suggests that there are many nutrient deficiencies with this style of eating. We have computer programs that will analyze foods and tell you the overall vitamin and mineral content of the diet. Researchers have also done this and published the findings on Medline.

Anyone who has taken the time to actually read Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution or Atkins For Life books, they will very likely be shocked to learn that this diet, even during the misunderstood Induction phase, is very clearly NOT an all meat, bacon, pork rinds and butter nutritional approach. Some people do try to go on a zero-carb diet, but that's not the way recommended by Dr. Robert C. Atkins.

In fact, Dr. Atkins WARNED people about eating too much cured and processed meats since they are not as good for your body as whole meats are. The truth of the matter is that green leafy and other non-starchy vegetables are ENCOURAGED even during the most restrictive Induction phase of Atkins which only lasts for two weeks. The same goes for the widely accepted South Beach Diet, too.

Following those 14 days of Induction, even more healthy carbohydrates from such healthy foods as spinach, green beans, cauliflower, blueberries, strawberries, and melons are introduced to the menu of the typical low-carb dieter. This recent survey of active low-carbers found that vegetable consumption actually DOUBLES for people who begin the low-carb lifestyle while their meat and egg consumption remained the same as before or even decreased!

By all accounts, the low-carb plan is the most nutrient-dense way to eat on the planet. Compare low-carb eating with other so-called "balanced" diets and there's no comparison.

In this poster presentation at the NMS scientific sessions that took place in Brooklyn, New York in January 2006, four popular government "endorsed" dietary plans (AHA No-Fad, ADA, DASH and Food Pyramid) were found to be deficient in a number of essential nutrients at 2,000 calories as published for the public to follow. Men's Health magazine featured the ADA diet deficiency in its November 2006 issue and the ADA response was basically that 2,000 calories isn't enough calories to meet RDA's for all essential nutrients.

It is incumbent upon anyone promoting any diet to publish at least seven days of menus that are nutritionally complete for essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, trace elements), essential fatty acids and essential amino acids at the normal calorie level being promoted. Can we see such a menu from you, Kelly, because it would certainly allow us the opportunity to see what you believe is healthy?

If the "Shrinkdown" recommendations are sound and nutritionally complete, then such a request should be simple to fulfill and will benefit everyone participating in this weight loss program since such materials provide a real-world example of what is expected for consumption in the real world. Are you open to providing a seven-day menu to verifiably prove that the guidelines you've helped develop are nutritionally complete and not setting up nutritional deficiencies? We'll be waiting to see such a menu.

2) Cancer

I am also concerned about the link between excessive meat consumption and increased risk of cancer. High red meat consumption has been associated with higher rates of breast, prostate, colon, pancreatic, and kidney cancer.

Population and lab studies suggest this link. For example, higher intakes of meat generally correlate with higher incidences of these cancers. Researchers have suggested several possible mechanisms for this link.

One is that certain carcinogens may be formed during the cooking process. Chargrilling, frying, and smoking animal fat and protein can create substances such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Some of these substances are known carcinogens. This means that they may cause and accelerate the cancer process.

A high-fat diet has also been associated with cancer. This may be due to excess calories and obesity, but that doesn't seem to explain the whole picture. For example, when fat reaches the small intestine, the gallbladder squirts a little bile into the small intestine to help emulsify the fat (sort of like how Dawn detergent emulsifies grease when you do the dishes). Bile can be converted into secondary bile acids which are also carcinogens that seem to irritate the linings of the intestines and may accelerate the cancer process. Some evidence suggests that a high saturated fat intake increases the conversion of bile to secondary bile acids which compounds this effect.

Researchers have also suggested that excess heme iron in the diet may act as a pro-oxidant and be involved in the cancer process. Since red meat is a high source of bioavailable heme iron, this is another mechanism that may be at work.

Of course, there is an abundance of data suggesting that phytonutrients in plant foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, olives, nuts, etc.) reduce the incidence of cancer. Diets that restrict these foods may not provide optimal nutrient intake.

What are your definitions for "high" and "excessive" within the context of this discussion, Kelly? These are merely arbitrary without real numbers attached. We cannot adequately discuss this until these parameters are understood.

The fact that you cite one or two studies to declare proof that the low-carb diet is harmful is a bit ridiculous, especially when you are talking about cancer. I have studies showing that a low-fat, high-carb diet as promoted by you has actually been found to lead to cancer in the pancreas as well as in the esophagus. Can we conclude that these high-carb diets that you promote are highly carcinogenic based on these studies? It certainly appears to be that way according to the latest research!

Kelly is most certainly correct when she notes there is a study that shows what she says it does, but there are other studies that suggest it is the processes involved in oxidative damage that are the culprit. The following was recently published in Medical Hypothesis:

"Oxidative biochemical damage is widespread in diseases. It is apparent that decreasing the amount of dietary red meat will limit the level of oxidative catalysts in the tissues of the body. Increasing consumption of vegetables and fruits elevates the levels of antioxidative components, for example, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin C, lycopene, cysteine-glutathione and various phytochemicals. These detrimental processes of heme catalysis of oxidative damage hypothesized here are not well recognized."

Oxidative damage is harmful to our cells, but it again comes down to what constitutes a nutritionally complete diet. For example, the sulphur amino acids require B6 to be metabolized to antioxidants rather than oxidants (free radicals); deficiencies within the trans-sulfuration pathway induces the generation of reactive species of oxygen and halogens, homocysteine accumulation, and the synthesis of proinflammatory molecules by macrophages, thus contributing to pathologies like atherosclerosis and tumor development.

For example, methionine is a powerful antioxidant to clear free radicals, but can cause oxidative stress if you're not consuming adequate vitamin B-6. Inadequate supply of B6 would produce an oxidative environment in the body. Other cofactors are that are critical in the process too are B12, B-complex, choline, folic acid, and magnesium. So while it's easy to point to the potential of heme iron from meat, there are other equally important factors to consider before jumping the gun and suggesting individuals eliminate meat from an otherwise healthy and nutritionally complete diet!

3) Saturated fats

You mentioned that they were very healthy. I am interested to hear the logic behind that statement. I understand that during active weight loss, all bets are off. Saturated fats do not appear to increase LDL in some people while they are losing weight.

Since weight loss also tends to decrease LDL, the effect of saturated fats on LDL seems to be diminished in some people while they are losing weight. However, if you do a quick search of literature on Medline (what researchers use to evaluate published literature, www.pubmed.org), you will find thousands of articles describing the negative effects of saturated fats on raising LDL, risk for certain cancers, and other ailments.

It appears that the liver has a hard time clearing cholesterol when excess saturated fats are consumed. It may start to package more cholesterol as low-density lipoproteins. LDL, as you probably know, is involved in the process of atherosclerosis. It appears that when oxidized, LDL damages the delicate endothelial cells that line the arteries and starts the process of plaque build-up. LDL may also contribute to atherosclerosis by joining the plaque build-up itself (LDL acts kind of like spackle on walls).

Studies conducted before 2000 categorize trans fatty acids as saturated fats which merely serves to confuse the data. We must keep the proper context when discussing issues like this because it plays an important role in understanding what it all means.

We know from reviewing the literature that insulin is atherogenic and a high intake of carbohydrates stimulates both higher blood sugars and, thus, higher levels of insulin in the blood. This is why a low-carb diet was found in this study to actually LOWER the existence of saturated fat in the body compared with those on a low-fat diet. Hmmm, ironic, isn't it?

We also know, from decades of research that LDL cholesterol is most certainly NOT the whole story--HDL, triglycerides and the levels of the harmful vLDL are critically important to overall health and well-being. A low-carb diet not only has the potential to increase LDL (specifically the large "fluffy" benign type), but it raises HDL levels while significantly lowering triglycerides to below 100--considered VERY healthy! In fact, my HDL is around 72 and my triglycerides are at 43. Will anyone argue with me that this is unhealthy?

It is all too easy to adopt a viewpoint based on findings that are in agreement with your personal views. But a closer look at the actual literature that has been coming out in recent years and continues to pour out in 2007 very clear does not support the lipid hypothesis that so many health "experts" believe and often point to a different direction to consider when it comes to healthy cholesterol levels. Especially for people who are livin' la vida low-carb, the cholesterol concerns are a moot point.

Kelly, if you want to read more scientific data on this subject of cholesterol, then you may want to pick up a copy of the book The Great Cholesterol Con by independent researcher Anthony Colpo from Australia for more information. It's available on Amazon.com.

4) Bone health is my next concern. Meat contains high amounts of protein, especially sulfur containing amino acids. High protein intakes, especially of sulfur containing amino acids, appear to accelerate calcium excretion in the urine. This may contribute to a higher risk of osteoporosis. High protein diets have been associated with a higher rate of bone fracture (e.g., Harvard's Nurses Health study).

Again, I must ask, what is the definition of the word "high" in this context, Kelly? That's such an arbitray term--do you have any hard numbers you can assign to it?

But to directly address your point, I can point you to this study released in December 2006 that found low-CALORIE diets put bones at risk for degeneration, NOT low-carb ones. This was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, a highly respected medical journal. What is your response to that?

The sad thing is you hear critics blame low-carb diets on osteoporosis while the research continues to suggest strong bone health results from this way of eating and that low-carb bone loss is a myth.

There are many more studies that specifically say protein intake is NOT correlated with bone health, calcium loss leading to fractures, and that nutritional density of the diet is important to properly understand bone health.

5) Kidney and liver health are my next concerns.

Protein differs from fat and carbohydrate in several ways. While carb and fat are made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, protein also has nitrogen. This means that for protein to be metabolized (including for gluconeogenesis), your body must excrete the extra nitrogen. To do this, it kicks of the protein's amine group and excretes it as urea.

High amounts of urea may cause or worsen kidney complications. According to the American Liver Foundation "Certain proteins are converted into ammonia, a toxic metabolic product, by bacteria in the intestine or during the breakdown of body protein. The ammonia must be broken down by the liver and made into urea which is then excreted by the kidneys." They also add "good nutrition - a balanced diet with adequate calories, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates - can actually help the damaged liver to regenerate new liver cells."

In individuals with mild kidney disease, high protein diets can be life threatening (Please see proteinuria) The National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse adds "In people with diabetes, excessive consumption of protein may be harmful. Experts recommend that people with kidney disease of diabetes consume the recommended dietary allowance for protein, but avoid high-protein diets. For people with greatly reduced kidney function, a diet containing reduced amounts of protein may help delay the onset of kidney failure. Anyone following a reduced-protein diet should work with a dietitian to ensure adequate nutrition."

To sum all of that up, carbohydrates are clean burning fuel. They do not create excess metabolic waste products like urea that can damage the kidneys. When fats are metabolized without the presence of glucose, ketone bodies are formed. Since fats cannot be used by the brain and nervous system directly, ketones are formed to help the body survive during periods of starvation. Ketones can cause the blood pH to drop to deadly levels (also known as a diabetic coma).

The science behind this is very clear here. Anyone who has normal kidney function is NOT at any higher risk for kidney disease eating a low-carb diet. The issue of protein is a red herring and does not address the critical importance of nutrient-density as I have noted previously about this nutritional approach.

It is advised, across the board, by every medical professional who uses a low-carb nutritional approach on patients that those with advanced kidney disease should NOT follow this diet unless they are under strict medical supervision. Anyone with kidney disease should consult their physician before beginning a low-carb program. Those with normal kidney function are not going to get kidney disease just because they restrict their carbohydrates and eat foods like meat or eggs.

One final observation: Studies in real people with diabetes have found improvement in kidney function in those who follow a low-carb diet as well as a stabilization of their blood sugar levels. How about that?

6) Other interesting info according to Sizer and Whitney's Concepts and
Controversies

From my nutrition course that I teach at Furman:

"Scientists have only recently uncovered other roles for sugars in living tissues. For example, sugar molecules dangle from many of the body's fat and protein molecules. Once thought to be mere hitchhikers, these sugars can often have dramatic effects. They can change the shape of a protein, for instance, by altering its function. The protein of mucus, which protects body membranes and the digestive tract with a slippery coating, depends on a sugar molecule for its functional properties. Sugars also bind to cell membranes, affecting cellular interactions that may play roles in disease processes."

Of course, the authors are using the word "sugar" to describe the fragments of carbohydrate containing foods (mono- and disaccharides) and are not suggesting that we eat large amounts of table sugar (sucrose).

Humans have five ways to create increases of glucose in their bodies, but only one to lower it. This suggests that in the evolution of the human body, high blood sugar was not a threat to our ancestors who did not have the instant access to carbohydrates that we have today. Instead, what they dealt with was low blood sugar, so their body was able to create all the glucose it needed for survival.

As we stand today in 2007, there remains NO actual requirement for carbohydrates in the human body to survive, but we do NEED both fatty acids and amino acids from the fats and proteins we consume or we will die. Yes, you heard me correctly--we can all live just fine without consuming another carbohydrate for the rest of our lives (because of that amazing little process known as gluconeogenesis!).

7) Participant adherence is my final concern

The low-carbohydrate lifestyle is very challenging to adhere to. By offering participants a moderate approach to weight management (e.g., enjoy a variety of foods in moderate amounts, include moderate physical activity regularly), we hope that participants will learn a lifestyle that they can maintain long-term. If we suggested a more drastic approach such as low-carb, low-fat, or vegan diet, they may give up when it becomes difficult to adhere to it.

With regards to blood glucose control and insulin fluctuations, the American Diabetes Association actually encourages individuals with diagnosed diabetes to follow a balanced diet of fruits and vegetables (even starchy ones), whole grains, lean meats, and healthy fats. (Please see this article)

I am not sure that I understand the theory that eating more than 100 grams of carbohydrate per day would cause "spikes in blood sugar." By eating moderate amounts of complex carbs, fat, and protein over the course of the day (3-6 evenly spaced meals), the blood sugar should remain steady and little energy will be converted and stored as fat. Complex carbohydrates must be broken down before they are absorbed so they generally do not induce a large glycemic response (with the exception being fast acting starches like those in white potatoes). If you include small portions of healthy fats and lean protein with the meal, they delay the emptying of the stomach contents and also slow the glucose response.

I recall you mentioning that the meat focus is a myth about low-carb diets. This leads me to believe that you don't recommend this style of diet. Perhaps a healthier lower-carb approach would consist of an abundance of vegetables and fruits and moderate amounts of whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats. This follows the Mayo Clinic Healthy Weight Pyramid that we recommend during Shrinkdown.

Since we cannot medically supervise our participants and do not know if they have existing health complications (e.g., kidney, bone, liver disease or susceptibility to certain cancers), we feel that it would not be prudent for us to recommend a low-carbohydrate diet when we are aware of the potential risks.

Kelly, the fact is that ALL weight loss endeavors are a challenging venture regardless of the nutritional approach implored. Any effective weight loss plan is going to restrict SOMETHING--low-carb cuts back on the carbs, low-fat lowers the fat, low-calorie reduces caloric intake, and portion control decreases the amount of food consumed.

This deprivation that exists with all weight loss diets is crucial to seeing success. There's no way I could have ever lost over 190 pounds if I didn't cut back on carbs, calories, fat, or portions. But to remain healthy while losing the weight, it is important to choose a plan that will make that happen and provide adequate nutrients for your body. Livin' la vida low-carb was that plan for me and it could very well be the plan that works for many others, too!

My problem with the "Shrinkdown" recommendation is that it is a one-size-fits-all low-fat, low-calorie dietary approach with the exact same risks you expressed about low-carb diets. The participants really have no business blindly following these nutritional guidelines provided by you and the other "Shrinkdown" literature authors without consulting their doctors first to see if it is healthy for them.

The bottom line is the dietary recommendations made in the "Shrinkdown" program seem to be nutritionally deficient and may be leaving you and the organizers of this event open to liability for endorsing a blatantly unbalanced dietary approach that is in fact nutritionally deficient and incomplete when followed.

Of course, you can prove me wrong, Kelly, by providing a week's worth of menus that either meet or exceed the recommended daily nutrient requirements. If you cannot do this, then can you live with promoting a diet that may very well lead to chronic disease and quite possibly even death for the people following such a plan?!

Do you REALLY believe in your own diet enough that you are unashamed to provide just seven days of what a healthy low-fat, low-calorie diet should actually look like? I'm willing to continue the conversation if you are willing to submit what should be an extremely easy request. Are you up to the challenge, Kelly? I'll be waiting...