MariusA wrote:You all bombarded him with evidence supporting a totally opposite way of eating, very brutally said that a whole plant based diet is the only diet for him.
No, that is not what I am saying. I'm not even arguing
for McDougall. I am saying that the physiological rationale for low-carb (high-fat) is bulls##t. Their assumptions about how the body works haven't withstood experimental scrutiny. Bigbear came into this thread preaching, "This diet can't work for a diabetic because I know my meter, and boyyy, if I eat a potato..." etc., and I tried to give an inkling (based on my admittedly
very limited knowledge) why this is simplistic and myopic. Of course glucose and insulin should run in the favorable range over the long-run, but (1) it's not like those are the only (or even the most important) measures of health; (2) it's not true that the only (or even the best) way to achieve this is by eating high-fat.
MariusA wrote:Again, try Atkin's, see if it works, if not try McDougall, with the same adherence. This is the most objective I can be.
On what basis should one determine whether it "works"? Weight loss? Ease of compliance? Biomarkers? (Which?)
I'm reminded of Agatston's diet (or the later Atkins Bigbear referred to). You start on the strict Phase 1 (keto) and lose 10 lbs (of glycogen/water) in the first 45 minutes. Awesome! You intend to soldier on with your cheese omelets and Ketostix, because you've extrapolated the weight loss and concluded that you'll hit your ideal weight by 10 o'clock tonight, but you're getting those 'carb cravings'. Damn. So you proceed into Phase 2 and up the carbs a bit, still eating gobs of 'lean protein' and 'healthy fat'. Weight
jumps on reintroduction of carbs (muscle/liver glycogen repletion), and that scares you, but it seems to stabilize (phew!) and proceed slowly downward. Finally you reach a happy place weight-wise (or more likely, throw your hands up from your periodic carb binges) and proceed to 'Phase 3, Maintenance', which is really 'eat whatever you want.' Weight goes right back up. You conclude: it's the damn carbs; back to Phase 1. This repeats for a few cycles until you conclude that you're genetically 'carb-sensitive.' "I just can't handle carbs. I know how my body responds."
Just an example of how the "objective" self-experimentation you recommend could easily "prove" a conclusion that's totally spurious.
Why am I on one about this? Because this stupidity is hurting people -- including people I know personally and care about.