Why Are The Low-Carb and Ketogenic Movements So Intent On Developing a Dishonest, Sycophantic Following?

A few days ago there was a New York Times article that made low-carbers palpably giddy and vindicated: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat. I was so amused seeing all the high-five references throughout the sphere, I didn’t even bother to read the article itself.

Until this morning.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.


Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

In other words, sugar and fat had a war, and sugar won. Perhaps ‘fat’ needs a trade group. Look, if you’re going to play, then play. Don’t cry. Keys kicked your asses. Tough luck.

The question is, if you think he was dishonest (that may not be actually true), then why double down and be just as much or more dishonest?

…Last night I caught a Facebook post by Andreas Eenfeldt, Diet Doctor—who now claims to be the most popular low-carb resource on the Internet (sorry Jimmy). But, the blog post is, quite frankly, double-face-palm stupid. Why does he want to lie like that? He says:

Finally revealed, the hidden truth behind Ancel Keys’ famous fat graph.

Sugar was the link. Yudkin was right.


I’ll just quote what I wrote at the time, last night, because it ought to require nothing more for such a dumb-ass, dishonest, pablum-load of twaddle.

This is mind blowing and illustrates the deep, deep confirmation bias in the Low Carb community at large.

Two very big problems with Diet Doctor’s “analysis.” And if you look at the comments and replies on the FB post so far, every single comment buys this entirely but for a single comment.

  1. If the saturated fat data is cherry picked bias, then so is the sugar data because it’s astoundingly similar for each country.
  2. The combined data is far better taken as two mutual confounders rather than picking one or the other as an association more likely to lead to a single cause.

And this is the real shame about this sort of bias on both sides. It keeps both sides from coming up with a more likely scenario: that the COMBINATION of high fat AND high carbohydrate is what’s the bad idea.

Which makes sense, because we can observe decent outcomes with people on a high carb low fat whole food diet, as we can with people on a low carb high fat whole food diet.

They likely ought to have an inverse emphasis in the human diet, on average, with protein making up the 20-30% balance.

Duh. Beyond that, and emphasizing the context of predominately whole foods, it’s really just a matter of preference and what you can stick to more on average.

Here was the sole and single dissenting comment out of  lot I saw last night:

Brett Graham: Ancel Keyes did not cherry pick his data. If he did he could have cherry picked 6 different countries to better support his hypothesis. He even explained the reason for his choices; he chose the countries with the most reliable data.

As to the graph on the right, it’s data from 1969, not from 1953. And by the way, why are we waving this graph around like its some kind of victory for fat? Look at the data points; fat correlates better than sugar for CVD. So correlation doesn’t equal causation except when it satisfies your biases?

Alright, this sort of self-serving dishonestly for the sake of a parade of sycophants automatons is not worth any more time. Shame on you, Andreas. Why do you feel the need to lie, like that?

I’ll conclude: in nature, you predominately experience foods that are hight fat and low carb, or high carb and low fat. Go figure, you bunch of dummies.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Ray on September 20, 2016 at 11:19

    I tend to keep a lower level of body fat even eating some home made sweet potato fries and things of that nature. Granted I am using coconut oil in place of bullshit seed oils but still. Eating high fat and high carb is only an issue if overall caloric intake is controlled IMO. I’m sick of seeing people talk about how we cant have both at the same meal because of “the Randle Cycle” says you can’t. I’m ranting, thanks Richard!

    • LaFrite on September 21, 2016 at 12:21

      That’s exactly that! It does not matter what your macros are so long as you keep your overall caloric input in check. If you find yourself gaining body fat, you simply store too much. The strategy then is to reduce your food input without changing anything if you like your diet to start with. The way you reduce it could be that you only eat 2/3 of what you normally eat, or you skip a meal a few times a week. That’s all it takes usually.

    • Matt on September 22, 2016 at 11:34

      Can’t reply to you below for the Stephan Guyenet link you sent, so I’ll reply here. There are other variables at play in metabolic syndrome. For one, if you eat carbs and insulin fails to suppress FFA’s because you are insulin resistant, what ensues is far worse than hypoglycemia, as the FFA’s impair the ability of glucose to enter the cell, which leads to hyperglycemia, aka diabetes.

      There are some people who can eat carbs forever and they never develop insulin resistance, and there are some people who are born insulin resistant. Most people are in the middle, where gradually over a lifetime their cells become less receptive to insulin, which means everyone eventually becomes sort of diabetic. All foods raise insulin, but fat and protein less so than carbs. Saturated fat makes us more insulin resistant that monounsaturated fat, so that’s probably why the studies where butter gets paired with starch look bad for insulin, but saturated fat poses minimal threat when not combined with carbs. Monounsaturated fat is better to eat with carbs than saturated fat, as it generates less insulin resistance.

      Anyways, the success of cultures like the Japanese on a high carb diet, where they eat white rice their entire lives without much issue, can be chalked up to the fact that: 1. they aren’t eating much fat with the carbs, meaning the meals are automatically lower calorie, and also interfere less with the partitioning of glucose by insulin, 2. they eat a relatively low calorie diet, some figures citing half the average caloric intake of people in the U.S., 3. they are smaller, a factor which is associated with longevity, 4. they drink a lot of green tea, which somehow helps partition glucose to muscle tissue preferentially.

  2. MikeT on September 20, 2016 at 11:51

    I thought the same thing myself when I saw the graph. Essentially the same relationship between sugar and saturated fat and left me wondering why Dr. Eenfeldt thought it bolstered his case.

    • thhq1 on September 23, 2016 at 08:20

      Since everyone appears to have a dog in this 1960’s rehash, I found this review of The Sugar Conspiracy to be a good neutral referee:

      I really like the comparison between Yudkin’s creative statistical/experimental sloppiness (eyeballing single-factor trends) vs Keys brutish multifactorial/multinational statistical/experimental bulldozing. Yudkin’s graph of increasing TV licenses vs CVD rate, for instance, because they agreed on this one. Both were concerned about the detrimental effect of sedentary behavior. Yudkin drives this home better than he does with his sugar graph. It’s something that gets edited out by the single-minded modern anti-sugar journalists.

    • thhq on September 24, 2016 at 08:08

      It’s not like NYT has brought a fresh dog to this fight. Yudkin and Pauling had their effect on the 1970’s McGovern guidelines, which recommended reducing added sugar in the SAD by 40%. Did this reduce sugar-eating? No, so this time let’s tax it. Will this do any good? Our problem in 2016 is obesity not 1970’s CVD mortality. IMO cutting back sugar calories will only result in eating more cheap and unhealthy chip calories.

  3. Hap on September 20, 2016 at 13:04

    I have no f’in idea how to interpret this data. What we don’t know(except for common sense) is a shit load.

    However, I think we can make something out of dietary interventions. If you are developing diabetes, a low fat high carb consumption is going to make it worse. when you graduate to insulin therapy you will be damned if you make no dietary changes.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 20, 2016 at 16:29

      I don’t believe that anymore, Hap. Depends upon the makeup and calories.

      We know that a period of caloric restriction cures most T2 diabetes.

    • Hap on September 21, 2016 at 09:39


      I understand the metabolic issues are not well understood and that seemingly diametric strategies may provide some solutions….at least for a while, and in some people Obviously a LCHF type of diet will not necessarily do anything salutary if grossly hypercaloric, or lets say consisted of 10-20 teaspoons of table sugar and a vat of olive oil….for the day. Versus something more “balanced” with complex carbs and a small amount of fat.

      I don’t know that caloric restriction will cure most T2 diabetes since metabolic adaptation occurs to counteract unless the calorie restriction is fairly profound (ie bariatric surgery) or if periods of fasting.

      Last point….insulin therapy , while protective of glucotoxicity in the short run is almost always problematic when it comes to weight gain….and lots of de novo lipogenesis because the glucose you force into the liver has to be dealt with. Cramming glucose into cells also has the effect of reinforcing the hunger cycle.

      I personally would not be adverse to a radical dietary intervention like potato hack or something that might alter gut flora, having to do with “lots of carbs” in the right form. It could be something like a crap shoot and if not working….speedily discontinued. Obviously, weight loss is a confounder since the simple fact of losing weight helps….carb or fat loaded….or not.

      Pardon that I am very dubious about the general application of the “Rice diet” for doing much good. But, for the time being, this is a “free country” and folks should make their choices……..but own the consequences.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 22, 2016 at 11:10

      You are right, Matt.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 21, 2016 at 22:38

      Dude, you’re thinking.

      It’s what I usually try to do and thus, find myself at odds with lots, often.

      I’m thinking, now and recently, that T2 is mostly a function of eating too much, too often, to the point where fat cells are tired of getting bigger so no more glucose sequester, since you keep eating and there’s no corresponding energy demand, dude. 🙂

      See, eat less move more can be elegantly stated. 😉

      But a bit more seriously, since I’m doing slogans and bromides, I prefer: move more, eat less. Think about it.

      Anyway, everyone keep thinking. If it were simple, it would still be 1940.

    • Matt on September 22, 2016 at 08:48

      Type 2 diabetes is a function of insulin resistance. Caloric restriction helps restore insulin sensitivity by decreasing the total amount of insulin your cells are exposed to. Carbohydrate releases more insulin than fat, and fat and carbohydrate release more insulin together, but obviously it depends on total calorie intake. The problem with recommending a high carb diet to a diabetic is that carbohydrate, in spiking insulin so high, lowers blood sugar dramatically, causing a rebound in hunger that increases the likelihood of overeating. You can see how this spike, crash, binge can become a vicious cycle. Obviously carbs by themselves aren’t as bad as fat and carbs together, which is why no one is recommending a high fat, high carb diet to reverse metabolic issues. The question is, what is better for reversing metabolic issues, fat or carbs? IME, fat.

    • LaFrite on September 22, 2016 at 08:54

    • sassysquatch on September 21, 2016 at 04:09

      Actually, McDougall has a very high success rate of reversing type 2 diabetes with a diet composed of 70 to 90% starch, fruits and non starchy veggies. It doesn’t get much higher carb than that……except for maybe the ‘Rice diet’, popularized by Walter Kempner, which is basically white rice, fruit juices and table sugar. He also had great success reversing diabetes and other diseases.

    • Matt on September 23, 2016 at 13:00

      Yea it is possible to fix some issues with high carb low fat.

    • Hap on September 26, 2016 at 00:01

      I admit to being confused. Too many paradigms with truth kernels leading to paradox. Paradox is a sign that premises and assumptions require reevaluation. One wonders what elephant in the room is plainly invisible? Fats, carbs, insulin, gut flora, thyroid, autoimmunity, toxins, energetics,genetics, epicene tics…and on and on. It’s fucking over whelming.

      I would like to see better proxies and convenient bio markers that correlate with meaningful clinical change. Hard to beat a scale, pant size, attitude, body temperature. But we like more real time indicators.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 26, 2016 at 04:42

      A paradox is merely bias talking.

      My favorite “paradox” is that the French eat 40% more wheat than Amicans,

    • LaFrite on September 26, 2016 at 06:44


      For me, it became clear when I saw this guy go on a “Twinkie” diet to drop some weight, which he did, and improve the usual health markers. The elephant in the room is CALORIES. The only practical issue with that is that you can’t really know how much you need in terms of maximum to cover the basics (basal MR and activity). So the only thing one can do is to use proxies such as weight, waist measurement, etc, and regularly monitor: if you gain body fat, decrease how much you eat, increase physical activity and sleep better – does not matter what you really eat, so long as you have enough macros to fuel your basal metabolic rate and preserve lean mass, and enough micros not to enter deficiency territory (*)

      (*) that is why meals centered around beans and spuds are great. The rest is condiments, if only to remain sane 🙂

    • Alec on September 21, 2016 at 07:06

      When I went paleo it made my fasting glucose and A1C worse. My fasting glucose was 119. My total cholesterol was 260 and my LDL was 160. After reducing saturated fat intake for 90 days, and increasing starches such as rice and poratoes, my total cholesterol is now 143 with an LDL of 93. My fasting glucose is now 105. Not perfect but better than 119. Also, I used to believe it was nearly impossible for anyone to get LDL below 105 – 120 range without statins.

      Also saturated fat increases insulin resistance in some people. So if low carb is helping people with type 2 then they might want to stay on it. But if not perhaps they are saturated fat sensitive and should consider a diet lower in saturated fat in the range of 7% to 10% of total calories.

    • sassysquatch on September 23, 2016 at 04:51

      Dr Caldwell Esselstyn, one of the leading cardiologists in the country says that ALL processed fats (oils) cause insulin issues. Even the sacred olive oil and coconut oil. And, beyond even the insulin issues, are the main reason for out of control heart disease in the western world.

  4. Renaud on September 20, 2016 at 14:03

    Was it the sugar ? The fat ? On both sides lobbyists paid researchers. That’s nothing new. And on both sides you can find the bloody weapons you search for near the dead bodies, as the obvious truth is that simple (and unsexy) : it’s the excess of BOTH CARB & FAT that is deadly. It’s piling too much food calories over too few exercise expense. And to success at excess, you (almost) HAVE to do BOTH sugar and fat, mostly from non-whole food. Period.

    Try to gains weight on an all-potato diet, or an all cheese diet. Good luck !

    As for Andreas (and nearly all the other LCK bloggozealots), it’s all lies and skewed facts to serve an agenda. That’s all the more disheartening when they dare say “the others” lied or distorted the facts !

    I did LCK in the past, and i still think it’s a viable option in some cases. I’m not “against” it. But I’m against the criminals who LIE to us to make money and build their cult. LC often helps to lose weight, but the reason for it is not at all that carbs are evil.

    • thhq on September 20, 2016 at 19:47

      Amen. I’ve seen too many empty mylar chip bags lying around schoolyards to believe kids are getting fat on candy canes.

  5. Steven on September 20, 2016 at 14:40


    This all proves one thing to me. And we see it repeated ad nauseam; people will blindly follow and cognitively deceive themselves in to believing whatever they want to believe.

    We see it in politics.
    We see it in art.
    We see it in food.
    We see it in sports
    We see it in religion.

    “Whatever mine is, it is better than yours”.

    So few people have the will and self discipline to challenge themselves. That is why people that do challenge themselves are seen as outliers or miscast members of society.

    Everyone is an extrovert except the for introverts. Meaning: Everyone is willing to proudly display there knowledge to the world, no matter how wrong or disproved, for getting their deeply held biases confirmed except for the retards of society (ahem) willing to stare at them all and flip them the bird.

    I use the introvert/extrovert relationship in reference to the antagonism they have towards one another.

    Extroverts necessarily do it for the back pats and to make friends. They will never understand deep reflection of self vs self (me vs me). Challenging my own ego with my own wisdom and newly gained knowledge. Unless of course it means getting more ‘likes’.

    Introverts do it to be correct no matter whom gets run over. We may use very extroverted tools but when dealing with extroverts but, you have to.

    The Diet Dr. is a very extroverted person. You are an Introvert. Don’t argue… you are.

    Self-reflection comes from within. And group acceptance means nothing.

  6. rob on September 20, 2016 at 18:36

    Figures don’t lie, but figurers do.

  7. thhq on September 20, 2016 at 19:38

    It’s all in the chips IMO. 50% starch carbs, 50% fat, all from seeds and highly processed. None of it sugar. We eat 500 kcal more of this junk per day than we did in 1970.

    So was it the fat? Was it the carbs? Or was the overeating?

    The only thing certain is that sugar was only a minor contributor to the calorie increase.

    • thhq on September 20, 2016 at 19:40

      er seed and potato starch…thank you Bert Lahr…

  8. George Ironthumb on September 21, 2016 at 10:34

    I myself consume fat or carbs LIBERALLY!

    I eat shit loads of meat, fat, with shit loads of rice!

    Although 90% of that came from home cooked foods bought from the local market so maybe that is why I am fine. And I also lift like mad man regularly. So you see, its that simple.

  9. Jin on September 21, 2016 at 03:13

    Is it the carbs? Is it the fat? Is it the calories? Or is it science of how to get us to consume the maximum amount of food while driving down costs of producing that food? Duck Dodger’s articles made me realise if governments stopped messing with our food so many lives could be improved and saved. For me having to work how many grams of this that or the other to consume to stay healthy is managing the situation, not curing it. We need to get back to the reset point where nobody thought about carbs or fat or calories and everybody was generally slim.

    • thhq1 on September 21, 2016 at 09:09

      We are a herd managed both for mass consumption and for optimal health.

      The USDA manages the whole thing in the USA. Their damning reports show the increase in calorie consumption 1970-2010 and precisely what foods we overconsume. They also work hand-in-hand with the farmers, industry and ag schools to increase production of the seed grains and potatoes that make up those same foods.

      Promoting more low quality food at lower price is in conflict with promoting healthier food, within the same department.

  10. Waltermcc on September 21, 2016 at 06:30


    If I was not an addict (alcohol stopped in 1987, nicotine 1991, sugar 2009), I would have Cocoa Puffs and Frosted Flakes in my pantry to be eaten with half and half and cream. But I can’t, because Cocoa Puffs is Jack Daniels.

    We grew up with every fruit, vegetable, fat and processed food known to man, but it was all distributed very nicely by a homemaker who would not have known the damn difference between them. What is important is there was no low fat, fat free industry back then. The government fucked it all up (I can’t believe I just typed that).

  11. thhq1 on September 21, 2016 at 13:44

    I pulled out Keys’ 1959 Eat Well and Stay Well again to read what he said about sugar. Not a lot. He didn’t consider it part of a balanced diet and generally stayed away from sodas and candy. Here’s a quote from my UK edition:

    “Among the carbohydrates in the British diet, the proportion of sugars to starches has increased in modern times; we eat more sugar and much less starch than formerly. We do not object to sugar within reason but this is scarcely a change for the better. Besides the suspicion that sugar promotes tooth decay (dental caries), sugar is a highly refined chemical which carries only calories, none of the protein, vitamins, and minerals that most other foods provide in some measure.”

    It strikes me as interesting that Keys doesn’t connect sugar with CV in 1959, 6 years after his famous Nations graph and 8 years before the sugar industry’s cover-up study. It’s clear that Keys was no supporter of sugar-eating. If he had seen a connection with heart health he would have damned it more than he did.

    • thhq1 on September 21, 2016 at 13:55

      By contrast, Keys loved his wine. The passage quoted on sugar is the longest one in the book. Wine gets a whole 8 page chapter. He never defends wine as nutritious either:

      “Its real virtue, shared to a lesser extent with other alcoholic beverages, is a contribution to gracious living.”

    • thhq on September 22, 2016 at 19:46

      Reading more about the Keys vs Yudkin fight, I see two single-minded nutrition scientists with differing agendas. Keys chased dietary fat, Yudkin chased excessive carbs especially sucrose. Keys was much better funded and picked Yudkin apart for experimental deficiencies, particularly for ignoring the confounding of sucrose and smoking. Yudkin was dismissive of the importance of fat at all, which no doubt increased the rancor.

      Both considered added sugar and ketosis unacceptable. Both wrote successful, effective, popular diet books. Both led very long lives. And both were successful academics. So it’s hard for me to grasp how Taubes and Lustig can turn Yudkin into a martyr and Keys into a devil. Other than that they have personal financial interests.

      Added sucrose has little relevance to the current obesity crisis. 80% of the 500 kcal per day increase in food consumption 1970-2010 is starches and fats, primarily from seeds. A large snack bag of Cheetos a day. Only 6% – 30 kcal per day – is from added sugar. An extra Coke a week. Not that added sugar is a health panacea, but Taubes and Lustig aren’t addressing the current crisis. They’re lost in some 1960’s Twilight Zone time warp.

  12. RS on September 22, 2016 at 04:48

    I find it interesting that Ancel Keys lived to be 100, yet no one mentions that… There’s a really old time magazine article where Ancel talks about his diet – I remember it seemed pretty low fat and he seemed to have an opinion that overall calories matter

    • thhq on September 22, 2016 at 06:52

      He was negative on hard fats, both animal and vegetable. In 1959 he embraced most liquid vegetable fats, but shifted to olive oil exclusively after moving to Italy in the 60’s. From what I’ve read he and his wife used olive oil liberally in their cooking.

    • JP on September 23, 2016 at 08:54

      While it’s anecdotal, I find the whole-food, plant-based gurus stay much trimmer and healthier into old age than the HFLC types. There are even a few Youtube videos about it. Look at Keys, the senior Esselstein, McDougal (now in his 70s), etc. vs. 250+ pound Atkins, Sally Fallon, Lustig and the relatively young Jimmy “Pass the Butter” Moore.

    • thhq on September 23, 2016 at 10:20

      I first got interested in Keys after reading a hit-piece Eades wrote comparing him with Jack Lalanne in old age. Considering that Keys outlived Lalanne, and that both their diets were LFHC, it seemed preposterous that Eades would even compare them. But I’ll give him credit for opening my eyes to dietary and exercise strategies which are far superior to his own.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that Atkins probably died from some kind of CVD event. The massive weight gain after his fall is more typical of a heart failure edema than the outcome of a head injury.

    • venturecap on September 23, 2016 at 17:26

      What a fat fuck. Just lay off the calories and stop licking sticks of butter and swallowing buckets of cream. You don’t even really need to exercise that much.

    • pinkface on September 23, 2016 at 21:24

      Richard, I think you should go all Doctor Phil on Jimmy Moore and stage an intervention. Walk in on him with video cameras rolling along with some well respected people like Sisson, Berkhan, Colpo and Kurt Harris to quiz him on his diet, go through his fridge and work out just how many fucking calories he’s shoving into his face every day. Then you can take him up to your cabin for 3 months, cut him off from all food except daily calorie controlled portions for every meal. Make him walk your dogs for 10 miles a day and feed him some fiber too to cleanse that mighty colon of his.


    • LaFrite on September 24, 2016 at 04:19

      Come on pinkface, so much “stress” would certainly derail the effort 😀

  13. Sidney on September 22, 2016 at 20:57

    They are biased because they have a whole lot of over-priced foods and supplements to sell to their gullible followers.

  14. Jonathan on September 23, 2016 at 12:58

    Silly Richard, he asks the question as if human beings are logical and willing to change opinions based upon new and more reliable evidence.

  15. venturecap on September 23, 2016 at 17:21

    This is so easy. The correlation is entirely spurious. Sugar and fat combined is probably one of the easiest ways to get excess calories into your body. The cause is excess calories in total (which the charts above do not show). If you do not see this and require more explanation I would suggest that you go and fuck yourself.

  16. venturecap on September 24, 2016 at 17:56

    Art Devany is on the rise again – four Facebook posts in just 2 days. I suspect he will regain his position as leader of the Paleo movement.

    • Hap on September 28, 2016 at 18:00

      Ok…so what’s a person to do? LCHF bad. HCLF bad. Protein somewhat bad. Too many calories bad. Calorie restriction…….eh. Supplements suck. I will keep my CoQ10 and D3 with K2.

      Hmmm……Fasting…..can be pretty good.

      Metformin…..even for non diabetics might be interesting for the adventurous.

    • LaFrite on September 29, 2016 at 07:02

      Ok…so what’s a person to do?

      Just eat when hungry (prefer real foods over dubious lab manufactured chemical mixes), and live: move, play, sleep, have sex, enjoy good stuff and people.

  17. EDR on September 29, 2016 at 09:11

    Very interesting read. I went through my low carb high fat phase…now am eating tons of carbs (mostly from home made bread and potatoes) and I feel great. No more low carb space man days.

    One thing that still irks me is the word calorie. I see if everywhere like it is the be all and end all to success in losing body fat. As a guy who used to weight 300 pounds (around 205 these days) I won’t deny that eating less and moving more can = fat loss. But I can’t put all of my faith in the mystical calorie which doesn’t exist in nature…it is just a unit of measurement…and in my opinion, not a very good one.

    I’ve done the very high fat super low carb thing and saw first hand how calories didn’t seem to matter in that scenario, but it certainly wasn’t ideal or healthy (especially not for my gut). But from some of the research I’ve done on different types of fat and how they are utilized by the body…once again I just can’t let go of the fact that we are missing some key information about how our metabolism works. Sure, keeping fat low while eating higher carb works…but has to be a lot more going on inside us than something akin to a bunsen burner. And more importantly, this type of analysis doesn’t take satiety, both physical and emotional into account.

    So I’ll conclude that calorie counting is a “less wrong” approach but it still feels wrong to me. Personally, I’ve never counted them. I pay attention to a few key things to monitor my fat loss – quality and amount of food (ie smaller balanced meals of wholesome quality), good exercise, waist measurement, how my clothes fit and most importantly my emotional relationship with food.

    These are things I can see, feel and wrap my head around.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k