Quote:
Originally Posted by fgummett  Gary, you raise some interesting points for discussion. I am not aware of any GI tract issues associated with eating a higher-percentage of fat. I understand that recently published long-term studies have discredited the idea the fibre is protective of the GI tract.
I would ask you to consider why you asked, "Is low-carbing a case of reducing risk with diabetes but increasing risk elsewhere?" instead of, "Is low-fat eating a case of reducing risk in one area but increasing risk elsewhere?" both are equally valid questions, and yet the default position seems to be that it is the low-carb which has to be on the defensive.
Fat is not a demon... many physiological systems including the brain rely on a careful balance of fats.
By the way, I do not believe that the traditional Japanese diet was chiefly rice and noodles. |
Hi Frank,
Yes, you can ask the question the 'other way'. The reason it's asked the way round that I did is that a diet that includes all food groups with carbs being the biggest group is because it's the norm for the vast majority of the planet; a high fat, low carb diet is not.
I am just asking 'are there any negative consequences in other areas' for a diet that you (and many others) consider beneficial in terms of blood glucose and feeling full etc. Just trying to get a balanced view. Low carb clearly gives benefits to many people in some areas, but is there another part to this story?
And yes, I'm simplifying the Japanese diet. But again it's to point out that some folks do just fine on a diet that is very high carb just as the Inuits seem to on high fat.
I do not think that fat is evil. Some folks certainly think that carbs are. Not aiming that at you, but there is a lot of venom chucked in the direction of carbs as a group and it isn't all entirely deserved.
Gary
