Hi Forge,
With the greatest of respect, you claim to have dug in and “know it all” yet the two links you originally provided do very little to support your case. This is because they assess Low carb versus low fat diets, and their readout is weight loss. They do not largely interrogate low carb + high fat versus low carb + high protein (which is what you largely seem to be resisting, i.e. the idea that you need to have high fat for a successful low carb diet) and they also do not interrogate the benefits most here look for in a diet – not weight loss, but sustainability in a diet that provides the most stable BS levels, whilst reducing insulin/meds needs and hypo episodes (while retaining other good health markers). Those studies do not largely assess this.
Additionally, you are a Type 2 who cannot tolerate fat (which is unfortunate for you) and of course you are coming from your own experience – which was the point of my previous post that people who experience positive benefit are not part of a “fad” – it is real to them. Something has worked for you – great, that does not mean it will work for everyone. You may be the outlier, you may be the norm. That is what we are trying to establish. Furthermore, the issues that face a T1 are quite different to T2 when it comes to protein intake and also how many carbs they can tolerate and which type of carbs.
Looking at it from the T1 perspective, someone like myself (and many others claim) may most benefit from stable BS and reduced insulin usage (hence reduced hypos) by utilising as low as 50g/day of carbohydrates in their diet. This 50g comes largely from vegetables, nuts, etc and non-sugary or starchy sources (i.e. they make up a small percentage of the food). As such, I would be achieving 200kCal from carbohydrate per day. If I wish to maintain my weight let us say I need as a “typical male”, around 2500kCal/day. Thus I have to make up 2300kCal from fat and protein. Now if you choose to keep fats lower, i.e. say 30% of cals: that is 750kCal from fat (i.e.80-85g). So this leaves me with 1550kCal to consume and the only source will be protein. That is therefore 385-390g of protein per day.
Now I realise that the literature may often overestimate the damage of high protein diets on the kidney but this is still an issue along with other problems that high protein diets entail. Anyway, nearly 400g of protein a day is not only a potential health issue (renal function) and very hard to achieve, but as a T1 it is an issue for need of insulin. The point being – excess of protein can cause a rise in BS of an insulin-sensitive, insulin-dependent individual. This is more extreme then with a T1 than a T2. Fat does not have the same outcome and is an excellent source (better than protein) of energy.
If you want to understand this better I suggest reading Volek and Phinney on the subject. They have over 50 years’ experience between them in this field and published many papers on the subject. What they interestingly show (apart from diabetes) as well with regards to weight loss is that when you look in general at people who take LC vs LF diets, you sometimes do not see a large difference over say an extended time period such as 1 year. But when you select for those people who show the classic pre-markers for a disposition to insulin resistance (and metabolic syndrome), you see a marked difference and the LC diet hugely outperforms a LF diet. This highlights the individuality of responses, and how studies performed on non-stratified individuals can dilute out such observations.
It has also been mentioned before that a big issue for anyone who needs to adopt a lifestyle diet, is adherence. Studies generally show that diets richer in fats and low in carbs fare better for satiety and dietary adherence when compared with low fat diets rich in carbohydrates. Further, the satiety of fat often is reported to outperform the satiety of protein.
It is fantastic that you have found a diet that works well for you and that you can adhere to. Please do not though as a consequence assume that a) it will work for others just as well and b) other approaches are inferior/do not work. Neither are true. You claim that humans are actually quite similar but if that is the case why do some people get type 2 diabetes with a great life diet whilst others completely abuse their diets and never develop T2 diabetes? Because of our genetic variation. Why are there ranges for different blood markers, some wider than others? Because of our genetic variation. Why do some diets work well for some people but not for others? Same reason. If you really are convinced this is not true, then please come work in the pharmaceutical/clinical trials field and show us where we go wrong in this field where we see a 50% response in a small 20-patient Phase I study and then in a 500-patient Phase III study a drug completely fails.
You make the claim that you are somehow an expert in this area from your research but quite frankly based on what you have said so could many other people in this thread who have engaged in these diets and performed their own research - and found that for them, LCHF works very well. Again, I believe you are largely correct when you say that calories determine weight loss or gain but you are missing the main point of this thread – it is in the T1 forum and people here are largely more concerned with good BS control, stable levels, and reduced risk of hypo (from reduced needs for insulin and unpredictable BS readings). This is really not to do with weight loss at all so the total calorie argument is not a concern for most here. For many T1’s, a high protein diet is a poorer option for this than a HF one.
