Recently, I’ve been hearing from many patients who have read Dr. Perlmutter’s new book, Grain Brain, and are now concerned about their carb intake. In his book, Dr. Perlmutter suggests that dietary carbohydrates cause high blood sugar, inflammation, and other effects that lead to a “toxic brain,” which can then develop into neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, depression, and others. Based on this line of causality, he recommends that everyone consume a very low carb diet (<60g per day) in order to prevent neurological disease.
First of all, I’d like to point out that very low carb (VLC) and ketogenic diets can be effective therapeutic tools for treating many neurological disorders. I touched on this briefly a while back in my podcast with Emily Deans, and initial studies on low-carb diets and mental health have shown promise. (1, 2, 3, 4) Because Dr. Perlmutter is a neurologist, it makes sense that he would be a proponent of low-carb diets for his patients based on these therapeutic effects.
Does eating carbs destroy your brain and lead to neurological disease?
However, recommending a low-carb diet as an intervention for sick people is very different from promoting it as a preventative measure for the entire population, which is what Dr. Perlmutter does in Grain Brain. His approach would be somewhat akin to recommending that everyone go on the Autoimmune Protocol to prevent autoimmune disease, which would be unnecessarily restrictive and unhelpful. It’s important to realize that just because a low-carb diet can help treat neurological disorders, doesn’t mean the carbs caused the disorder in the first place. While I don’t argue with the idea that refined and processed carbs like flour and sugar contribute to modern disease, there’s no evidence to suggest that unrefined, whole-food carbohydrates do. In fact, there are three compelling reasons why this is not the case.
#1 – We Evolved Eating Whole-Food Carbohydrates
The first reason it doesn’t make sense that carbohydrates cause neurological disorders is that we’ve been eating carbs for a very long time, and we’re well adapted to digesting and metabolizing them. For instance, fruit has been part of the human diet for longer than we’ve been recognizably human, and while starch hasn’t been part of the human diet for quite as long, it’s clear that we’ve evolved mechanisms to digest and utilize it efficiently.
Compared with most primates, humans have many more copies of the gene AMY1, which is essential for breaking down starches. (5) This gene is unusual in that the number of copies varies greatly between populations, with more copies present in populations that consume more starch. This indicates that starch played a significant role in our evolution, and some scientists have even argued that consumption of starch was partially responsible for the increase in our brain size.
In addition to possessing the ability to break down complex carbohydrates, our bodies require glucose to function properly and maintain homeostasis. The fact that humans can produce glucose from protein is often used as an argument that we don’t need to eat glucose, but rather than viewing this as evidence that that glucose isn’t important, we might view it as evidence that glucose is so metabolically essential that we evolved a mechanism to produce it even when it’s absent from the diet.
#2 – There Are Many Traditional Cultures with High Carb Intake and Low or Nonexistent Rates of Neurological Disease
If carbohydrates cause neurological disorders, one would expect to see high rates of dementia and similar diseases in populations where carbs constitute a significant portion of the diet. But as it turns out, many of the cultures that maintain the lowest rates of neurological and other inflammatory disease rely heavily on carbohydrate-dense dietary staples. For example, the Hadza of north-central Tanzania and the Kuna of Panama obtain a high percentage of their total calories from foods that are high in natural sugars, such as fruit, starchy tubers and honey, yet they are remarkably lean, fit and free of modern disease. (6, 7)
Other examples include the Kitava in the Pacific Islands, Tukisenta in the Papa New Guinea Highlands, and the Okinawans in Japan. The Kitavan diet is 69% carb, with a high reliance on starchy tubers such as yams, and sugary tropical fruits such as banana and papaya. (8) The Okinawan diet is even more carb-heavy at 85% carbohydrate, mostly from sweet potato. (9) Finally, the Tukisenta diet is astonishingly high in carbohydrate at over 90%. (10) All of these cultures are fit and lean with practically non-existent rates of neurological disorders and other modern chronic disease. (11)
#3 – Modern Research Does Not Support the Notion That ‘Safe’ Carbs Are Harmful
The claim that carbohydrates from whole-food sources cause neurological disorders is not supported by anthropological evidence. In addition, modern studies on the health effects of carb-dense foods such as fruit also fail to support Perlmutter’s hypothesis. In fact, studies overall suggest that eating whole, fresh fruit may actually decrease the risk of health issues such as obesity and diabetes, and that limiting fruit intake has no effect on blood sugar, weight loss or waist circumference. (12, 13)
As you may know if you’ve been following my website, there is plenty of modern research demonstrating that diets rich in refined and processed carbohydrates are harmful. However, this is not due to carb content alone, and there’s no evidence that whole-food carbs have the same effect. When an author or expert recommends excluding or severely limiting one of three macronutrients that humans consume, the evidence demonstrating harm should be strong—not only because of the inconvenience of following such a restricted diet, but because extreme diets (ketogenic or VLC diets in this case) are not always harmless. In my practice I’ve seen many patients who’ve worsened on long-term VLC diets, including those with adrenal issues and poor thyroid function. Long-term VLC diets can also lead to imbalances in gut bacteria due to a lack of prebiotic fiber, which can result in digestive issues.
As I’ve always maintained, you need to find out what works for you and tailor your diet to your specific health goals, rather than follow a canned approach. This is exactly what I’ll teach you to do in my book, Your Personal Paleo Code (published in paperback as The Paleo Cure in December 2014), which is coming out at the end of December.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Back in the 70’s when I was a teenager- before I was aware and had two degrees I noticed when Mom cooked chicken, green beans and potatoes, I was always better off losing the TATERS. I still am.
First, I am very impressed with the thoughtfulness of many of the people that have responded here. It is indeed unfortunate that the medical community does not seem to have the same integrity, open-mindedness, and the in-depth critical thinking that one would assume would go along with their profession, especially considering how much they charge for their services. (truly they seem to be the last to know about nutritional research) I came across this blog as a function of having just watched and being disillusioned by Dr. Oz’s show on the dangers of eating all carbohydrates. Time and again he never feels he has to substantiate nutritional opinions with research (as in citing particular studies), no exception with their claims about eating fruit and complex carbohydrates. Beyond that he never entertained the rather obvious idea that cross cultural studies would assuredly blow a hole in their theory that all carbohydrates are “bad”. There was no mention of high insulin levels causing the inflammation, nor did they ever speculate that the damage to the brain was possibly the result of gluten.
Well, you make the same points that have supported the anti-low carb people for years and our society is still fat, diabetic and addicted to sugar. And now we have passed this carb-based diet onto our obese children. Hmmmm
The small tribes you mention above? Living in poverty in a rain forest? Really? Pick a set in downtown LA, London, Tokyo, Peking, Rio, then show me your conclusions.
I think at this point the data strongly supports limiting carbs — but what that limit should be probably depends on the individual person. In fact that was one of the features of the original Atkins diet 40 years ago.
Atkins wasn’t telling people to eat no carbs. His approach was for each person to gradually phase carbs back in, and as long as they didn’t start bloating or putting on weight, that was the sign their body was tolerating the carbs well.
So whether you’re at 20 grams a day or 150 grams a day doesn’t matter as long as it works for you. And it may not matter terribly what the carbs look like. Maybe you love beer, or bananas, or beans, or pastry — enjoy it but budget your consumption.
The only thing I take issue with is a suggestion that it’s unhealthy to be at the lower limit or that you somehow need sugary fruit or beans or whatever to be healthy.
There really isn’t any evidence that we’ll get sick if we don’t get carbs — especially in contrast with the very strong evidence that eating too much carb food — mostly the processed grain products and sugar that the American food industry churns out — destroys our health in myriad ways.
Re Kurt’s comments on carbs being necessary for “explosive” energy — as it turns out this is another kind of urban myth not supported by the data.
In fact the L.A. Lakers, after a great deal of study, have gone very low carb in their approach to training, and found that even for professional athletes needing to perform at the very highest level, fat as fuel is much more effective than glucose fuel. If ketone fuel produces enough explosiveness for NBA athletes it’s going to be plenty explosive for you and me.
There’s great work being done in this subject by people like Jeff Volek (who has been working in the field of nutrition for athletic performance for decades) and Peter Attia (a physician who is a huge fitness buff).
I have not read the research in detail, but my sense is that for sprint-type events at a very high level of performance, carbs may give you a little bit of an edge. But for everything else, low carb or no carb may well be better.
Certainly in my experience when I’m in full ketosis, I have much better endurance on my bike rides — ketosis is like being in your second wind all the time — there is no hitting the wall experience whatsoever because your blood sugar levels start low and stay low.
Finally there is interesting historical data. The Masai, certain Plains Indians, and the Inuit lived almost entirely on high fat meat, fish and blubber despite the fact that their lifestyle required tremendous physical strength and endurance. And their health, as documented by westerners who visited them, was exemplary in the years before western flour and sugar began making its way into their diet.
Nicely stated. I also highly recommend the lectures by Peter Attia on ketogenic diets. He is a major fitness buff and has noticed that his swimming performance on the sprint swims is a tad slower, but that other than that his performance equal or better. He feels that the tradeoff is well worth it, as all his health markers are stellar.
I just saw Perlmutter’s interview on Fat Burning Man. He did say that his commendations were meat based. Personally I do not see that as needed. He also said that while he favored ketosis, he was not necessarily advocating it. I think someone could follow his protocol at higher levels of carbs than he would prefer.
I do not think that grass fed meat is crucial, but I do think it important, and we are making that transition, starting with the item most important to that-liver. I have a feeling that a family avoiding McDonalds, fruit loops, lucky charms and snicker bars will probably save enough money to buy the grass fed meats. I would add that bones for broth would also be high priority for grass fed.
People have to remember that ketosis is not some exotic or risky thing. Burning fat is absolutely necessary to a healthy functioning human body — if you don’t eat a midnight snack, ketosis is how your body keeps your brain operating through the night.
Perlmutter doesn’t talk about ketosis so much — his concern is brain health more than weight loss per se. But he is clearly arguing that ketones are a better fuel for human brains than glucose. When he speaks of miracle cures for people with brain disorders and emotional problems, what he is saying is that when patients switch over to ketone fuel, their brains often do much better.
A super easy way to experience more ketosis in your life is to is just to not eat breakfast (which is normal practice in Mediterranean countries) or at least eat no carbs for breakfast — eggs, cheese and veggies for example. When you wake up in the morning, you are probably burning fat and you’re blood sugar is low and stable. Why not leave it that way for the morning at least.
“Grain Brain” is next reference book on my study list.
However, I can comment that for the followers here who are unsure of what their own carb tolerance level is, or whether their carb intake is excessive to their current/future needs, it is straightforward and quick to determine this through kinesiological manual muscle testing. Gathering such information takes the guesswork out of determining “What should I eat and how much, for how long?” (relative to one’s own specific current goal)… eg: What types of carbs best suit me? Will my body tolerate this type of carb? If so, how much? For what length of time? Such testing can show up very specific useful information… giving confidence in adjusting intakes up or down according to changing needs, specific to generic heritage, specific to increases/decreases in physical activity, specific to changing desires…. relative to an overall goal of optimal performance.
What’s more, the way the testing is done (during a balancing session) the person’s perception of the adverse, neutral or beneficial “bodily sensations” any particular substance can have is rather obvious and therefore very educational.
The most common “significantly out-of-whack” nutritional excess that shows up in my clients (who are generally moderately healthy yet slightly overweight middle aged people) is excess “carbs” (often 200 < 300% above their individual tolerance level). I don't witness this degree of excess in any other class of food.
From my observations, in general, one in three people in my community probably ingest levels of carbohydrate in excess of their individual tolerance level and level of physical exertion.
By excess I refer to "excess over and above their individual tolerance level"… one person's may be 60 grams, another's may be 100 grams per day. The body instinctively "knows" when there is an excess of any substance that has adverse consequences (of one kind or another). The body will reliably tell you what it does/does not want (for optimal performance) if you ask in the right manner.
What is today's mild "moderately overweight" middle class suburban adult is fundamentally undiagnosed metabolic syndrome… left unchecked becomes something more chronic (diabetes)… left unchecked?? …well! there has to be a consequence of such a marked degree of nutritional imbalance, doesn't there?
I would prefer to "nip things in the bud" with relevant education to prevent progression (& determining individual carb tolerance levels for example), at this stage of the game… in preference to reversing decline and attempting to bring about recovery 20 to 40 years down the track.
I know the dominance of excessive low nutrient carbs being ingested in this community will have long term detrimental effects. There is no doubt in my mind.
I would encourage people who are curious about low-carb high-fat to just try it. Ignore the old wive’s tales (which are typically spread by the vegan and animal rights zealots). There is absolutely no data to suggest LCHF is harmful and a huge and growing pile of data that it is safe and tremendously effective.
Just because Perlmutter has written a best-seller that is written for lay readers doesn’t mean anybody should underestimate him. Unlike Atkins, Perlmutter has top-tier scientific credentials in both neurology and nutrition science. There’s hardly anyone in the country better qualified than he to examine the relationship between diet and brain health.
It doesn’t cost anything or require any great expertise — just a commitment to avoiding grains, sugary foods and starches. You can get your protein and fats a bunch of different ways; you can do this as a vegetarian (though difficult if you’re vegan).
The worst side effect you have to worry about is lower blood pressure, which is actually a positive side effect except you you can feel faint or queasy while your body is adjusting. So most low-carb keto regimens encourage you to increase salt intake during the adjustment period. If you don’t feel well a couple of days into a low-carb regimen, just drink a little warm broth.
After a few days as your body becomes keto-adapted, all sorts of wonderful things happen — your belly shrinks as you retain less water, you often stop snoring if you’re a snorer, acid reflux pretty much goes away. You have much less gas and indigestion. Once your digestive system settles in you will often be more regular.
You will need less sleep, and if you’re exercising, you will actually have more sustained performance as your whole body learns to use ketone fuel. If you have a neurologically intensive job you may find your performance improves. Emotional performance can be better too — certainly it is better without blood sugar ups and downs.
And I have found you don’t have to be low-carb all the time. You can enjoy these benefits even if you “fall off the wagon” once or twice a week. In our family we try to be very low-carb for about 5 days a week and then enjoy our beer/bread/chocolate during the other two days.
It’s amazing to me that the low-carb movement gains momentum steadily — and with many different valid approaches — despite hostility from the medical establishment and the anti-meat crusaders. It is because people find out in their own lives that low-carb works. It just simply works.
My issue with “Hi Fat” is that often or mostly includes animal products. Now… if you are wealthy no problem you can eat free range healthy organic animal products. You can eat organic pasture fed butter and dairy, organic meats etc. But most people on this LCHF diet will be eating sick cage fed animals pumped full of god knows what. That is going to be more healthy that a predominantly plant based diet with vegetarian based fats? Can’t see that.
Beaker, if you want to have the best likelihood of good outcomes, you need to try to separate what is supposition, what is theory backed by a lot of good data, and what is proven.
To argue that low carb requires spending $20 a pound for grass fed beef is a kind of a straw man argument and really is not supported by the data.
Here’s what IS supported. We’re now up to 18 significant studies since the mid-90s that have validated the benefits of carbohydrate restriction for weight loss. That question should regarded as settled. The hard core deniers will never come around but they should be ignored just like climate change deniers.
We also have extremely compelling evidence based on an ingenious study released in 2013 that a Mediterranean diet relatively high in fat (olive oil mainly) and relatively low in cereal grains produces good outcomes.
By contrast there is supposition and good theory behind the idea of grass fed beef and free range poultry, but there not actually data yet proving that it is that much better for you than Perdue chicken and feedlot beef.
If you want to spend the money for organic produce and grass fed meat, it can’t hurt and may benefit you but there isn’t actual study evidence proving it is effective in any way.
Ethical vegetarians, vegans, committed environmentalists seem to want to fight low-carb because they fear its adoption would mean more meat consumption.
But I don’t think anyone, even with good intentions, should be in the business of denying what the data says. It erodes one’s credibility in the long term.
It would be better for vegeterians and vegans to focus on the myriad ways one can be meatless and also low-carb. I personally think red meat and butter belong in a good diet, but one can certainly achieve similar results with tofu and coconut oil. The point is to avoid pasta and sugar and margarine whether you’re carnivore or herbivore.
Similarly, low-carb and exercise do not need to be seen in opposition in any way. One is not a substitute for the other.
Studies of exercise as a weight-loss strategy have consistently failed to show success, but the data is overwhelming that exercise is good for you in dozens of other ways. If you want to follow what the data says, as opposed what various special interest groups want you to believe, the best approach is going to be low-carb AND exercise.
Tom, good to have your attention, you seem to know your stuff. I have no weight or health issues to consider. I’m 40yr, 165lbs, muscular build, predominantly plant based diet and exercise 6 days a week for 1.5hrs or so. Feel pretty awesome. I am curious of your thoughts on grains processed using sourdough cultures. I only eat grains long fermented in sourdough. Recent studies indicate better blood sugar stability for those eating sourdough. Those eating sourdough were stable all day vs. those eating non-sourdough having spikes all day. I think judging by how I feel (great) that a fair bit of long fermented sourdough daily is not bad. I tend to have 5 slices a day smeared with organic nut butters (brazil, almond, cashew). No brain fog here. I am full of enery, sleep well etc. I have 1-2 pasture fed hard boiled eggs a day, a lot of kidney beans for protein (also soaked and prepared properly), for dairy I have 24hr brewed yogurt that I make myself and 48 month aged cheddar. I eat a ton of steamed veggies. I have 2 bananas a day plus mixed berries. I am probably in violation of carb limits, but think something is to be said for properly processed grains. I don’t think anyone should be eating non-sourdough grains. My culture spends 48hrs fermenting the grains in a way I believe opens them up to benefits for the body. It is a shame that I never here sourdough mentioned in so many diet fads, hopefully research will continue.
Beaker, you might want to read Michael Pollan’s latest book, “Cooked,” a significant portion of which is devoted to fermentation and food.
There are lots of good arguments, if not real study evidence, for the benefits of fermented food and eating active cultures to help maintain a good diverse gut flora. And frankly whether it’s good for you or not, I couldn’t live without good vinegar, cheese, salami, pickles…
I would be a little skeptical that fermentation would do much to ameliorate the impact of bread on blood sugar and insulin levels. You should read Perlmutter and see whether you find his arguments persuasive, but he is arguing passionately that constant consumption of carbs — and the resulting constant elevation of blood sugar levels — is a major cause of a host of brain disorders including Alzheimer’s.
Perlmutter argues that blood sugar levels considered normal in our society are actually quite high and damaging. We just all eat so many carbs that we don’t even know as a society what normal blood sugar looks like (i.e. blood sugar levels in societies that didn’t have such a plethora of cheap carb food).
If you believe the insulin hypothesis — the idea that obesity, diabetes and much heart disease results from elevated blood sugar and insulin levels — then suddenly all kinds of foods marketed as healthy are really just the opposite.
For example “whole wheat bread” — which is basically white bread flour supplemented with ground wheat husks — has a greater glycemic impact than a candy bar or a soda. Multi-grain bread products are delicious, but why are they marketed as healthy food in a society where the number one core health problem may be chronically elevated blood sugar.
Thanks Tom, I’ll check out that material. One thing that frustrates me about all these diets ‘backed by studies’ is studies simply can’t take into account certain individuals. Oh they try to say “we factored in for x lifestyle but I don’t buy it’. I’m 40 and fighting fit, actually also had a full cardio workup done last month and cardiologist said I was in the top 2% of heart health. Can they really say moderate levels of carbs are bad for someone that is lean, fit, exercises 1.5hrs a day, eats whole foods only, drinks 2 litres or more of RO water a day, avoids all junk foods, additives, etc. I am not likely the average person involved in most of these studies. I would like to see a study comprising of 2,000 of me to see what happens. I might buy a blood glucose monitor and spend a week or so monitoring and charting my levels. Overall I feel like the average person in these studies is probably far from fit, eats pre-packaged foods and refined carbs and who knows what else. I just find it hard to believe I feel so insanely great, as if I’m in my prime and am not on a LCHF diet. I’ll also note everyone in my family has lived to an old age. My Grandmother is 98 still drives and works part time. She’s sharp as a tack and certainly doesn’t restrict carbs to say the least. Anyway, will stop rambling.
Beaker, I agree with you, everybody’s different and if what you’re doing seems to work, it probably is working.
I subscribe to the insulin hypothesis which says obesity is not from overeating per se (because everybody overeats); obesity is simply a symptom of metabolic syndrome — one’s body is struggling to deal with high blood sugar and insulin levels and is beginning to become insulin resistant. If you’re putting on weight, whatever you’re eating isn’t working. If you’re lean, that’s an indication that your body is tolerating carbohydrates well. Perlmutter goes further and suggests that even if you’re at a healthy weight, high blood sugar could be causing your brain to age faster. I don’t know if I believe that, but I sure hope it gets tested.
The only thing that seems obvious to me is that low-fat high-carb diets are a bad idea for people who are overweight. That’s like prescribing more cigarettes for people with early stage lung disease. If people are overweight, they need to heed their great-grandmother’s advice and cut the sugar and products made from wheat and corn.
Actually, it’s not necessary to really increase meat all that much. I too am on a very limited budget and I can’t afford high quality meat. I eat small amounts of the meat I can afford cooked with a lot of coconut oil and low carb vegetables. The one thing I definitely spend more on is high quality eggs. I very seldom eat chicken, because the cheap stuff is just so utterly disgusting.
My husband and I read the book. We were both vegans for 25 years and after reading this book were convinced of the importance of adding eggs in our diet and more healthy fats like raw nuts and seeds. We cut out all grains, all starchy foods like potatoes, corn, rice. In 6 weeks we both lost weight, but more importantly than that we have only experienced GOOD results such as sleeping better and longer, our hair is not as dry and it’s more shiny, my fingernails don’t break as easily, our skin is healthier looking and overall we feel great. We eliminated more foods than we added to our diet. Only eggs we added in. We had always eaten healthy fats, but started eating them more. I still eat fruit, but not as much as before and my husband reduced his fruit intake much more than me. It makes sense to me as he says in his book that our brains need the fat. That the low fat diets are not healthy because our bodies need fat.
Plus he even sites in his book that ancient grains are way different that the overly processed grains of today are. The grains even a couple of decades he says are different than today. The ancient grains were okay to eat, but today’s grains are different with all the gmo and pesticide use, etc. Is it any wonder there is a huge number of people with gluten intolerance and celiac disease? Not to mention obesity and diabetes. Grains turn to sugar and diabetics shouldn’t be eating them. The grain industry is a huge business. Just look at any grocery store there in an entire isle dedicated to just cereal and another to just bread! Now because so many people cannot consume gluten there are hundreds of gluten free products out there, however consuming those aren’t any better in terms of health. He says the foods they feed cattle (grains, corn, soy, oats…which they shouldn’t eat either as they are grass eaters by nature) are all designed to fatten the cows as quickly as possible in order to sell them. Hmmm eating those foods will fatten a cow so it stands to reason why there are so many obese people in this country too eating the same thing as the cows. If that puts the weight on cows quickly then it puts the weight on people quickly. He also mentions the fatter the person the smaller their brain is! I found that to be very interesting indeed!
“Grains turn to sugar and diabetics shouldn’t be eating them.”
As I mentioned, newer research shows sourdough based breads actually regulate blood sugar levels to normal throughout an entire day thus preventing any spikes. I won’t touch grain unless it’s been long fermented in sourdough cultures.
It’s nice indeed that you experienced good results.
But you need to be very objective when treating this topic.
1. Not only grains are GMO but also vegetables and some fruits are. And also pesticides are used to grow them too.
2. Even if you eat cabbage a whole week you will anyways have some sugar in your blood. Sugar is necessary for our body, the problem with it is when it’s high. Diabetics are allowed to eat either fruits and grains in limited amount.
3. You cannot blame grains for weight gain. I went low carb at the beggining of this year and ate more fat instead (walnuts, coconut oil and dairy). In the beggining I lost some weight but after I gained more than I lost. I know people that eat a lot of bread and aren’t overweight but normal, and they’re not even exercising…Maybe U.S.A. really has some weird grains that are different from those we have here in Europe.
Hope this helps!
I am reading “grain brain” at the moment and my concern is how it goes against previous studies related to the consumption of high saturated fat,high cholesterol and cardio-vascular disease. I’m at risk of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome as it is prevalent in my family. I have lost considerable weight with limiting my carbs but I’m wondering if my high intake of fat now will negatively impact my risk of metabolic syndrome. Eating fat for your brain heath is one thing, but increasing your risk of other diseases like cardi vascular is another. What is your thoughts on that ?
As someone with the beginning stages of autoimmune thyroid disease (high antibodies but hormones are still low-normal), I have had very bad side effects from low carb diets. I have tried LC and VLC on five occasions and each time I have developed depression, excessive tiredness, coldness of extremities, and even severe panic attacks. In my low carb diets I have always consumed sufficient micronutrients (lots of low-carb veggies and grass fed meats) as well as including MCTs from coconut oil and MCT oil.
Thank you Chris for teaching me that low-carb diets are no good for people with autoimmune thyroid disease. I’ve been intentionally eating 100-200g of starchy carbs (minimal sugar) daily and I have been feeling a bit better.
With reference to point #2.
“yams, tropical fruits, banana, papaya, sweet potato” are not grains.
In his book (Called GRAIN Brain)
He mentions Gluten and grains and lack of fats and essential fatty acids as being all contributors to neurological disorders, not high carb diet.
He talks about VLCD as being a solution to diabetes and insulin resistance he also mentions that these are correlative and not necessarily causative.
So the examples you cherry picked are beside the point and in fact support his argument as they were all absent of grain or gluten containing carbohydrate and mostly lower Gi than processed western carbohydrates.
Non medical ind, but have read much of Dr Perlmutter’s book. I totally agree with your analysis. I know of a 95 year old man who works in a large car dealership that he started yrs ago and all he eats for lunch is a really large bowl of fruit all to himself and he is sharp as can be. On the other hand, my own mother has Demensia and i oversea her care and in knowing what type of eater she was earlier in life, I would say that she was on a high fat diet, was heavy, but I would not say I obese..
Unfortunately, the wheat we’re eating now isn’t the wheat we evolved with. It has been extensively modified to grow shorter, be more disease resistant, etc. Check out “Wheat Belly” I think more study is needed, but I know since my 11 year old Asperger’s Syndrome son and I have gone gluten free, our stomaches are much happier. He went from having diahrrea 4-5 a week, to twice in the past 6 months. My husband and nuero-typical son still love gluten, but seem fine. I think we are so complex that nothing works the same for every body. More study is needed. Thanks!
Carbs are starting to become the new bogeyman just like fats were before. However it all depends on what type of carbs you eat and what your activity levels are. People now days just sit around all day and no wonder they are going to get fat. In other societies, such as the ones mentioned above, with high percentage carb diets, people are usually slimmer and that is because of their lifestyle.
http://gainweightjournal.com/what-are-carbohydrates/
I can appreciate the various arguments over this topic. 14 years ago I used ‘carbohydrates’ as a weight gaining fuel for wieghtlifting: and it worked – I gained 16 lbs. (muscle) in 10 weeks.
Currently, I have been diagnosed with ALS. In no way do I feel ‘carbohydrates’ led to my demise. I still consume plain bagels, homemade bread, and baskets of fruit: and my condition is relatively ‘stable’.
Consuming refined sugars is different than consuming carbohydrates. ALS is essentially the destruction of mitochondrial dna. Free radicals yield destruction, and refined sugars speed up this process.
There are scrolls of chemicals and compounds in the foods we eat (preservatives, sweeteners…) which also fuel this destructive process, but no Dr. with an agenda would study this to any end.
The resiliance of the human body is truly amazing, as many alcoholic chainsmokers usually die of loneliness rather than disease; but the evolution of mankind is in-debted to purity and simplicity of foods.
Well, I’m in top shape, feel great, bloodwork is great. I eat a decent amount of carbs but most of my carbs come from long fermented sourdough bread. Interestingly enough there is some indication that sourdough actually helps to control blood sugar levels. Chris, what are your opinions on sourdough? Here are the basics of the research:
“The study involved men between the ages of 50 and 60. They were given four different kinds of bread – white, whole wheat, whole wheat with barley, and sourdough white bread – and their levels of blood sugar and insulin were measured.
“With the sourdough bread, the subjects’ blood sugar levels were lower, with a similar rise in blood insulin,” Graham says. “What was even more interesting was that this positive effect remained during their second meal and lasted even hours after.”
And subjects did not have to eat additional bread at the later meal for the benefits to persist.
The reason for this effect is not known for certain, but is probably the way the fermentation of the sourdough changes the starches in the bread, increasing its health benefits. Unlike most breads, which are leavened with yeast, sourdough bread is leavened with a “starter” bacterial culture that begins the fermentation process, giving the bread its familiar sourdough tang. ”
So in reality, good fermented foods could allow for grain and carbohydrate consumption AND stabilize blood sugar levels it seems. A big issue I have with low carb diets is the “meat” side of it. I do not want to consume animal products if I can help it. Doesn’t animal protein come with it’s own set of health risks? Why would any diet plan advocate increasing consumption of it?
Anyway, I am highly active and somewhat plant based diet, so without some carbs and my sourdough bread I would be starving mad. I can say without doubt once going on sourdough my digestion improved as well as energy levels. Wouldn’t it be a shame that some are missing out on something as beneficial as sourdough due to mislabeling of it as “bad”.
Did you read the book yourself? It doesn’t sound like it from your post.
Looking forward to know more about this subject.
Thank you!
Here’s the results of a study about consumption of different food categories and colorectal adenoma risk from Malaysia that seems like I could benefit from further explanation about:
Soy bean and soy products were associated with a reduced risk for CRA (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15-0.98), while tubers were associated with increase in risk four-fold (OR = 4.14, 95% CI = 1.60-10.70) and red meat intake was found to increase the risk two and a half-fold (OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.02-6.28). Higher servings of fruits and vegetables were found to significantly decrease the risk (OR fruits = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; OR vegetables = 0.49, 95% = 0.29-0.80).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20104992
#2 – There are many traditional cultures with high carb intake and low or nonexistent rates of neurological disease
——————————————
This is actually not true. Japan for instance — has a higher PERCENTAGE of their calories from carbs (rice). But their OVERALL consumption of carbs per capita is just a fraction of what Americans eat. People should most definitely not look at Japanese eating habits and conclude it’s healthy to eat that giant teriyaki rice bowl slathered in sugar sauce. Or rice cakes with syrup for breakfast. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The one unifying concept that makes all of this make sense is the Insulin Hypothesis. It should be treated like the theory of evolution — it explains almost everything and it gives you many paths to good health.
The research clearly is telling us: Keep your insulin levels down as much as possible, as long as possible.
You can do that by avoiding foods (carbs) that spike your blood sugar levels and trigger insulin production. But you can also help by exercising to burn excess glucose and glycogen. You can help by doing what the traditional Japanese diet does — small portions, limited meals, no snacks. You can do it by making fasting part of your routine — say, skipping breakfast (which is surprisingly easy to do, and good for you, once you’re used to it).
What made the traditional Japanese healthy wasn’t the rice. It was the fact that food was expensive in Japan so people ate small portions and didn’t snack.
Whether you eat live cave man, or the traditional Japanese, or do Atkins, or become a running fanatic — your’e doing the same thing to your blood sugar. You are keeping it down and tamping it down. That is not that hard to understand, is it?
Good point. I lived in Japan for a year and the portion sizes are SO MUCH SMALLER than in the US. You get a little tiny bowl of rice with your dinner, which is probably about 1/5 of the typical carb servings in US restaurants. They also have a saying that you should stop eating before you are 100 percent full.