@BIWI I am a bit confused, a man writes a book with a 31% scientific accuracy, but this doesn't mean the man is 31% accurate? He makes YouTube videos (with ads) based on his science. He earns money based on his science. He created a business model that sells membership based on his science (co-funder of dietdoctor)
Also, I don't know where you work, but at my job, if I get an overall review of 60%, this is quite bad and my job is on the line, and if my kids bring home from school 60% in all their exams, I am not happy. I am again a bit confused at how having an overall score of 60% is a good thing.
I am not misleading anyone, I am talking about the science or more precisely the lack of science behind the carbohydrate-insulin model . It is just not there. Gary Taubes learnt the lesson. He is vocal and loud on the carbs are bad, he even founded an organisation (Nutrition Sciences Initiative) to study and solved the obesity crises, received $40 mil.and used them to fund two different studies with the biggest names in nutritional science, the legendary Christopher Gardner and Kevin Hall .... and theory disproven ... oops:
- jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150 In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss.
The 12 month results graph shows no difference between low fat vs low carb. Some lose on both, some gain on both.
2) https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649 Furthermore, the body weight and composition adjustments likely overestimated the EE changes during the KD because much of the weight loss was likely from water rather than loss of metabolically active tissues. The carbohydrate–insulin model predicts a greater rate of body fat loss during the KD period. Our data do not support this prediction .../... it is clear that regulation of adipose tissue fat storage is multifaceted and that insulin does not always play a predominant role (16)..../...
Despite throwing millions of $$$$, the insulin model failed miserably and Taubes' foundation not longer exist after losing its funding. They provided the money, they picked the universities and researchers, and CRASH , big failure on the insulin model. So if despite the science, one keeps arguing and pushing the insulin model, it becomes pseudo science.
Any diet that cuts something (carb, fat, whatever) means people can't buy a big chunk of processed food and have to start eating homemade fresh food, so on this front, this is great. Eat real food, better health. And of course, if someone has an abnormal metabolism of a macro, cutting that macro is also a good idea. If you have PKU and don't metabolise protein normally, cut the proteins. If you have diabetes or pre-diabetes and don't metabolise glucose normally, cut the glucose, but for those with a normal metabolism, it is important to point that low carb comes with some health risk because it increases risk of miscarriage in pregnancy, causes disruption of iron metabolism (you can make mice anaemic if you put them on keto), and a lot, if not the majority of people on keto, eat animal protein three times a day and many will snack on eggs so 4 times a day, and the science says it is not very heathy. Eating a lot (as in every day, and worse, several times a day) of animal protein doesn't seem to be very good for longevity, cancer and so on.
And even without the science, I spend a lot of time in Asia, mainly in Bali. The local women here are so tiny, so slim, so beautiful and they eat white rice (carbs!!!) three times a day. Maybe I should write a book about the Bali Diet. I am pretty sure I can cherry pick enough science to reach 31% .