Another new research study released about the poor effects of Carbohydrates

My SO and her family became highly anti-carb about a year ago due to prodding by their family doctor and she continuously sends me links to study upon study upon study that shows that both Carbohydrates are bad and Saturated Fats are good, how some china or something study that the FDA basis a lot on has been completely debunked in the medical world, the most recent of which came out a few hours ago:

It has indeed had quite a benefit on her and her family’s health, with them not doing any additional exercise, eating what I normally considered unhealthy (lots and lots of meat with odd amounts of cheese and so forth, no wheat, pasta, potatoes, etc…, she has a lot more calories than me a day). Their blood tests keep getting better on this diet than before (in every metric she states and she can supply the before and after numbers if anyone is curious) and they have lost substantial weight (60lbs, not an ounce of exercise and a desk job, which she states she does need to start exercising soon) in the past year and are continuing to do so with no other changes to their lifestyle beyond just going to extremely low carbohydrate input. In addition she states that she feels better, more energy, and it is sustained.

I am curious as to the thoughts of people here about Ketogenic diets. I am still awaiting my first Soylent shipment but she is unwilling to try it due to the high carbohydrates in it and she is looking forward to a ketogenic variant of it, of which she is highly interested in trying. What are the thoughts of people here that have made their own ketogenic variants and are there any purchasable that are recommended? Due to her results that I have been watching over the past year I am quite tempted to attempt low/no-carb myself as well, though I should have my incoming soylent subscription first arriving in January if it is not delayed further.


Ketogenic diets are a great way to lose weight, but so is Soylent. I tried official Soylent for a month and it I had great results, but I have nothing to report yet on my progress with KetoMilk. My plan is to have at least one shake per day with the supplements, and sate hunger with more shakes or keto-friendly foods. I’m only on consecutive day 5, and I feel like complete crap (but no gas!) so hopefully that is a sign it is working.

I hope it works, because the shakes are amazingly delicious.

1 Like

She is losing weight to get to a healthy amount. I only need to lose a little bit but am otherwise fine. The main reason her doctor told her to go ketogenic is for health reasons, fat in blood and things like that.

She goes through periods where she goes back to normal carb foods on occasion due to just wanting bread and such on occasion, but she ends up feeling horrible, intestinal disturbances, and more, so she always ends up going back to ketogenic. It seems to take her about 2 weeks on pure ketogenic to get back to feeling stable again, upon which everything settles back down and she feels great again. I was thinking Soylent itself might work on it, but she say the thread about the bloody glucose readings that was around not long ago and that spooked her off of it as the spike style it had would not have been safe for her and she is quite sure it is because of the carb count in Soylent. She has been looking at possible trying Gillian Fuel from the local person on the forums here, but she has not seen KetoMilk ye, I will forward it to her and see what she thinks later, thanks for the link.

EDIT: This is the thread that was looked at I think:

@axcho sells several ketogenic recipes. There are user reviews on his website. @spaceman’s “low-carb” recipes are 40% carbohydrate, not ketogenic.


I’m doing QuidNYC Ketofood and have had great success: 16lbs in the first month. I did some posts about the recipe and videos of how to mix it


Thanks @asympt for referral.

Although Low Carb blend is not ketogenic - it gives perfect results and has a much more better taste.
Basted on this research and this feedback we crafted our own Weight Loss Diet:

  1. Define your intake using BMI calculator
  2. Eat 500 cal less than required
  3. Eat Low Carb for faster weight loss
  4. After reaching desired weight or 6 months (whichever earlier) - switch to regular 2000 cal intake.

I hope @OvermindDL1 it will help your SO. If you want to go deeper - you may chat with a Registered Dietitian on Powdered Foods Forum.

1 Like

So, here’s my personal experience: I discovered Dr Robert Lustig’s videos, starting with Sugar: The Bitter Truth. What impressed me was the scientific depth — I studied biology back in college, but I’d forgotten most of it, and it was good to get a reminder.

I did a bunch more reading, and it seemed to hold up. So based on the theory that fructose was poison, this year I drastically cut sugar from my diet. I now aim for the WHO / AHA recommended maximum of 25g per day, with whole raw fruit excluded from the total. (Must be whole raw fruit, juice is usually processed crap so I don’t touch it unless I juice it myself in the blender and keep all the pulp.)

The result: Weight fell off of me. After a while when the rate of progress slowed down I started counting calories, and I eventually dropped a total of 10kg and 6 waistband sizes. Furthermore, I find that my new weight (which is slightly below the optimum for my height) is stable — I can basically eat as much as I feel like eating and maintain my healthy weight, as long as I keep the sugar intake low. I no longer need to count anything.

And here’s the key point: I didn’t restrict carbs other than sugar. No ketogenesis, no paleo fad diet, nothing that’s unusual or difficult to continue forever; I just went back to pre-industrial-revolution levels of sugar intake. If I feel like eating a sandwich or a bowl of pasta, I do it. (Everything whole grain, but that was the case before I cut the sugar.) I also increased my fat intake somewhat, aiming to get closer to the RDA each day.

So, yeah. These anti-carb studies don’t surprise me at all. However, I don’t think they’re the whole story. I think it matters deeply what kind of carbs, and I suspect that once there are more studies done it’ll turn out that processed carbs, particularly added sucrose and fructose, are the problem.

So my reason for trying Soylent isn’t weight loss; it’s that I’m interested in making sure I get closer to 100% of everything my body actually needs, and in a convenient form I can use as lunch on workdays.

Of course, your mileage may vary, I’m not a doctor, etc etc. But I strongly recommend watching that video by a guy who is a doctor. Also, I’ve got a series of articles on my web site about the whole experience in more detail; you can start here.


The “quality” of carbohydrates is kind of old news, but it doesn’t stop the Internet from demonizing carbs entirely and proclaiming the vindication of Atkins. The carbs that Americans have been eating (largely sucrose) for the past 50 years are really screwing us up, but it isn’t like carbs didn’t exist prior to the new food pyramid. Grain and starch were also part of the diet back before we all started keeling over from heart disease.

Soylent is about as good as it gets where it comes to carb quality, and serves as proof of concept that eating carbohydrates is not a death sentence. I like to think that there are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy patterns. The good news is that every day we’re getting closer to figuring those patterns out.

I do think it is fallacious to assume that all processed foods are bad simply because they are processed. We refine simple compounds from more complex compounds, and this causes huge imbalances that overstimulate different bodily mechanisms. But once we understand healthy patterns, we can compose healthy food from refined constituents. Like Soylent.


+1 for Robert Lustig. He’s a bit of a fear monger on the surface of some of his youtube stuff but my interpretation is that he’s just using the rhetoric to get people to pay attention to what is otherwise sound science. He also wrote a great book that goes more in-depth called “Fat Chance”

And @AgentSpiff, this community is better-informed about this stuff than pretty much any other I’ve seen, but calling this old news (which it is) might be shocking in another venue. Something to keep in mind!

Also you’re right that food processing isn’t inherently bad, but the current state of the food industry is such that it’s pretty good advice anyway if you don’t want to get into the science.

Edit: I really wish people would stop latching on to “juicing” with abandon and then wonder why they haven’t been losing weight.


I would like to see a link to that recommendation just so I can read it myself.

Once again it looks like men get to have a little more of something than women.

According to this women can have up to 25g of sugar and men can have up to 37.5g of sugar.

I linked to it but apparently the link got removed? Here it is again, here’s the source, and here’s an article about the AHA guidelines.

I’m not sure I buy the argument that men can safely ingest 50% more sugar. I wonder about how much the sugar industry managed to get the numbers raised, too.

1 Like

It does make sense. Men have more blood than women which is why our “moderate” drinking volume is double what it is for women. So it’s not unreasonable to assume we need more sugar to get the same blood sugar levels.

1 Like

Well, I’m a terrible lightweight when it comes to alcohol too.

I love the information here that you are all supplying, stories, links, and other recipes. Thank you very much, I am passing all of this on and will respond in time. ^.^

I certainly await my Soylent subscription to finally start, perhaps I should document it, I am not altogether unhealthy myself, just barely in overweight, but documenting it even for my own purposes might be quite revealing with how low sugar but high carb Soylent is.

At the very least, cutting out carbs, if it was only the sugar at fault, for her and her family has caused the weight to ‘melt off’ as well as increase energy, so it will be interesting to see how my pure Soylent will compare. I am tempted to get something from @axcho myself until Soylent comes in though, it is taking a while. :wink:


Do it! :stuck_out_tongue: You know you want to… :wink:


Some people even like @axcho’s stuff better. And if you buy from him, you have your choice of how much carbs all the way down to ketogenic.

1 Like

I’ve been kind of tempted to throw money at @axcho in spite of the 2.5 months of Soylent in my cabinet after the most recent incident

I don’t think the bulk of scientific evidence supports singling out carbohydrates. As people here have heard me say before, it’s over-consumption that usually causes the problems. What, in particular, you’re overeating (fats or complex carbs or simple carbs or proteins) can influence the kind of problem, but it’s the over-eating that causes the problem. When you’re not over-eating, the body does really, really well with many different ratios of fats, carbs, protein… You can find “native diets” in populations all over the world that are wildly high in carbs, or in fats, or in protein, compared to the modern Western diet, and those native populations do fine on those diets… as long as they’re not over-consuming the way Westerners do. (They’re also typically a lot more active, while Westerners have become more and more sedentary.)

Cutting out a whole category of foods is a really effective way to reduce your calories without realizing you’ve reduced your calories. Most people on a carb-free diet insist they’re getting more calories than before, but when it’s analyzed, it’s pretty much never the case.

People talk about the rise in obesity and cite the increased consumption of sugar in the diet… but most of that increase in sugar is based on studies on children’s food. I’m not saying all the sugar in kids’ food is a good thing, but if you want to figure out why so many adults are becoming obese - something which typically happens after college - we should look at eating trends among adults. I’ll quote Alan Aragon here:

Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007.

  • Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
  • Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
  • Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
  • Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
  • Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
  • Added fat kcals are up 7%,
  • Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
  • Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular.

I’ll save you the math - total calorie consumption rose 27%. Within the 2775 calories, the relative percentage of different foods went up and down a little - added sugar down 1%, added fat up 7%… but the total count went up 27%.

This quote applies particularly well here, since it’s taken from “The bitter truth about fructose alarmism”, Alan Aragon’s rebuttal to the Robert Lustig video posted above.


I find Alan Aragon’s rebuttal a bit lacking, mostly he seems to criticize the studies used to support Lustig’s myopic but doesn’t even attempt to challenge the biochemistry part of it (the part that matters most). I think Aragon might be a victim of skepticism addiction; every time something resembling alarmism appears on the Internet, people scramble to be the rational detractor that puts it all into perspective, and this often becomes more important to them than the actual truth.

I would highly recommend Lustig’s follow-up video, “Fructose 2.0” as he makes the case that backing this up with studies is impossible - the kind required would be unethical at best, possibly lethal to the test subjects. This, he posits, is the perfect scapegoat for the food lobby to dismiss the issue.

1 Like