Very likely nobody knows. These are complex issues - and there are many
cases where you can cite evidence both for and against low-carb.

On the whole, I agree with his thinking - long term low carb is probably
not beneficial (don't know whether it's actually harmful); but adequate
carb intake is what we should aim for - and that's going to be lifestyle
dependant.

He doesn't really mention specifics when it comes to types of carbs, but
it's implied in the text - carbs that have been grown (fruit, veg, whole
grain) should be eaten in preference to refined carbs. He makes little
reference to GI, which would make his text largely irrelevant to
Diabetics I would have thought.

He has some good points, but they lack backup in places. Yes, the tribes
he mention do have shorter lifespans than other races - but he implies
this is down to their diet - but that might not be the case; the tribes
he mentions all live in inhospitable parts of the world where conditions
are stressful anyway - there's nothing to suggest their shorter lifespan
is due to diet.

I haven't read anything there to suggest I should change my lifestyle. I
choose adequate carbs (which is what Atkins is about, albeit with some
rather dramatic stages along the way) which are mostly not refined.

--
Succorso

I think the article was a whole lot of nothing. He is arguing against
the various theories as to why a low-carb diet might be more in
keeping with our nutritional needs. Then he talks about theoretical
complications such as dopamine depletion, cardio and immune
complications, and adrenal burnout. He claims to have witnessed these
complications in his clients and ascribes it to low-carb dieting. It
all sounds quite vague and he doesn't really address how he came to
connect these apparent effects with low-carbing by itself.

Yeah, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about but he doesn't
present any detailed info as to how he came to these conclusions.

For example: adrenal burnout in low carb dieters, here is an odd
quote: "Less than 2% are able to maintain this lifestyle without
stimulants such as caffeine." How did he come to this strange
conclusion? An informal survey of 210 long-term low-carb eaters? What
is he asking? How does he conclude that they are unable to maintain
the life-style without caffeine? And how does he make a connection
with adrenal burnout? Sounds like he's stretching quite a bit.

I think it is the old "if you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance,
baffle 'em with your bullshit" approach to nutrition. I highly doubt
that any studies will support these specific concerns as expressed by
Dr. Brett Jacques, CST and he does not present anything other than his
apparently skewed, limited and biased observations.

TC

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/4/emw121850.htm

TC

Lookee lookee, Dr Brett Jacques is an "independent" consultant to a
low-calorie weight loss program:

http://bodywise.com/home.asp?valid=1316701

He sells the following:

Products that support and balance all the major areas that contribute
to weight control
The ABC Eating Plan that provides healthy guidelines for real
nutrition  - incorporating regular food and normal eating patterns
The Body Wise Personal Fitness program - a balanced exercise plan to
keep you in shape and burn calories

Here is their diet pitch:

"For a Better Life, All Your Life
One of the hardest things to learn when "Reshaping" is how to eat. Our
goal at Body Wise® is to help you make healthy eating both simple and
fulfilling. When you look at today's fad diets, few of them are really
grounded in good nutrition. For example, low-fat plans often neglect
excellent sources of protein and healthy fats, while "low-carb"
dieters lose out on a range of very nutritious grains, legumes, and
fruits."

The guy is a salesman, not a doctor. Must be losing a lot of business
to the low-carb diets.

TC