How low-carbohydrate diets result in more weight loss than high-carbohydrate diets for people with Insulin Resistance or Type 2 Diabetes.

See The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) for trials where insulin resistant people get more weight loss on low-carbohydrate diets than on high-carbohydrate diets, and insulin sensitive people get more weight loss on high-carbohydrate diets than on low-carbohydrate diets.

If Gary Taubes' carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis of obesity was correct, everyone would get more weight loss on low-carbohydrate diets. This isn't the case, therefore Gary Taubes' hypothesis is not correct.

Although insulin is involved, it has nothing to do with "Hormonal clogs" or "Insulin fairies"!

The Aragon Insulin Fairy

The Energy Balance Equation

Change in Bodily Stores = Energy in - Energy out, where... 

Energy in = Energy entering mouth - Energy exiting anus, and... 

Energy out = BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT

See The Energy Balance Equation to find out what the above terms mean.

People with Insulin Resistance (IR), Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) & Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) have excessive insulin secretion in response to meals (postprandial hyperinsulinaemia). See Hyperinsulinaemia and Insulin Resistance - An Engineer's Perspective.

People with Insulin Resistance (IR), Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) & Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) also have impaired/no 1st phase insulin response to a sudden rise in blood glucose level. This introduces a time-lag into the negative feed-back (NFB) loop that regulates blood glucose level. If the input rise-time is less than the time-lag in a NFB loop, the output of the NFB loop overshoots. This is standard NFB loop behaviour. Trust me, I'm a retired Electronic Engineer. I've observed this (too) many times!

1. On a high-refined-carbohydrate or high-GL diet, blood glucose level rises rapidly, with a rise-time that's less than the time-lag in the blood glucose regulation NFB loop. Insulin secretion from the pancreas overshoots in a positive direction. The resulting massive postprandial hyperinsulinaemia results in down-regulation of insulin receptors in the brain, which reduces insulin action in the brain. When the insulin level eventually falls to normal a few hours later, the brain interprets a normal insulin level as hypoinsulinaemia. Hypoinsulinaemia results in ravenous hunger, as insulin is a short-term satiety/satiation hormone in the brain (leptin is a long-term satiety/satiation hormone in the brain). Ravenous hunger results in over-eating. Energy in increases. Postprandial hyperinsulinaemia also results in postprandial sleepiness. Energy out decreases. ∴ Bodily stores increase. There are also accusations of sloth & gluttony!

2. On a low-carbohydrate or low-GL diet, there are small fluctuations in blood glucose & insulin levels. There is no ravenous hunger. There is much less/no over-eating. Energy in decreases. There is no massive postprandial hyperinsulinaemia. There is much less/no postprandial sleepiness. Energy out increases. ∴ Bodily stores decrease.

In addition, there is a loss of water weight due to a loss of liver & muscle glycogen. This can be ~2kg in one day (it varies from person to person). Kidneys can increase their output of urine for hormonal reasons. This can increase water weight loss to ~5kg. See Why counting Calories and weighing yourself regularly can be a waste of time.

There are also other hormones involved. For a Facebook discussion with James Krieger that led to the updating of this post, see https://www.facebook.com/james.krieger1/posts/10153228943648587

P.S. In Metabolic Ward studies, food intake is tightly controlled, so postprandial hunger doesn't result in over-eating. Energy expenditure is also controlled, so postprandial sleepiness doesn't significantly affect energy expenditure. This is why varying Fat:Carb ratios (with Protein held constant) makes no significant difference to weight in a Metabolic Ward. See Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition.

P.P.S. Inter-personal variations in postprandial hyperinsulinaemia, postprandial sleepiness & energy out explain the inter-personal variations in weight gain seen under hypercaloric conditions.

P.P.P.S. Insulin Resistance can be fixed in the long-term. See Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.

Type 2 Diabetes can be fixed in the long-term. See Reversing type 2 diabetes, the lecture explaining T2D progression, and how to treat it.

Aim to fix the problem in the long-term. If a long-term fix isn't possible (due to excessive destruction of pancreatic beta cells), use a low-carbohydrate diet as an adjunct to medication.

Some fascinating healthcare statistics: Article by Ezra Klein.

Spotted on Twitter. From Is America better at treating cancer than Europe? , by Ezra Klein.

Healthcare rankings.

I highlighted Great Britain in green.

Cancer mortality.

Saturated fats Saturated fats Saturated fats.

George Henderson left the following comment. I think that the information in it deserves a bigger audience.

Saturated fats seem to get the blame for everything nowadays. "Saturated fats clogged my arteries". "Saturated fats gave me cancer". "Saturated fats stole my job". O.K, I've done that joke before.

There are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats and there are saturated fats. Saturated fats are an ester of Glycerol (a 3-carbon alcohol) and three saturated fatty acids (SFA's). There are roughly six categories of SFA's.

1) Short chain SFA's such as Acetic acid, Propionic acid, Butyric acid (found in butter and also what soluble fibre ferments into in the colon) and Caproic acid.
2) Medium chain SFA's such as Caprylic acid, Capric acid, Lauric acid and Myristic acid.
3) Long chain SFA's such as Stearic acid.
4) SFA's behaving like Palmitic acid.
5) Odd chain SFA's such as Pentadecylic acid and Margaric acid.
6) Very long chain SFA's such as Behenic acid.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saturated_fatty_acids

In foods, the above SFA's are associated with different things.
1) and 2) don't get associated with much polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA's), e.g. dairy and tropical nuts.
3) and 4) are more likely to be associated with long-chain PUFA's, e.g. meats, poultry, temperate nuts.
5) is associated with CLA and not much PUFA's, e.g. dairy from grass-fed animals.

See also Siri-Tarino et al, Forests & Trees and "Eureka!" moments and Chowdhury et al, More forests & more trees and more "Eureka!" moments with cheese.

How a B.Sc.(Hons) in Electronic Engineering is relevant to Diet & Nutrition.

The human body regulates various processes using negative feedback loops. Here's blood glucose regulation.

From http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/ch-47-chemical-signals-in-animals/deck/3085387

Here's a generic Hypothalamus-Pituitary-X Axis loop, where X may be thyroid, adrenal, gonadal etc.

From http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/ch-47-chemical-signals-in-animals/deck/3085387

Electronic Engineers understand how negative feedback systems work, such as phase-locked loops & amplifiers.

Negative feedback control systems can overshoot, especially if there's a delay in the feedback path that's longer than the rise time of the input step.

An example of this is the first-phase insulin response. Loss of the first-phase insulin response occurs in over-fat people who are hyperinsulinaemic. Without the first-phase insulin response, there's a delay between an increase in blood glucose and an increase in insulin secretion. A rapid upwards step in blood glucose (say, from eating a high-GL meal) causes a massive overshoot in insulin secretion, resulting in postprandial sleepiness, also down-regulation of insulin receptor activity in the appetite centres of the brain, causing ravenous hunger when the insulin level falls to normal.

See also Blood Glucose, Insulin & Diabetes.

People shouldn't be too quick to write-off the knowledge of an Electronic Engineer who's delving into the mysteries of the human body.

The Conflation Game.

Li-i-ife, is the name of the game, and I wanna play the game with you.....


People have been "grinding my gears" by conflating carbohydrates with sugars. All sugars are carbohydrates, but not all carbohydrates are sugars. See Carbs Carbs Carbs. to find out about the five basic different types of carbohydrates.

Krauss et al has done it again. In Separate effects of reduced carbohydrate intake and weight loss on atherogenic dyslipidemia, at the bottom of Table 1 is "carbohydrate, 50% simple and 50% complex". The carbohydrates consisted of half sugars and half starches.

The effect of such a sugary diet is as follows:-

The percentage of pattern B (small, dense) LDL particles increases significantly in proportion to the percentage of Dietary "carbohydrate". The implication of this study (also A very-low-fat diet is not associated with improved lipoprotein profiles in men with a predominance of large, low-density lipoproteins ) is that high-carb, low-fat diets are atherogenic.

This is not on.

A high sugar diet is atherogenic, but carbs from new potatoes (especially if eaten cold), Basmati rice (especially if eaten cold), sweet potatoes, beans & whole fruits aren't.

Guest post: Denialism as Pseudoscientific Thinking.

In pseudoscience there’s a subtype called Denialism. Denialism seeks to deny an established science and violate multiple principles of logic, and scientific methodology, this is mostly because of a priori beliefs and preconceptions. Typically the same cognitive and logical errors are committed in denialism reasoning.

The whole process starts with a desired conclusion, that a generally accepted scientific or historical claim is not true. Denialists have ideological reasons, and engage in motivated reasoning, rationalizing away the undesired claim.

In essence and practical terms, they work backward from their desired conclusion, filling in justifications.

1. Moving the goalposts

In moving the goalposts, they always demand more evidence for a claim, even if currently available. However when that burden of evidence is met, the goalposts are moved and more evidence is demanded.

They may use vagueness in defining a certain term to move the goalpost away from any possible dis-confirming evidence.

2. Unreasonable demand for evidence

Because science has gaps, they explore them as if it the specific scientific theory being discussed is invalid or not well established.

Let’s take the example of HIV denial. Deniers often demand a single study or scientific paper establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS. However, it is not established by a single study but rather by a large body of evidence.

In scientific reasoning we must see if the gaps are slowly being filled, and if predictions are met, and if it fits together with other lines of evidence, observational or experimental.

If a theory has been going around in circles and not progressing, that is a strong indication of pseudoscience.

3. Pointing out disagreements

Disagreements within a discipline are explored, often small details, as if the science in question is not solid.

4. Denying entire categories of evidence

Another strategy the narrowing of evidence that may count as “scientific”. The most common is using the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation.

Correlation is not the same as causation, not necessarily anyway. Correlations need to be used properly, and multiple correlations can triangulate a specific causal relationship observed in a correlation. Epidemiology is based on correlations and observational evidence, if they were invalid the entire field simply would vanish.

They can even deny all historical sciences such as astronomy, geology, or even forensics.

5. False dichotomy

This is an argument from ignorance. If a version of events is not true then the alternate claim or version must be. However, they rarely provide positive evidence for their alternate claim.

6. Campaign of Doubt

Little factoids can be gathered and taken out of context. The goal is to sow doubt, uncertainty, and distrust, focusing on apparent inconsistencies, or gaps. However in healthy skepticism we consider all the evidence in the proper perspective, and even though knowledge is incomplete, reliable conclusions can be achieved.

7. Conspiracy theory

As a last resort comes the conspiracy theory, claiming that the scientific evidence itself is fraudulent, a grand conspiracy. This tactic allows them to dismiss all the evidence and rationalize it away.



Grant, John. Denying Science. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2011.

Novella, Steven. “More on God of the Gaps.” NeuroLogica Blog. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-on-god-of-the-gaps

Novella, Steven. “Skepticism and Denial.” The NESS. http://www.theness.com/index.php/skepticism-and-denial

Specter, Michael. Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. London: Penguin Press, 2009

Tokuno, Hajime. “Holocaust Denial.” The NESS. http://www.theness.com/index.php/holocaust-denial


For more information on Sérgio Fontinhas, see Big Fitness Project.

Guest post: Science versus Pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is so flawed that it cannot be considered legitimate science. Of course it is common to claim that one’s beliefs are scientific, but mostly they are not.

Pseudoscience lacks the true method of science and goes way beyond just a few errors, the methods themselves are so flawed that makes the theory suspicious.

Between the two extremes of science and pseudoscience there is a gray zone, but legitimate science and pseudosciences can still be identified. The denial of this two extremes in the continuum, is a false continuum logical fallacy, or philosophically called the demarcation problem.

Features of Pseudoscience

1. Motivated reasoning

The most prominent feature of this pathological science is working backward from desired results, or motivated reasoning. The result is that they make evidence fit into preconceived notions. They use biased logic and cherry-picked evidence in order to defend a desired conclusion. There’s no concern and effort to prove their own theories wrong.

This relates to the congruence bias, testing one’s own theory by looking for positive evidence and cherry-picked evidence.

2. Burden of proof and confirmation bias

They will only look for confirming evidence, avoid dis-confirming evidence, and may engage in special pleading and shifting the burden of proof.

In confirmation bias, they look for supportive evidence for their own desired conclusions, choosing only the evidence that supports their own theory, irrespective of quality, negative evidence.

3. Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotes are uncontrolled, or ad-hoc observations, and they are not systematic. They rely on confirmation bias and recall bias.

Low-grade evidence is often favored no matter how implausible it may be.

Emotional appeal is another typical tactic among pseudoscientists who try to defend their statements, claiming what people say is more important than actual numbers on paper.

Pseudoscientific belief may even be based upon a single case or observation, preliminary evidence, or even a single anecdote. This is the hasty generalization logical fallacy.

Pseudoscientific principles may also be based upon a philosophical idea, not been empirically tested or developed as a scientific theory.

4. Grandiose claims (Galileo syndrome)

This involves grandiose claims based upon preliminary evidence. Far-reaching claims overturn entire portions of well-established science, using very little research or tiny bits of evidence.

5. Alternative science

In extreme cases, pseudoscience leads to alternative science, all of science is replaced with an alternative version.

6. Absolute claims

Pseudoscientists make bold claims that are often absolute and go way beyond the evidence. Pseudoscientists offer simple answers to complex questions, a theory of everything where one tiny casual source is used to explain the entire universe, if it comes to that.

7. Hostility

Pseudoscientists generally cannot accept criticism and avoid the scientific community. They claim being victim of a conspiracy and stay away from mainstream science and community.

8. Vagueness

Pseudoscientists use vague terms and words to obfuscate, so they can shift the definition around, use it in different ways at different times when it suits them, to confuse others and avoid explaining their point. Vague terms such as “information” or “energy” are often used with no specificity as in a scientific discussion.

9. Stagnation

Pseudosciences fail to progress, and tend to be stagnant. They are ad nauseam trying to establish their theory rather than build a body of evidence for it.

10. Anomaly hunting

Anomaly hunting is yet another common feature in which they search for anomalies trying to establish a conclusion, which does not seek to refute or explore other alternatives.



Nickerson, Raymond. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2 (1998): 175–220.

Novella, Steven. “Anomaly Hunting.” NeuroLogica Blog. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting

Pigliucci, Massimo. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010

Shermer, Michael, The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1957
Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Henry Holt/Times Books, 1997.


For more information on Sérgio Fontinhas, see Big Fitness Project.