I hadn't expected @davidludwigmd to criticize the recent perspective in @ScienceMagazine with @JohnSpeakman4 on the basis that it presents a "straw man" version of the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM) of obesity. We tried to faithfully represent his version of the CIM. Thread.
Dr. Ludwig's description: “a high-carbohydrate diet … produces postprandial hyperinsulinemia, promotes deposition of calories in fat cells instead of oxidation in lean tissues, and thereby predisposes to weight gain through increased hunger, slowing metabolic rate, or both.”
This was also described as "the fat cell theory of obesity" in Always Hungry by where @davidludwigmd describes insulin as the "fat cell fertilizer" that acts as "The One-Way Calorie Turnstile" trapping fat in adipose tissue and leading to increased hunger & slowing metabolism.
This version of the CIM was also described by @davidludwigmd in this video promoting his book:
We described experimental tests of the CIM that produced results counter to its predictions. No study is perfect, but rather than seriously consider their implications for the CIM @davidludwigmd brushed these studies aside describing them as "weak" and to be ignored as irrelevant
Rather than ignore these studies, we suggested that they should be used to help understand how insulin and other hormones can be incorporated within an energy balance model of obesity. It's a false dichotomy to say "only calories matter" versus "only carbs and insulin matter".
Low carb diets work well for many people, but the CIM described above likely does not explain why. Investigating the veracity of the CIM is not an "attack" on low carbohydrate diets. Rather, such studies lead to better mechanistic understanding and maybe better diet interventions
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just submitted our latest manuscript entitled "A plant-based, low-fat diet decreases ad libitum energy intake compared to an animal-based, ketogenic diet: An inpatient randomized controlled trial". I'm looking forward to all constructive comments! osf.io/preprints/nutr…
20 adults without diabetes were admitted as inpatients to the NIH Clinical Center and randomized to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat (PBLF) diet or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate (ABLC) diet for 2 weeks followed immediately by the alternate diet .
The PBLF diet was 75.2% carbohydrate, 10.3% fat, 14.5% protein and had a non-beverage energy density of 1.1 kcal/g. The ABLC diet was 75.8% fat,10.0% carbohydrate, 14.2% protein and had a non-beverage energy density of 2.2 kcal/g. Subjects consumed as much or as little as desired
The video cites our 2015 @Cell_Metabolism paper that didn’t investigate a keto diet. We even refused to call the diet “low carb” because the calorie restriction achieved by selectively cutting carbs resulted in a diet ~30% of total calories from carbs. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052
Our study was NOT an efficacy study as portrayed in the @nutrition_facts video. Rather, it was designed to investigate the physiology of selective restriction of carbs vs fat &the effects on insulin secretion and body fat. The body fat differences were clinically meaningless!
Our latest RCT paper was just submitted for peer review and now available as a @NutriXiv preprint: "Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: A one-month inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake". osf.io/preprints/nutr… 1/7
We investigated whether ultra-processed foods affect energy intake in 20 weight-stable adults who were admitted to the NIH Clinical Center and randomized to receive either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 2 weeks immediately followed by the alternate diet for 2 weeks. 2/7
Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. 3/7