LCHF Mythbusting

[TheAwfulToad]

As some of you might know, I'm the HU "Ambassador" for the LCHF group. It's a bit of a thankless task because the internet is still awash with misinformation about LCHF. Prompted partly by a few recent conversations, I figured it'd be worth doing an occasional series of MythBuster posts. I'll do two or three at a time to avoid myth overload.

Myth 1 : LCHF is a fad diet

There are some excellent videos on YouTube debunking this idea, but it's fairly easy to sum up the counterargument. LCHF involves eating minimally-processed vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy; adherents avoid novel "foods" constructed in a factory in favour of proper home-cooked meals. If this is a "fad", then pretty much every traditional cuisine could be labelled as such. Classical French food? A huge fad, and Escoffier was a scam artist*. Italian food, full of fresh vegetables, cheeses, and naturally-raised meats? Fad. How lucky for them that the industrial revolution transformed pasta from a hard-to-make starter course into a fast-food item that can be served up in trough-sized quantities. Chinese food? No, the Chinese don't live on rice (although once upon a time the destitute might have done so). A Chinese meal usually has a meat dish with several types of vegetable, and perhaps an egg or tofu dish. Rice is a palm-sized portion. A silly fad, of course, and the Green Revolution has transformed rice, like pasta, into a cheap commodity.

So, fresh vegetables, meat, eggs and dairy, with the natural fat still in it, prepared in time-honoured ways, in recipes designed first and foremost to be delicious. That's LCHF. And yup, it's a fad. A twenty-millennia fad.

Myth 2 : LCHF is bad for you

This one is very much related to Myth 1 : the underlying assertion is that the eclectic range of foods that our ancestors thrived on (and they must have thrived, or there wouldn't be 7 billion of us today) is, like, really bad for you, and the only healthy diet is constructed from industrial foods. Low-fat spread (margarine). Pre-cooked oats (raised via the magic of fossil fuels, pesticides, and fertilizers). Suspiciously-squishy "wholemeal" bread (see 'Chorleywood Bread Process'). Low-fat milk, yoghurt and salad dressings (which use chemicals and sugar to approximate the expected mouthfeel). Baked beans. These are all things recommended as wholesome by dieticians and nutritionists, and we've been obediently eating lots of them for 50 years. Yet we're all disastrously unhealthy; the UK, for example, has one of the highest rates of COVID-19 deaths on the planet (well over 10%) and an obesity rate fast approaching the US. Funny how healthy eating can do that to you, isn't it?

Myth 3 : LCHF is keto is Atkins is GI is Dukan ...

LCHF is a broad umbrella term. It just means "less carbs and more fat than Western health authorities recommend". Since said authorities recommend a diet entirely composed of carbs, with as little fat as possible, then (as noted) virtually any traditional diet can be classed as LCHF.

- Atkins is a variant of LCHF which suggested that protein could be eaten ad lib. A lot of people misunderstood this and tried to eat a low-fat high-protein diet. This usually results in terrible hunger/carb cravings.

- Dukan is not really LCHF. Dr Dukan, like most medical professionals, believed in the terribleness of dietary fat and suggested replacing carbs with protein. He added a whole bunch of other rules in order to fill the requisite number of pages of his book. The best that can be said about it is that it's fairly harmless.

- Keto is a very short phase of low-carb and genuine high-fat intake. Typically two weeks. Its only purpose is to force a very rapid recalibration to fat-burning. Yes, you will lose some weight during a keto phase, but that's not a good reason to stick with it. It's boring and restrictive, and you'll come across as a bit of a nutcase if you're eating with friends and tell them you "can't" eat such-and-such.

- The GI diet is just an incredibly complicated version of LCHF, with lots of rules and prescriptions and charts to follow. It's based on rather dubious science; the Glycemic Index is a helpful guide to fattening foods, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Should there be any interest, I'll post a few more next week ...

*Fun fact: he actually was, but not as far as food was concerned.

[Diane2]

Thanks TAT, very helpful post 👍 Keep 'em coming as and when you can is my response. I dont know why it is that many of us get bamboozled into thinking the remedy to our unhealthy weight has to be complicated and torturous, potentially expensive etcetc.I would say in a nutshell it's about getting back to basics but that's too simplistic and obviously some people have additional health issues that need to be factored in but since coming onto the Forum and changing my eating habits (amount of carbs consumed in particular) I have felt heaps better ✔,enjoy food more and lost 3st into the bargain 💪 .What's not to like?! Thanks for your part in this happy change in my life ! 🤗

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to Diane2]

>> I dont know why it is that many of us get bamboozled into thinking the remedy to our unhealthy weight has to be complicated and torturous

Yeah, this. I suspect the answer is "because all the experts tell us that it's so". Almost all "diet plans" involve some sort of denial of the body's natural demands - either eating inadequate portions, or leaving out all the nice things. Or they involve endless complicated rules. Our ancestors knew nothing about macronutrients, calories, or what-have-you, and yet they survived and thrived.

LCHF is not just another diet. Fundamentally, it's about getting back to the simplicity of listening to your appetite, and eating good, wholesome food.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear of your success

[moreless Administrator 7 stone]

Great post TAT. The more myths that can be dispelled the better and the more healthy, happy, slim people there will be.

Looking forward to future posts

[gonnadoitnow]

Hey, thanks for this. I had a go at LCHF but found I missed things like root veg and rice with my curry. I hate the idea of cauliflower rice as much as I hate quorn- tasting meat for vegetarians, it seems a weird substitution. I also had a go at making the various breads with different flours, almond, coconut and found a lot of stuff tasted predominantly of egg.

For general eating/cooking. I always use healthy oils, butter, cook from scratch, so I'm not junk food addict like that.

Admittedly, a lot of my weight issues are in my head, my self-sabotaging head! (Cut that off!) But I wish I believed I could eat everything and lose weight. I'm always chasing the next fad because I am impatient, but then I never stick at things because I know I couldn't live indefinitely on any "diet".

Guess there's no happy answer.

However, I have picked up some habits that have stuck. I like a smoothie, it satisfies my sweet urges. Always the same recipe. I like green tea/chamomile. I like good meats, and try and add a salad to my lunches.

Don't know why I'm telling you all this. Maybe cause you hold the title of ambassador, and you also talk a lot of sense. And you said in another article just eat proper food and the weight would sort itself. Wish I was a believer.

[Diane2 in reply to gonnadoitnow]

Cauliflower and I have a lukewarm relationship but I found a yum recipe the other day I might post which involved blitzing half a c'fleur till it looked like couscous , adding 1tbs olive oil, 1 tsp cumin, 1 tsp mustard seeds & pinch chilli flakes and pinch salt and roasting it for 10 mins. Then add 100g broad beans, 100g peas,30g chopped roasted hazelnuts, chopped parsley, chopped mint and 1tbsp olive oil with a final squeeze of 1/2 @ lemon. It's fabulous!

I've always loved adding fresh herbs and adding spices and the more one cooks one's own meals, the tastier food can prove to be in my experience. Increasingly I've learnt how use of seasonings can really bring out tastes of foods I, hitherto , just wrote off as bleuh or bland etc...silly me 🙄!

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to gonnadoitnow]

There's a big learning curve, for sure. You have to be prepared to step well outside your comfort zone and learn a whole repertoire of new recipes. And learn to like them. It does take time. Some people just take to it immediately; some people do struggle a bit.

I'm not a big fan, personally, of carb substitutes like almond flour and cauliflower rice, although I'll happily eat almonds or cauliflower. My gut feeling is that these things keep you attached to certain ideas about what a meal is supposed to look like - ie., a pile of white stuff with some sauce on top.

Once you accept the philosophical readjustment (a meal doesn't have to look like anything in particular; it just has to be tasty and filling), the world is your bivalve mollusc.

[BridgeGirl Administrator 2 stone in reply to TheAwfulToad]

I do agree with that point about trying to make meals like they're "supposed"to be. I love cauli but I love the crunch as well as the taste. I have tried it but it's not for me. My attempt at low carb naan wasn't something I'm going to repeat.

When I do a curry, I just eat the curry, maybe with some chutney and a blob of yoghurt.

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to BridgeGirl]

If I'm eating out at an Indian restaurant, I'll often order a kebab plate and some pakora. Or if I feel like a sauce-based curry, I'll just eat it with rice/bread the way it's supposed to be eaten. It's not very often I'm in that situation, and I don't often feel like eating rice, so the dose of carbs is neither here nor there (apart from the fact that it makes me feel bloated!)

I'll cover "all carbs are evil and must be avoided at all times" in some future post

[BridgeGirl Administrator 2 stone in reply to TheAwfulToad]

That will be a good one

[Delft in reply to TheAwfulToad]

(a meal doesn't have to look like anything in particular; it just has to be tasty and filling)

I agree! Just finished my evening meal - simple dish of wholewheat spaghetti tossed in a little good quality olive oil and tablespoon of finely grated, extra strong Romano.

Tangerine for 9 o'clockers and that's it for the day.

Stay safe all and thanks for the post TAT, et al

[ChubbieChops Visitor in reply to gonnadoitnow]

I like cauli but I don't like it as a rice substitute - totally with you there. I enjoy curry now but I am happy to eat it without any rice or cauliflower. Chilli con carne too. As for roots, I have some carrot with some meals, when I do a roast occasionally, I may have a roasted parsnip but I generally find them too sweet so I don't miss them, and I have one roast spud. So I don't feel that I can't eat these things ever again, I just need to make sure that they are kept as an occasional item rather than staples again

[Sheperdess Maintainer]

Please do continue writing these informative posts 😀I have checked out the usual LCHF pioneers on YouTube and subscribe to all of their channels. I learn from them, definitely but there is no substitute for hearing about it from those who are living it day to day. Don’t stop 😉

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to Sheperdess]

Thanks for the encouragement

[rachelleigh Visitor]

Ooh Toad - what's wrong with keeping half an eye on GI and GL numbers? I don't obsess over them, but when 'low-carbing' I like to make good choices on the carbs that I do eat based on their likely insulin response. For me - managing insulin response is the whole point of reducing carbs - and I'm interested in knowing that 'x' is a better choice than 'y' because of where it sits on the GI/GL scale. This is first I've heard about the science being 'dubious' - and I really do love and respect your contribution to this forum. But I am genuinely curious because for me LCHF is all about GI/GL/insulin response. They all fit together to complete the metabolic picture - don't they? With thanks as always for your thoughts Toad - much appreciated! x

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to rachelleigh]

oh, nothing wrong with it at all, particularly when starting out. I've just found that it's fairly easy to remember what's "carby" and what isn't, so no need to refer to specifics. When I said "the science is dubious" I was really just objecting to the thing called the "GI Diet" (I bought the book out of curiosity) which IMO is so needlessly complex that people would most likely give up in despair.

The point is that, once your body is responding correctly to carbs and has normalized its insulin response, then GI becomes a lot less meaningful; a carb-heavy meal may well be stored away as fat, but that fat will then be recycled right back out again when needed.

Of course if you're T2D with permanent metabolic impairment, then it's a different story; GI/GL is probably a useful thing to keep an eye on.

[rachelleigh Visitor in reply to TheAwfulToad]

Phew! Thanks Toad - I must admit I don't know anything about 'the GI diet' per se. Appreciate your reply x

[Subtle_badger]

I've got a rant that's been building up inside me. I will pop it in here.

Myth 4: Cutting out an entire food group is dangerous

The five food groups are typically (around the world)

* Meat/fish/other proteins;

* fruit and vegetables;

* fats and oils;

* grains (or grains and starchy veg);

* dairy.

The question is: why are grains in their own food group? It has to be because they are less nutritious than veggies and fruit. They want to make sure people eat vegetables and fruit, so they have to be in their own group separate from grains. We can't have people including bread in their five-a-day. But grains are food too, and if you are classifying all food into groups, there has to be a category to put them in.

Somewhere along the way, it got turned around. Instead of food groups just being useful for categorising foods, people got the notion in their head that all the food groups are equal. Somehow a food that has only been available for the last 10,000 years (or much less as there are still groups living well without agriculture) has equal status to all proteins or all other plants, foods we would literally die without and that our ancestors going back hundreds of millions of years have required. Giving up grains becomes the equivalent to stopping all plant foods or refusing all protein. Ironically, putting them in a box with the implicit label "less necessary" has made them essential.

One could give up brassicas, legumes, nightshades, meat, fish, poultry, eggs etc etc and you no one calls any of that a fad, but stop eating rice, wheat and potatoes and this whole "whole food group" nonsense starts up.

And don't get my started on dairy.....

[TheAwfulToad Visitor in reply to Subtle_badger]

I was going to do that one, with a very similar point to make, but you got there before me

I think Hidden is on the money there: the relentless and shortsighted focus on macros instead of actual foods. Most nutrition research involves the same old experiments done over and over again, because there's really only so much you can do with carbs, protein and fats.

[BridgeGirl Administrator 2 stone in reply to TheAwfulToad]

I think it's worthwhile you including it, or a link to Badger's comments, in your next myth-buster as it is a big one

[ChubbieChops Visitor]

I love your posts - always find them reassuring and informative. Keep 'em please

[ChubbieChops Visitor]

who mentioned fudge?????

[Portlandprincess]

Love your posts!