LCHF on Australia’s biggest science show!


Things are happening! The other day an excellent TV show aired about the benefits of LCHF-like food. This on Australia’s biggest science show, Catalyst.

The show is not only about how LCHF may reduce appetite, produce weight loss without hunger or improve diabetes. It also goes into how this kind of food may help some top athletes to better performance.

Watch the episode for free online:

Catalyst: Low-carb diet: fat or fiction? (30 minutes long)

The show features professor Tim Noakes and professor Steve Phinney.


LCHF for Beginners

Carb-Loaded: the Best Low-Carb Movie Ever?

Legendary Exercise Professor Embraces LCHF!

A Food Revolution in South Africa


Top comments

  1. Kristen
    I appreciated this latest contribution to popular media's coverage of LCHF and shifting attitudes toward this way of eating.
    I am only disappointed that the overall message seemed to suggest that LCHF is best suited to that "fraction of the population" that is insulin resistant, those who are (pre-) diabetic, and elite athletes. As an enthusiastic proponent of LCHF and ketosis, I am waiting for the professionals to encourage LCHF as a healthier way of eating. Period. Not just as a method of curbing the obesity epidemic and ailments associated with metabolic syndrome, but as a means of improved quality of life, mental acuity, general wellbeing, energy, etc.
    Read more →
  2. sten
    Great stuff, beutiful food and even a celebrity chef that were using bone marrow in some dishes.
    LCHF is about how easy it is to get the feeling of fulness; now this program almost made me hungry! At least gave me new ideas.
    Read more →

All comments

  1. sten
    Great stuff, beutiful food and even a celebrity chef that were using bone marrow in some dishes.
    LCHF is about how easy it is to get the feeling of fulness; now this program almost made me hungry! At least gave me new ideas.
  2. Vicente
    I loved this show. "Heart of the matter" was also excellent. It was censored but it can be found elsewhere.
  3. Jillm
    I thought it was very well done. I gave it a standing ovation.
  4. Kristen
    I appreciated this latest contribution to popular media's coverage of LCHF and shifting attitudes toward this way of eating.
    I am only disappointed that the overall message seemed to suggest that LCHF is best suited to that "fraction of the population" that is insulin resistant, those who are (pre-) diabetic, and elite athletes. As an enthusiastic proponent of LCHF and ketosis, I am waiting for the professionals to encourage LCHF as a healthier way of eating. Period. Not just as a method of curbing the obesity epidemic and ailments associated with metabolic syndrome, but as a means of improved quality of life, mental acuity, general wellbeing, energy, etc.
  5. JED
    Very good, well put together.

    I agree that too much emphasis was given to LCHF as diabetes treatment or anti-obesity weapon -- it is much more than that.

    Somewhat disappointed by a throwaway comment that mentioned whole grains as health foods. -- Can we stop that rubbish already?

    Very good to hear that the low-GI concept is simply broken though!

    Reply: #29
  6. Stash
    Kristen, I think that comment about "fraction of the population" was self-serving and should be dismissed as such. I am pre diabetic and on the LCHF Diet and have never felt better. And what is even better is that I have none of the sugar spikes or hunger pangs
  7. Paul the rat
    Replies: #10, #14
  8. FrankG
    You do realise that 99 out of every 100 people is STILL a "fraction of the population" :-P

    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good... that public media is broadcasting this message at all IS progress :-)

  9. Marilyn
    @Paul the Rat, re: Imperium. Same old tired and tiresome line about "cutting out whole food groups." So why do we never hear that about "fat free"? Isn't that also cutting out a whole food group? It's certainly cutting out a whole macronutrient.

    I googled "food groups" and discovered why. Wiki informed me that: "A food group is a collection of foods that share similar nutritional properties or biological classifications." The Wiki list of food groups included: 1. Dairy; 2. Fruits; 3. Grains, beans and legumes, 4. Meat or protein, and 6. Vegetables

    Fifth on the list was "Confections, also called sugary foods, and sometimes categorized with fats and oils, is typically a very small category. . .examples include candy, soda and chocolate."

    So there you have it. Fat doesn't exist except as a subset of sugar.


    Replies: #11, #13
  10. Galina L.
    It is a wide-spread opinion, mostly among vegetarians, that legumes are the part of the "protein" group.
    Reply: #12
  11. Marilyn
    Yes, Galina. There was a variety of things in some of the groups. The Dairy group included dairy substitutes and meat. Legumes and "meat analogues" were included in the Meat group, etc.

    But I thought that including fats and oils under "confections" was pretty outrageous! :-)

  12. jim
    If you make protein a food group, then you certainly should make fat a food group as well.

    And why is it "meat OR protein"? Because otherwise vegetarians would be also cutting out a whole food group? xD

    I'm also missing nuts and seeds. Probably should be in the "Grains, beans and legumes" group. Which you should simply call "Seeds and oils" then.

    Oh boy. The whole concept ist seriously flawed. Totally arbitrary. From there, you can conclude *anything* (ex falso quodlibet). How handy...

  13. Murray
    "LCHF diets are yet to be proven to provide adequate nutrition, be sustainable and prevent disease across the lifespan. In fact, LCHF diets represent a radically different eating pattern to the foods shown by an analysis of the whole scientific evidence base. Diets such as LCHF that restrict fibre and nutrient rich carbohydrate foods have been linked with a 30 per cent increased risk of early death."

    30%? Which study?

    I like how they skirt around the recalcitrant data that LCHF has outperformed other diets in numerous random control studies--no "long term" data. Of course not. Funding was blocked for LCHF studies for years, by the likes of the grains and legumes council. There are simply no long term studies either way, other than an ample anthropological record and reams of anecdotal evidence.

    The second sentence in this quote is gibberish--it has even lower brain-nutrient value than grains and legumes.

    Replies: #15, #17
  14. Paul the rat
    I recently had a conversation with some 'big kahuna' from the establishment about diet-cancer-diabetes et cetera et cetera.
    I swear if I would show that person a drawing of a black circle on a white paper and ask:
    "is this a circle?"
    the answer would be along the lines:
    "well, it is a drawing of a geometric figure, which is not a square or triangle and which also differ from a rhombus. However I must add that the black line on white background makes the drawing somewhat obscure and very hard to interpret and intact I would say, it could represent anything."

    I read the book you suggested Murray, (cancer as metabolic disease), must say that it is not all that straightforward (as you know) as book describes, although there is a lot in the book I personally agree with.

  15. Paul the rat
    "...interpret and intact I would say, …"

    should read: ' in fact'

  16. jim

    "Diets such as LCHF that restrict fibre and nutrient rich carbohydrate foods have been linked with a 30 per cent increased risk of early death."

    LCHF does restrict fiber?! OMG, we're doing it wrong!!!1111

    At least, we're not going to die early. XD

    Reply: #18
  17. Marilyn
    On the matter of fiber, this about sums it up:

  18. Marilyn
    I like this line:

    "Among those challenging the diet were the Heart Foundation, who “recommend maintaining a balance between fat (mostly unsaturated) and carbohydrate intakes. . . ”


    Based on the current official recommendations, I could eat a loaf of bread (Grain), a bowl of legumes ("Meat"), a huge salad and a pint of fruit juice (Fruits and Vegetables), and a teaspoon of canola oil, and be eating a "balanced diet."

    I like my balanced diet better:
    about 75 grams of carbs
    about 75 grams of protein (real meat, eggs, dairy)
    (perfect balance)
    about 150 grams of fat (mostly saturated)
    (perfect balance with the the sum of the 75 + 75 grams of carbs and protein)

    Only the carbs are counted. The protein and fat fall into place naturally. So simple.

    And definitely no indications of my impending "early death."

    Reply: #20
  19. jim
    @Marilyn, "balancing" fat and carbs ist among the most stupid advices they can give. After all, carbs together with fat make you gain weight. You'd have to count calories all the time. :-p

    The more "out of balance" fat and carbs are, the better (i.e. almost no carbs, or almost no fat).

    But then, HCLF is not very healthy because of glycation/oxidative stress. Except, maybe(!), if all the carbs are from fresh fruit/vegetables. But i suspect you'd have to constantly munch fruit to have enough/constant energy. Where do you get your protein from? Grains lack antioxidants, except vitamin E in fatty seeds (and fat doesn't mix with carbs, so you'd have to eat fruit one day, and grains+veggies the other). And what about dental health?

    So I very much prefer the "almost no carbs" way...

  20. Henrik
    Det verkar inte gå att skriva inlägg på den svenska sidan!!!!!
    Reply: #22
  21. FrankG
    Henrik did you try the YouTube version?
    Henrik gjorde du försöker YouTube -versionen ?
  22. Kat
    Thank you for posting this!!!
  23. Dominic
    I think they did an excellent job with this segment. I forwarded it to many people and shared it on my blog.


  24. François
    I find a few things fascinating in this segment...
    1. The perspective is distorted. While a great deal of people cannot tolerate high carb loads (diabetics, people with metabolic syndrome, etc), 100% of people would do extremely well on a ketogenic diet, once keto-adapted. So rather than say that this diet is "not for everyone", it would be better to say that some people seem to tolerate higher loads of carbs. Until something really nasty happens (type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cancer, etc) and then, suddenly, they cannot anymore. In fact, the more people are sick, the more strictly they should adhere to a ketogenic diet and cut the carbs. Everytime. For all chronic conditions.
    2. I cringe when I hear dietitians state that diet is not a "one size fits all" thing and that sick people should see a dietitian for a personalized regimen, yet, other that pushing more non-processed foods and "somewhat" (but not completely) cutting high glycemic sugars, , they still advise a high carb diet for type 2 diabetics (after all, we've got pills so who cares if the problem is high insulin) and a high carb diet for cancer patients... It so happens that in doing that, they feed the cancer, which can only use carbs as fuel, where normal cells can use ketone bodies, free fatty acids (except brain cells) and glucose.
    3. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments about "cutting out a whole group of food" and the "high risk of nutritional deficits... All people need are a few recipes for cauliflower rice and "mashed non-potatoes", for zoodles and nut breads and they'd be in business.
    4. Natural fats which can be eaten in their normal state are health promoting. Period. Artificial fats (trans) and seed oils which produce a massive imbalance in the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio are bad.
    But things are clearly slowly improving.
    Replies: #26, #27, #28
  25. erdoke
    All low carb promoters in the documentary appear to be very careful about phrasing their opinion. It must not be a coincidence, rather a strategy of trying not to piss off too many industrial players, fellow researchers, scientists and physicians. However, I am not sure to what extent it is the right strategy. This war cannot be won with carefully selected words, especially because the big majority of the media will not provide this kind of opportunity. I understand that they wanted to grab it and tried not to end up conveying too aggressive or shocking messages, but it is exactly a shock that could shake up ignorant or mislead people.
    Also, on the long term it is not enough to prove that high carb consumption, in particular grains and sugar is detrimental to the health of the majority of the population. Anybody providing a viable alternative solution at the same time is much more credible. At the moment neither agriculture nor the food industry are prepared for supporting an LCHF, mainly whole foods based diet for billions of people.
  26. Galina L.
    I don't advise my son to go on the same diet as me (VLC) because I think only the people who are sure they would be consistent with their carbs limitation should do it. I am consistent with my diet because it is the migraine prevention tool in my case. LCarbing makes people more sensitive to carbohydrates, if you eat in a such way on and off, you will have blood sugar spikes which you didn't have before.
  27. Marilyn
    @Francois and Erdoke: I think it was the "we-have-all-the-answers-and-we're-going-to-save-the-world" attitude that got us into the pickle we're in currently. Last night I was looking at the nutrition facts on a bag of frozen green peas and thinking "this food pyramid-based nutrition facts thing is so entrenched, how could it ever go away?"

    I've been low-carb for over a decade. I'm a believer. I think it's important that the word get out. I have high praise for DietDoctor, whose guests we are here on this blog, as well as for the many other writers who have been influential in my own low-carb program.

    But I know that a lot of folks out there neither know nor care what a carb is. I know that I have a 103-year-old relative who's doing great, who ate as many carbs throughout her life as the next person. I know from my reading that various physicians have used different low-carb programs, each of which has brought restored health to their patients.

    So let's support the low-carb cause, and keep learning. But perhaps one size really doesn't fit all. Perhaps a steady diet of cauliflower and nut bread will not improve the health of everyone, especially anyone who's allergic to nuts.

  28. sten
    Agree about wholegrains. They can be deadly nowadays, even if it is non-GMO wheat or other non GMO grains. And there is now a common and approved way to really f-up whatever could be good in grains: Glyphosate = Roundup. Also in the EU ! Just before harvest grains are drenched in glyphosate so they start to die. When they die they also produce a little bit more and at the end also dry up anything that is still green, giving the farmer a few % larger harvest.
    But the whole harvest is then laced with the toxin! Monsantos own tests for approval showed very little liver damage etc, but tests were very short, per independent researchers. Later longer studies showed tumors and liver damages om mice. Seralini. But a scottish reseacher earlier showed brain damage from GMO potatoes.
    With the GMO Bt toxin there seem to be frightening links between the way the toxin kills insects and today common IBS. The grains contain the toxin in every cell and when the insect digests it, it damages its intestines that ruptures and kills it. Animals in CAFOs or feedlots usually don't suffer, but after slaughter their intestines are damaged, or at least too thin to be used as sausage skins, as they rupture too easy! Strong intestines from New Zealand -where no GMO is fed - are therefore often imported instead! The link to "thinned intestinal walls" and IBS could not be much clearer. But the link continues to autism, which typically comes together with gastrointestinal disturbances/ IBS.
    But even eating LCHF isn't safe: The initial Monsanto research claimed that the Bt toxin was destroyed in our intestines. Yet it is today found in our bloods, as per recent Canadian study on pregnant women. The degradation of the intestional wall takes time and it seems that the Monsanto tests were too short to catch the problems: Over time thinned and partly holed intestines obviously destroys the protection that healthy intestines provide, so when an animal has eaten the feed long enough, then the Bt toxin is left through degraded intestional walls, then reaching the blood stream and thereby the animals meat and fat.
    Consequently Bt-grain fed meat cannot be safe. Since intestinal degradation progresses in the proportion to toxin intake, Bt containing plants damages humans most, while damage from meat via grain fed beef is less and vary. Beef cattle with damaged/brittle/thin intestines only eat it for 4-6 months and the intestines may only be dysfunctional in this respect the last few months . Hence consumption of meat from Bt-grain fed animals could be safe for maybe a few years, but we just don't know, and it is of course individual. Grass finished beef remains a safe option while only organically raised pigs are safe.
    Replies: #30, #31
  29. Paul the rat
    Very nice summary sten. 100% correct on Bt toxin - gut - IBS.
  30. Murray
    Nice summary, Sten.

    ... It's getting to be such a compromise eating out. I don't trust the provenance of most food in restaurants--am I getting oxidized vegetable oil, GMO with Roundup residue, etc.? It's one thing to eat out on occasion at a restaurant--poison is in the dose--but I'm fussy about places where I eat regularly, such as for lunch. My wife quips I have such limited options for going out to lunch. Typically I bring leftover meat from home, an avocado and then get a basic green salad at one of the better salad bars. There was an East Indian food place where I loved the saag, that we went to often for lunch. Then one day I thought to ask, what kind of oil do they use in the saag? ... I got an unwelcome answer. Rats. I had expected East Indian cuisine would use ghee. So their saag is an occasional treat, but no longer a regular staple. Many better restaurants are getting better at disclosing the provenance of their meats, but most cut corners to get the cheapest meat and other ingredients they can find.

  31. François
    @ Galina and Marilyn,

    LCHF is not - should not - be a one size fits all approach. Nevertheless, this approach works for all chronic conditions. And gives far better results than conventional diet therapy (fatty livers, epilepsy, polycystic ovary syndrome, etc).

    Another point is that many people are unaware of their carb intolerance - or do not care about it.

    This being said, I feel LCHF should be offered to all. Not as a theoretical framework, but as a "scaling" lifestyle with recipes so that people can adapt this approach to their condition or personal preferences.

    Can anyone thrive on a well done ketogenic diet? Yes. Do everyone want to? Clearly no. Is it necessary? I do not think so. But it is still possible to get many positive health benefits of LCHF without having to adhere to its "purest" form.

    I myself aim at a ketogenic diet. For personal health reasons that are a strong motivator for me. I the end, it will be easier to get people motivated if eating this way is tasty and food preparation is done quickly.

    Reply: #33
  32. Paul the rat
    @ Francois
    I totally agree. As most of us know here, many people observe marked increase in the plasma lipids and lipids derivatives after starting LCHF. I attached this abstract (I am unable to post pdf) to illustrate that, as it also is my experience, in 99% cases the lipids profile normalize after, on average 6-8 months. What my colleagues and I noticed, however is that not only the dietary fats quantity but most importantly quality, affects plasma lipid profile - must add here that saturated fats (animal or plant origin) seems to exert most favorable changes. AS we know, we are at the beginning of very exciting and very promising science of LCHF. The health benefits of this lifestyle, in my personal experience and that of people I know personally, outperform every other dietary regime . One of the problems is that at present the biggest chance for funding for LCHF research is from the industries linked to meat/egg/dairy production, which immediately cast the suspicion under the banner "conflict of interest" - see the latest Volek J. paper.

    Nutr Neurosci. 2014 Nov 10. [Epub ahead of print]
    The impact of the modified Atkins diet on lipid profiles in adults with epilepsy.
    Cervenka MC, Patton K, Eloyan A, Henry B, Kossoff EH.
    Objectives The modified Atkins diet (MAD) is a high fat, low carbohydrate ketogenic diet used to treat intractable seizures in children and adults. The long-term impact on fasting lipid profiles (FLPs) remains unknown. This study was designed to detect significant lipid changes in adults on MAD. Methods Patients were observed prospectively. A FLP was obtained in all patients at the first visit then serially. Patients were started on a 20 g per day net carbohydrate limit MAD. They were screened for risk for coronary heart disease and counseled to reduce saturated fats by a registered dietitian if deemed at risk. Patients that remained on MAD for 3 or more months with one or more follow-up FLP were included. Results Thirty-seven patients (14 male), mean age 33 years (SD 13, range 18-59) met study criteria. Median diet duration was 16 months (range 3-41). Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) increased significantly over the first 3 months of MAD (P = 0.01 and 0.008, respectively), but were not significantly different from baseline after 1 year of treatment (P = 0.2 and P = 0.5, respectively). High-density lipoprotein levels trended upward in the first 3 months (P = 0.05) and triglycerides remained unchanged (P = 0.5). In 12 patients followed for 3 or more years, no cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were reported. Discussion Although total cholesterol and LDL increased over the first 3 months of the MAD, these values normalized within a year of treatment, including in patients treated with MAD for more than 3 years.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts