Some rights reserved by John Scalzi – who is nice enough to share this image on Flickr for free – but has nothing to do with this post.
[NOTE: I write a lot of posts I never publish. This came close to being one of them. I read it now and am ambivalent about it. I suppose that if it gets you to think, then it was worth polluting the Internet with. Additionally - I didn't fact-check this - assume nothing in here is a 'fact' without doing your own research. -LCC]
The man who came to my door in his freshly pressed suit handed me two tickets to heaven and said: “This is all that you need. It’s all in this book.” He waved a bible at me. “It’s all true – 100% scientifically proven.” His smile was confident without being smug – he seemed sincere in his earnestness. He was a likable guy, and if I believed in what he believed, we could be friends.
I am always polite to people who come to my door preaching religion. I would rather keep my own religion private and personal but I will say that I have respect for people of faith – whatever that faith may be.
What galls me, however is the needless need to turn a belief system into ‘fact’.
What a lot of people seem to miss in a world where science itself has become a sort of religion is that a faith-based system does not need to be proven. Faith means you don’t have to prove it – you have faith – that’s what the word means. Yet despite this we have people who attempt to deny that evolution is most likely the mechanism for life on earth, as just one glaring example, and try to shoehorn in whatever science they can to ‘prove’ scriptures written in the Iron Age by people with no conception of science – nor, I believe, would they have cared what science had to say about their beliefs. True faith does not need validation.
Yet, in parts of America you can go to museums that show dinosaurs frolicking with humans. Why? Because the ‘100% truth’ of the bible says that it must have been so. Again, I don’t have anything but the greatest respect for people of faith – what concerns me is their sometimes absurdest attempts to unnecessarily justify their faith – with science abused, bent, twisted, and tortured into proving their point in the process.
This post isn’t about religion, however, it is about belief. and I think there is quite the analogy to be made between faith-based knowledge of religions and the many differing schools of thought about diet.
What I believe (and note the word ‘belief’) is that, like religion, nutrition is essentially an unknowable system – at least at this point in the progress of science. It is simply too complicated for us to draw any solid conclusions. Perhaps the only conclusions that can be drawn at present are that nutritional needs and the attendant health benefits are very individual and that what works for one person might be harmful to another.
Diets – almost by necessity – have become belief systems because of their contradictory natures and differing goals and core values – very similar to the way religions have evolved.
If we follow the analogy and I arbitrarily choose the 1970s as the start of the ‘modern era of nutritional belief systems’, it began with a bang in the 1970s by the US government. A commission headed by former senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern put out nutritional guidelines that became the prevailing dogma since: fat was very bad for you, and plenty of grains and veggies were the ticket to health. This gospel was a misstatement of the original gospel put forth by the prophet of low fat, Ancel Keys, with the conclusions drawn from his famous Seven Countries Study that seemed to show cholesterol in the blood was linked to heart disease. This study itself was flawed in that Dr. Keys cherry-picked the data here – and was further confused because Dr. Keys himself followed more of a Mediterranean diet containing fat in his own life and in the diet books he wrote.
The government recommendations had jumped to a number of conclusions, like cholesterol in the bloodstream comes from cholesterol in the diet, and while this is a gross simplification of a study that itself had major criticisms, it became the state-sponsored dietary belief system and missionaries were sent far and wide to promote this to the world as sound advice – because there’s nothing like convincing others of your beliefs to validate them to yourself.
At the same time, an alternative dietary belief system emerged. Its prophet was Dr. Robert Atkins. Having had weight problems of his own, he had read about a low carb diet (which itself goes back to the 1800s) and tried it – and lost weight. He spent the rest of his life – many of those years in the wilderness labeled a quack and a charlatan – promoting his version of a dietary belief system.
Followers of Atkins suffered their own schism when Atkins came out with a second book, updating the first, and made room in the diet for artificial sweeteners as well as a number of other changes. This was considered heretical by a number of early adherents and you can find people on low carb message boards identifying themselves as on ‘Atkins 74’ to differentiate from the apostate.
After Atkins’ death, a third book came out which further evolved the belief system to emphasis fat less as well as de-emphasize testing for ketones, among other changes. As a result of this dilution of the gospel, many low carb adherents take their own approach and will refer to the plan they follow as ‘modified Atkins’.
Despite the reputation of low carb as potentially dangerous, it is as much based on science as the low fat belief system, albeit citing different studies as well as the same studies interpreted in different ways. Go to any low carb site and as the daily trickle of studies on diet are released, low carb adherents (or ‘defenders of the faith, if you will) will laud the ones favorable toward low carb while picking apart the methodology or conflicts of interest in the other research (A pasta company sponsors nutrition research that – believe-it-or-not – concludes pasta is terrific for you! Who’da thunk?!?)
One might also say that the forces that shaped the 1960s in America also popularized vegetarianism as well as veganism in the country, culminating in the creation of PETA (the People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) in 1980.
I have no problem with their ethical notions and think they are noble ones, but similar to Intelligent Design, they do the exact same thing that the man who came to my door with 2 tickets to heaven.
They have a murky relationship with the PCRM – the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine – which exclusively focuses on science that concludes that veganism – the complete elimination of animal products from your diet – is the only ‘100% scientifically proven’ means to health, happiness and longevity. Given that Atkins, almost by default, expects you to eat meat, PETA and the PCRM stridently bashes Atkins at every chance they get – so much so that the latest version of the Atkins book tries to show a way for vegetarians at least to follow the diet, where in previous books it was deemed impossible. Atkins, after all, is a business – they want to make money. It’s bad business to have a cadre of haters attacking you at every step.
And if they can come up with a reasonable approach for people who want to do low carb but don’t want to eat meat – as well as meeting the vegan folks at least halfway – more power to ‘em.
I am going to repeat myself and state again that I have nothing against people who have strong ethical, moral or even environmental beliefs that in good conscience prohibit them from eating animal products. I have great respect for them. However, perverting the science, cherry-picking the research, and attacking any science that does not fit their worldview is pseudo-science.
We can continue with another popular dietary belief system that sprang up more recently: Paleo.
I believe (note the word ‘believe’ again) that Paleo is a faith-based diet rooted in a concept of ‘authenticity’. Instead of an ethical system based on non-harm for animals it is based on a romanticized notion of our ancestral past and the concept of the noble savage. Again, I have nothing against people who are attracted to this way of life, who reap benefit from it, and are healthier and happier because of it. What I have a problem with is people cherry-picking the science and trying to convince others that their way is right and everyone else is wrong.
This list could go on. We could say that Weight-Watchers is a more traditional diet with fellowship at its core, using the social contract between members to provide support. Paleo itself can be broken down further as there is a ‘primal’ offshoot with a similar basis but a few major differences. I could go on and on and on.
Sticking with just the diets detailed here, again arbitrarily, I find flaws in every one of them – including the one I follow myself.
Low Fat: I believe it has become based on the mistaken notion that calories are more important than the types of foods you eat. This results in making crappy food seem virtuous by slapping ‘100 calories’ on the label and making consumers feel they are doing something good for their bodies when they are doing no such thing. It is simplistic and populist – a belief system for the masses.
Low Carb: I believe that low carb without respite for too long can stop working and possibly cause issues with thyroid and perhaps serotonin levels. It can also cause people to get headaches and fatigue in early stages, and the low fat dogma that most people bring with them when starting the diet frequently cause people, consciously or unconsciously, to do a low fat version of Atkins, which could increase the chance of gallstones. It also likes to pretend that calories don’t matter when they certainly do. Despite this, many early adherents lose weight fast and become rabid defenders of the faith as strident as any PETA activist. I think it appeals to certain personality types as well: people who like to be different. Low carb eating is certainly a differentiator: some flaunt it proudly while others try to hide it.
Veganism: I believe veganism drives people to typically eat a lot of soy – and I have concerns that soy might not be all that good for you long term. Veganism also leads to the same kind of junk foods that the low fat diets promulgate – if whatever processed crap you manufacture has no animal products in it, slap a 100% vegan on the label and you have a built-in audience of consumers eager to try your food. It also attracts a number of different but distinct personality types: free-thinkers and people with deep spiritual and moral beliefs about what they eat.
Paleo: I find their prohibitions of certain foods to be arbitrary. To simplify their thinking: if a caveman didn’t eat it – I can’t eat it. I think this leaves out a wonderful array of perfectly healthy foods that – if cavemen had a chance – they would have torn into with gusto and been as healthy as the Paleo folks believe them to be. The community also can be strident and dogmatic.
If you’re still with me , let me propose an alternative to all of these – one that rejects the extremism of all of them while at the same time embracing all of them. I’m calling it ‘The First Universal Unitarian Church of the Healthy Diet’. This state plainly that the content of this blog is a belief system. There is science to back many of the statements here and much of what I do. But much of the science is still in debate and will remain in debate long after I’m gone.
I don’t expect people to come here to believe as I believe. Like the Universal Unitarian Church that believes in the concept of a higher power but doesn’t have a particular doctrine that is rigidly followed nor does it have a mandate for a single approach, this is a place where people who don’t find themselves fitting into neat categories can come for fellowship, sharing a common belief in diet as a means to greater health and happiness, a willingness to tolerate differences of opinion, and to share what we know and our trials and tribulations as we each individually work to go from a lesser perfect being to a more perfect being, whether we tend toward that being as primarily vegan, paleo, low fat, low carb – or anything else for that matter.
Everyone is welcome here and everyone’s opinions are welcome as well. What isn’t welcome is an ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ attitude.
United in a common goal of health and happiness we each explore in our different ways the path to this goal and provide each other the knowledge that we are not alone.
To paraphrase the writer Andre Gide: do not embrace those who have found the truth – embrace those who seek it.
Filed under: Atkins, diet, low carb, science, Self-Experimentation, Stupid Research, vegan, vegetarian, weight loss Tagged: | Atkins, dogmatism, ethics, faith, low carb, low fat, morality, Paleo, PCRM, PETA, philosophy, politics, religion, science, sociology, truth
Well said. I no longer discuss what I do and do not eat with my co workers or on my blog. They don’t like it. When I ask for a burger without a bun, I do just that. No reason given. When people invested in another diet try to convert me, I smile and listen. Even nod. It’s easier than arguing.
This doesn’t mean I am closed minded. I travel the internet looking for insight, tips and for the “true” path to weight loss. I don’t think it’s out there but occasionally I find a good recipe I can use (smile). None of these “diets” work for very long. Like you, I find the “dieting” rough going. It’s work. And when disappointment arrives–so difficult to get past. That’s when I come back here and read. So, thank you for that.
And to be honest, when I reflect on what I’ve written just prior to posting, one of my thoughts is: ‘how will Joanne react to this?’
Your comments (as well as other folk’s ) provide great insight into my own thoughts – sometimes to my great chagrin.;-)
I love this- your writing is very good. The essay/ article has flow, perfect sequence and timing and was a joy to read. Bravo!!!
I reread the post after this comment. I don’t see it. I can easily spot 2 dozen things wrong with it.
Ah- my mistake! I read it without my glasses the first time and it was early in the morning. Wow- yes, I see what you mean!!
I recommend you have your glasses on at all times when reading my posts. You don’t want blurry vision making you think you are reading anything of quality.
What if it’s ” all things in moderation” after all? I just think certain things are hard to be moderate with.
‘certain things are hard to be moderate with.’
Tell me about it! (wipes Trader Joe’s EVOO from lips…)
Last night I decided dinner was going to be low- carb FREE night. I had the Caprse burger with most of the Ciabatta bun, all my French fries, which even before low carb I didn’t really care for, AND the sour cream lemon pie, and half my stepson’s milkshake. Not any heavier today, and not feeling too guilty . Think the Synthroid makes me burn more calories- or just get more hungry. Whatever it was, those French fries just really hit the spot. I got it out of my system for the month- now back to sanity .
So it’s been a while. How did this work out for you upon reflection a week later? Yes – there is some danger in this, but if you learn to manage it, an occasional guilt-free cheat can be a joyous experience.
Yay long post !! I’m gonna reread this later ; your posts always make me think a lot.
joy.
On a side note, I have discovered that my local grocery store sells “vegan” butter. Say whaaaaaaaaat?
I had to look up ‘vegan butter’ and found this:
http://www.veganbaking.net/fats/vegan-butters/735-vegan-butter#.USnpt6K0KSo
My urge to poke fun is tempered by the fact that I myself am on a quest to make a mayonnaise replacement with Greek Yogurt…I suppose anyone on a diet needs substitutes – our love of certain flavors and textures can drive us to some extreme lengths.
As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn’t there,
Nor legs nor back,
But I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that.
Hughes Mearns
Some years ago I was discussing the concept of “belief” with a friend in his late teens when he suddenly blurted out, “I guess you could say a belief is whatever a person chooses to accept as true.”
My friend pretty much nailed it, for Wickipedia says, “Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.”
Premise definition, a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
Proposition definition, the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
Diet books, scientific theories, and religions are all propositions. They get accepted (or rejected) according to both beliefs and preferences.
Regarding the above limerick, nobody in his right mind believes something he knows isn’t true. But people do believe, often with great conviction, things that can’t be proven for certain or things they (or others) have guessed at.
A few more definitions:
Truth – what is so.
Discernment – the ability to distinguish truth from fallacy.
Wisdom – doing what is right.
Here are several connotations of faith:
Faith definition, firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Greek word: Pistis, primarily, firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing.
Where the Bible is concerned, there are two possibilities. Either the writers were delusional or they witnessed events and faithfully recorded what they saw and experienced. Some of them anticipated scepticism. For example, Peter wrote, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
And Paul standing before King Agrippa said, “For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.”
And what of the evolution story which many insist is proven beyond doubt? Readers of this blog who are firmly persuaded that evolution is true might enjoy a journey into scepticism guided by the powerful intellect of Arthur Custance. Excerpt:
This Volume of Doorway Papers is on the subject of Origins, particularly the origin of the earth, of monotheism, and of man himself.
In dealing with the question of the age of the earth and how it came into being, four alternative views are presented with one being discussed in depth (“The Preparation of the Earth Before Man”). Two Papers show that the evidence does not support the evolutionary view in the matter of the origin of religion (“Primitive Monotheism and the Origin of Polytheism”) and in the origin of Man (“Convergence and the Origin of Man”). One Paper (“The Survival of the UN-fit”) demonstrates the irrationality of the evolutionary faith in the ‘survival of the fittest’.
The final Paper, “Is Man an Animal?” is important because it shows that man is not merely quantitatively different from all other creatures, but qualitatively different ‹ these differences are discussed in 6 chapters. The conclusion in the last chapter is that man was created a unique creature because he was to become a “house” for God Himself to be manifested in the flesh, and that this Incarnation really demands a uniqueness in the constitution of man which puts him in a category by himself completely separate from all other animal forms.
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/index.html
Interestingly, I have read books about origins recommended by my atheist friends. I have found them annoying because they generally employ, repetition, superlative, ridicule, consensus of opinion, and authority to bolster their argument. Most annoying of all are the firm conclusions based on assumptions and speculation. Finally, I wonder about the thoroughness of my atheist friends because I’ve not been able to persuade any of them to read Arthur Custance or other authors critical of the evolution hypothesis.
…and this is part of the reason why I was so ambivalent about this post, Dave – I wade into some deep waters that beg for comments – and I found this post exhausting to write in the first place.
My personal search for truth has led me to conclude that ‘I dunno’ (accompanied by a blank look and a shrug) is as good an answer as any.
Is evolution fact or is the literal interpretation of the bible the truth?
I dunno [insert blank look and shrug]. See? Easy.
As some people grow older they become firmer in their beliefs while I seem to be going in the opposite direction. Unlike the existential crisis that affect many in their youth as they begin to question their beliefs, I seem to find some solace in believing in doubt – but that’s just me.
I’m 51 – and am thus just entering my 2nd adulthood – demographers tell me that since I’ve made it this far in good health, I have a slightly better than 7 in 10 chance of seeing age 80.
My first adulthood encompassing age 20 to 50 was survived bumping randomly about just trying to figure things out – I learned that I don’t like it when I hurt others – makes it harder to live with myself and to survive comfortably – I also learned I’d like to leave the world a better place – make a contribution to improving the lives of those with whom I come into contact, both professionally and personally –
A belief – regardless of all the officially published and agreed upon definitions – in my book – is nothing more than a “hope” – we can hope there’s more to it than just this moment of existence – we can even say we believe it – or we know it to be true – in reality – it’s hope – and how is that any different than a wish – ??
Having said that – I love the idea of a Universal Unitarian Church of the Healthy Diet! Amen and Amen – SO BE IT!
The true testimony of the congregation shall be measured by the perceptions of the members regarding their quality life health indicators and of course longevity!
Now – as the blessings of health benefits begin to cascade upon us – the question becomes where do we deposit out 10% tithe?
I say – right here and now – here’s mine –
In the past 28 days I dropped an easy 9 pounds at a steady rate of 2.25 pounds per week – NEVER WENT HUNGRY – NEVER FELT DEPRIVED – a rarity for me!
I knew I had to do something – as my weight had begun to creep into the OMG my clothes are uncomfortable zone –
I decided to get the sugars, starches, grains, and processed foods out of my diet – and at the same time the only thing I vowed to actually count daily was carbs – NOT calories – and my goals was to keep them below 50.
Here’s a sample day –
Breakfast – bacon or sausage with 2 eggs
Snack – protein shake
Lunch – boiled eggs – chicken – with mayo spicy sauce and spinach
snack – apple tblspn peanut butter
dinner – meat – brocolli with melted swiss cheese -
2 tblspoons pinenuts before bed (a personal favorite) with a cup of unsweet almond milk.
The trick is to mix it up as much as possible – rule of thumb – nothing white – stay away from rice, potatoes, bread, sugar, anything fried with a crust – I try not to eat anything that I can’t rinse under the water.
I put heavy cream in my coffee – but I measure it with a table spoon so I don’t go over –
I never count fat – I only count carbs – this leaves a little room for fruit – which I love, but I don’t over do – just 1 or 2 a day for snack –
When I reach my goal weight – another 20 pounds – I’ll add them back in larger quantities, of course.
This is what works for me -
Thanks for ‘testifying’. I think wisdom comes from hearing each others experiences – good or bad – and taking from them what might fit you. You’ve added to this – and I’m sure someone will be inspired by your story. Thanks for sharing.
Hi dave,
Do you have any links to research that questions evolution without providing a counter-explanation of a supreme being? I’d be curious to read about possible flaws in the theory of evolution that don’t seek to provide an alternate theory.
I am comfortable with the creation of new species as occurring over such long timeframes that it seems counterintuitive to beings like us who understand timespans of only 80 years. I am also ok with older fossils being on top of younger fossils in geological strata due to upheavals. These, I believe, are 2 popular arguments against evolution but I believe the explanations make sense without being overly contrived.
As Aristotle said: it is the mark of the educated mind to entertain a thought without embracing it.
I’m open.
Also – your comment contained a false choice: either the writers of the bible we’re delusional or they were recording the truth. There ARE other possibilities. There was no notion of factual journalism in the Bronze Age. It could be allegorical. This, I believe, is how the Catholic Church sees it. This allows them to accept evolution as gods mechanism for the creation of life on earth they are obviously not literalists.
As I am fascinated by religion and have read much on the world religions, I am always up for a discussion on the topic, though you would probably agree a low carb blog might not be the proper venue.
hahahaha – it just dawned on my how some people are gonna look at my post and go “nothing processed – what about bacon and sausage, peanut butter, cheese, and even protein shake” –
It’s the high fructose corn syrup I stay away from and the partially hydrogenated oils – I know the nitrates are bad in bacon and others processed meats – that’s why I buy organic -
I’m glad you posted this. The comments others have posted thus far wouldn’t work for me, but I respectfully accept that they’re what works for those people and wish them well. You have sort of encapsulated the general feeling I get from this blog, which is why I keep coming back, despite the fact that my low carb experiment was a complete disaster for me.
I look forward to your next posts! Also, I would like to eat a heap of coconut oil, coconut manna, or just a big handful of coconut. Yes, please. Thank you!
Would you be willing to tell us why low carb was a disaster? Since I’m not dogmatic about low carb, I’d love to hear why it didn’t work for you. Perhaps it could serve to dissuade some people from low carb – which for some people might be the best course of action. Would you like to write a guest post?
I also read that if I make it to 60 without any serious chronic conditions (like blood pressure, diabetes, heart) I have a good “chance” of living past 90. A belief or a hope?
I am making a serious effort to smile–like all day, everyday. It’s difficult as I am not a “cheerful” person naturally. I do it. Forcing myself to smile. Guess what? I am happier and people like me more. Go figure. Belief or hope?
In keeping with the 20 something kids who are my co-workers, I believe we (Earthlings) are someone’s science experiment, being observed like an ant farm. I draw the line regarding Zombies. Belief or nightmare?
I chose to be hopeful. I chose love instead of hate. I chose compromise rather than “my way or the highway”. And now, I chose smiling instead of frowning. Will I be happier? Who knows. Right now, today, I am feeling good about being me.
B- two large Italian sausages,TJ’s peppers and onion, one egg, 2 yolks 2 or 3 coffees with heavy cream
L- green salad, carrot, cheese plus Ranch dressing and lots of mayo
D- Full fat Ricotta with SF vanilla pudding mix ( 1 cup-1T)
S- big spoon of Jif extra crunchy peanut butter (if needed
This comment reminded me of a quote I recently heard that affected deeply:
There is no duty we so underrate as the duty of being happy. By being happy we sow anonymous benefits upon the world.
Robert Louis Stevenson
Ok- I gained five pounds the last two weeks… Guess I played with fire and found out it still burns. On a lighter note ( heh) I will work it or low carb it back off. This last two weeks was a quasi- premenopausal – thought- I was pregnant ?!? Sort of phase. I am moving on…
None of the above is mine – you can read the entire article here: http://agreatsupervisor.com/newsletter/nlhotstove.htm. You mentioned playing with fire and the Twain quote sprang to mind – and the fellow that wrote the above did a much better job of conveying why I thought of that quote than I could have done – even though his article is about management.
Well I would like to add this. WE are that caveman that if allowed to eat modern foods would, and we do, in abundance! I would further add that paleo people are as bad as vegans for cherry picking data to fit their pseudotheories. Most paleo people have a number of ‘arguments’ for why they can eat certain things that don’t strictly fit with paleo. Anyway, like you, I just don’t care what they do, I don’t read their blogs, and I just go about my business.
Now for the juicy stuff……religion. I in no way respect religion in any shape or form. I see it as a cancer of society that does no good whatsoever. Some may argue that religion does help and I will answer that with this. The late and great Christopher Hitchens offered a challenge and it goes like this. Name one bad deed that couldn’t be done in the name of religion. Now there are lots of things that have been done in the name of religion that couldn’t have been done if you were not religious. Then he asks..now name one good thing that couldn’t be done without religion. And there is nothing. There is nothing good that can’t be done by someone who doesn’t have ‘faith’.
My faith is in empirical based evidence. Sure it may not know everything yet, but the striking difference, is that it is willing to learn. Science improves on itself by proving itself wrong over and over. I trust that. I really don’t think, and Richard Dawkins has discussed this in length, that science and religion can be friends. The paradigm of science is that everything can be explained through research eventually, and if we know everything, why a certain set of neurones fire off in a certain context to make a person believe something. If we can explain everything then there is no room left for a God. Religion finds sanctuary in those ever decreasing black boxes where science hasn’t got to yet, but it’s getting smaller, and there are not many places left to hide. And personally I say good riddance.
I see no difference in religion and a kid believing in Santa Claus. In both cases I smile, I nod, but on the inside I think they are fucking crazy. Well not the kid I feel he has been lied too and brainwashed. Well actually I think that about the religious person too now I think about it. Anyway, no I do not respect religion but I respect you, and your right to hold those beliefs. Ok I respect you.
Sigh…I could write a book in response to this. How about I render it down to this. Any belief system can be split into two parts: the good it does and the evil it does. Any average person without an illness of the mind knows the difference. I accept the good that religion has done and reject the evil. I do the same with science. I believe that I have a duty to reduce the sum of human suffering through my words and deeds – and the actions of others that do the same, whether in the name of god, Zeus, Baal , or nothing, have my respect.
I could go into way more detail, but I was posting about belief – not religion – and this is a bit off-topic for a carb about low carb.