T Nation

CT's New Article: 6 Diet Facts That'll Blow Your Damn Mind


Christian Thibaudeau has one of the best articles I’ve ever read about carbohydrates in your daily eating plan. The title is: “6 Diet Facts that Will Blow Your Damn Mind.” Read it.


Good article. Christian Thibaudeau has some very good articles. He and
Paul Carter are two of the guys I read on this site in addition to Dr. Darden.

Set me straight as far as what real intermittent fasting is … I’ve been doing my ‘fasting’ from 8 pm to the next day at noon - 1:00 pm. So sleeping doesn’t count as fasting - damn , no wonder it was so easy to do.

Yeah, his articles are always great and love his clips on YT as well. One of the best things I picked up from him was his two slow reps followed by two normal reps for a set of eight. This has become my ‘normal’ way of doing a set now.

Here’s the most important part of this article as far as I’m concerned :

“ Eating should never be just about losing (or gaining) weight. Health and well-being should actually come first. Remember, losing fat is NOT the sole purpose of your nutrition plan! “

It seems to many on here are obsessed with losing weight and low body fat compositions. I’ve never paid much attention to what percentage of fat to muscle I have. I could care less. Over the years I’ve ranged back and forth from doe boy fat to ripped and I find I’m much happier somewhere in between. It’s fun to strut around ripped for a short while but it’s tough to stay that way and be happy. I think most of us like to eat as much as we like to workout so I find life is much more enjoyable when I can balance what I eat with how much I workout and live with a not so ripped body while being able to eat whatever I want to in moderation . If I suddenly want to chow down on a couple of Krispy Kreme donuts I don’t want to have to worry about doing so, I just vary other parts of my life routine to make up for it.


Well said!

I always had excercise as an excuse to eat what I want - why shouldn’t I? On the other hand I get more careful what I’m eating when training - so it’s a balance act.

Rumor has it that old school bodybuilders had an eating day a week, when they could chew on anything they wanted. That was and still is a great idea! I have fridays and sometimes saturdays as glycogen (and some fat) loading days.

I try to maintain my bodyfat around 12-13% and wouldn’t want the stress to keep it below 10%. I’m not competing and strive for a higher quality of life. Many trainees are obsessed about their diets, and eat too much protein and too little fat. Better focus on other things in life as stress/cortisol makes you even fatter.

Sadly the word “facts” is much abused these days. I raised this in the comments section of the article, which CT kindly responded to. I encourage anyone to read some basic physiology before deciding on the facts surrounding metabolism. For example, the article states: ‘The body really doesn’t want to be in ketosis. Think about it. If ketosis were a favored energy system, it would be the primary system we use all the time.’ This is patently false. Because glucose does not dissolve well in the blood, the body only ever has around 4g of circulating glucose. The remainder MUST be disposed of via insulin. Therefore, in the presence of any significant carbohydrate load the body MUST metabolise this first and hence will not produce ketones as an alternative energy source.

This is intuitive given both that we are born into a state of ketosis, and that humans survived for thousands of years before the introduction of modern agriculture with a limited, seasonal exposure to carbohydrates.

I appreciate editors sometimes use hyperbole to spice up articles but reporting factual inaccuracies is poor journalism.

New studies of oral microbiome are now saying Neanderthals diet consisted of starchy carbs at approximately 170,000 years ago…many moons before than previously believed

1 Like

I’m glad that CT questioned your comment about the toxicity of carbs. I’ll be interested to see if he responds to your concerns about higher levels of oxidative stress for carbs vs fats.

One thing I have noticed is that there are a number of diet gurus who will take information about the biochemistry of various metabolic pathways, and extrapolate what they know to general guidelines about what one should or should not eat. Examples might be Ray Peat, and the Hyperlipid guy. They can sling theory around with great facility, and this can seem overwhelming to a layperson. As a way of generating hypotheses for further testing, perhaps these are worthwhile exercises. I’m not knowledgable enough to know for sure. More importably: in the end, does it lead to the right conclusions about diet? I’m leary of that part.

A big concern for me is that they are doing the extrapolation based on only what is known, without consideration of what might not be known. It is Rumfeld’s old warning about both known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. I’ve seen these kinds of arguments go off the rails before because of what is not taken into consideration. The biochemistry of metabolism is extraordinarily complex, to the point that I doubt we can yet predict what is healthy or not, based just on a knowledge of fundamental chemistry. Your argument about higher levels of oxidative stress from carbohydrates being detrimental to health is interesting, but I’m not sure if rises to the level of slam-dunk scientific proof.

To be clear, there is oxidative stress from all substrates. Some are more damaging than others. Ketones are a cleaner form of fuel. Again, this is really just basic physiology. Nothing controversial. What is controversial is the falsehood that because the body metabolises carbohydrate first it is the preferred fuel source. At risk of repeating myself, an average 70kg person has around 4g of circulating glucose. In the presence of more glucose, i.e. from ingesting carbohydrate, the body has to rid the blood of this as quickly as possible to prevent toxicity. That is probably as close to ‘slam-dunk scientific proof’ as you will get.

How many grams of fat are carried by the blood at any one time? Does the fact that the body will try to store any excess mean that fat is also toxic?

Beware of anyone whose diet philosophy speaks against fruits and vegetables! An Apple :apple: a day keeps the Dr away.

Carbs are beneficial and fill glycogen stores. But as with everything else, enough is enough!

Yes, Grant D , you were wrong on dietary matters!


I’m genuinely not sure whether you have got my point. Ketone production is attenuated by a rise in insulin. Insulin is secreted in response to high circulating glucose. Therefore, a properly functioning body cannot simply choose to run on ketones in the presence of a certain carbohydrate threshold.

Yeahhh! We agree on something, at last! :joy:

Other substances of note that are toxic when present at levels significantly above physiologic values (list not exhaustive):


Yes, it’s known as homeostasis.

I have a basic understanding of how insulin responds to variations in blood sugar level to control the utilization of glucose and fat from a meal. My comment was aimed more at the “carbotoxicity” claim, i.e., you seemed to be arguing that because blood glucose is controlled within tight limits (4 grams total in the blood stream), and the body has more limited ability to store glucose (glycogen in liver and muscles vs near unlimited adipose tissue storage for fat), that dietary carbohydrates are therefore inherently toxic and something that should be avoided.

I don’t quite get how you came to the conclusion I seemed to be arguing carbohydrates are inherently toxic? There is science regarding the link between glucose metabolism and a rise in reactive oxygen species. However, my point was solely to debunk a cornerstone of the article, namely, the statement:

‘The body really doesn’t want to be in ketosis. Think about it. If ketosis were a favored energy system, it would be the primary system we use all the time.’

I’ve just laid this out, in the presence of carbohydrates the body cannot choose to run on ketones. That’s just a fact. Don’t try to imply anything further.

1 Like

Am I the only one reading this between 007 and A Al who has no idea what the hell they are talking about?

Apologies, then, for misunderstanding your intent.

I see your point though. The body does what does to accommodate the food being eaten. That response is set by millions of years of evolution. Preference implies a level of awareness and choice that doesn’t exist.

Probably my fault, as I commented here about a discussion going on in another place. That just leads to confusion.