The Low-Carb Fraud. T. Colin Campbell

saturated fat, because eliminating carbohydrates means relying on large quantities of animal-based products for energy and other nutritional benefits. Virtually by definition, therefore, a low-carb diet emphasizes the consumption of animal-based foods, while a low-fat diet emphasizes the consumption of plant-based foods. In my experience, it is this emphasis given to animal-based foods in low-carb (and thus high-protein, high-fat) diets that is the chief motivation of low-carb advocates.

      The dramatic shift in consumption suggested by Taubes’ oversimplification of the definition and meaning of carbohydrates has momentous consequences. Not only does shifting to a diet low in carbs severely minimize our intake of antioxidants, complex carbohydrates, vitamins, and certain minerals, it also shifts our dietary source of energy from carbohydrates to fat and encourages consumption of protein far above the required amount.

      Why is this such a terrible thing? Because the foods we choose to meet our energy needs make a big difference in whether we experience good or ill health.

       Number of Calories Versus Source of Calories

      If by “good and bad calories,” Taubes means “good and bad sources of energy”—in effect, good and bad foods—he and I agree, at least in principle. Plant- and animal-based foods are hugely different in terms of their nutrient contents, and watching what foods you consume is far more important than obsessing over calorie-counting without respect to where those calories come from.

      Take, for example, our research into the effect of dietary protein on cancer growth in experimental animals, involving about twenty-five individual experiments conducted over about thirty years. The animals consuming the lowest amount of protein (5 percent of total calories) had far less cancer than their higher-protein-consuming counterparts, while consuming an average of 2 to 3 percent more total calories (or, as I prefer to say, more total energy). This is an important observation: more calories consumed, but less cancer.

      It was not easy to convince some of my colleagues of this finding because of their long-standing and almost certain belief that our conclusion should have been exactly the opposite: that increased calories lead to increased rates of cancer (as well as other disease). These beliefs on the calorie-cancer connection were based on prior experimental studies, which showed reduced cancer occurrence when calorie consumption was reduced by a hefty 20 to 30 percent or more.¹⁴