- Article
Background/Objectives: “Low-fat” claims are defined by a fat threshold, with no requirements regarding the nutrients replacing fat. Reformulation often relies on refined starches and free sugars at the expense of dietary fiber. Thus, a low-fat (LF) product is not necessarily of good carbohydrate quality, a dimension that macronutrient-based classification fails to capture. Whether LF-derived poor carbohydrate quality is associated with organ-specific alterations across the gut–liver–kidney axis remains unknown. Methods: Male Wistar rats were fed for 24 weeks a purified LF diet, its ingredient-matched purified high-fat, high-sucrose counterpart (HF), or a whole-grain Chow reference of similar energy density. Carbohydrate quality was assessed using the carbohydrate-to-dietary fiber-to-free sugars ratio. Body weight and adiposity, glucose homeostasis, gut fermentation, and hepatic and renal functional and structural parameters were evaluated. Results: Only Chow met the 10:1:1 carbohydrate quality criterion. At a caloric intake that did not exceed that of Chow, LF feeding was associated with increased body weight, adipocyte hypertrophy, impaired glucose tolerance and postprandial hyperinsulinemia. Fecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and branched SCFAs declined, consistent with a reduction in colonic fermentative output. Chronic LF exposure was additionally associated with hepatic and renal lipid accumulation, normoglycemic glycosuria, and podocyte structural alterations. Conclusions: A purified low-fat diet was associated with the same spectrum of gut, liver and kidney alterations as its high-fat counterpart, without excess caloric intake. These findings support an important role for nutrient sources and carbohydrate quality in shaping metabolic health beyond dietary fat content or caloric load alone.
9 November 2026




















![Bodies and minds self-assemble from single cells as a process of alignment and autopoiesis. (A) Most complex biological forms begin as one cell—a fertilized oocyte, commonly thought to be well-described by the laws of physics and chemistry. (B) A gradual, slow process of developmental morphogenesis results in the final form of the organism, which may have complex structure and a mind which may not believe it is a “machine”. Our transformation from a chemical soup into an active embodied mind is continuous but heterogeneous: (C) while we commonly think of ourselves as a unified intelligence with a “centralized” brain, the fact is that even the pineal gland, of which there is only one in the brain, is made of cells (C′) and those cells in turn are made of myriad other active components (C″)—we are a collective intelligence at all scales. (D) The creation of an “individual” out of an excitable medium such as an embryonic blastoderm with hundreds of thousands of cells is a dynamic process that is not hardwired: scratches made in that blastoderm would result in independent self-organization in each island, resulting in multiple embryos forming. This reveals the potentiality for some non-pre-determined number of minds to arise out of the same substrate. Images in (A,B,D) courtesy of Jeremy Guay of Peregrine Creative, used previously in [29]. Image (B) used with permission from [30]. Image in (C′) courtesy of Jose Calvo, Science Photo Library. Image in (C″) courtesy of Evan Ingersoll and Gaël McGill. Image (D) used with permission from [31].](https://mdpi-res.com/philosophies/philosophies-11-00161/article_deploy/html/images/philosophies-11-00161-g001-550.jpg)






