A study with the right idea...but the words don't match

(Joy Schaeffer) #21

Me too.

(Bob M) #22

It’s just there’s no definition of “low” carb. I’ve seen so many “low” carb studies that weren’t low carb at all. It’s a favorite way of setting up a straw man study: call the amount of carbs “low”, then prove that “low” carb isn’t a benefit.

As long as there’s a consistent definition, I don’t mind it. It’s like “red meat” or “processed meat”: you have to look how any study defines these, as there are tons of different definitions. And don’t get me started on the “definitions” of the “Mediterranean diet”. :wink:

(Bob M) #23

A case in point, from our friends at Harvard school of crapidemiology:

Another new study on carbohydrates from Harvard found that middle-of-the-roaders who kept their carbohydrate intake to 50% or 55% of total calories were the likeliest to live the longest. Those researchers evaluated dietary records completed by more than 15,000 U.S. adults, ages 45 to 64, between 1987 and 1989. During the 25-year follow-up, they found that the moderate carb eaters, staying at 50% to 55%, were less likely to die than both the low-carb eaters (in this study, less than 40%) and the high-carb eaters (in this study, more than 70%).

40% of calories by carbs isn’t “low” carbs to me.

(Jack Bennett) #24

I’d propose that any diet above 100g/d has no business being called low carb.

Something like this makes the most sense to me:

0-25g - ketogenic
25-50g - very low carb
50-100g - low carb
100-200g - moderate carb
200g+ - high carb

If I were nutrition definition czar for the world, that’s the definition I would put in place.

(Mike Glasbrener) #25

Even then it’s tough. Simple carbs behave different than complex. All in one meal or spread out? Fructose vs. glucose. It’s nuanced and complicated.

#26

It’s helpful for me as well - and more as IF is very necessary for me (I almost never do longer fasts but I plan to). I automatically went from 3 meals (16/8) to 2 (19/5) on keto. Still lost nothing, I like bigger meals but it was more comfortable and logical. I rarely had more than 2 proper, bigger meals anyway, no matter how many meals I had. So it’s not only necessary, it’s natural and pretty good for maintenance.
Sometimes I eat once, that’s fine too, it just doesn’t happen every day. Maybe if I could wait until hunger… But I tend to eat my “sacred” family lunch. Oh well, it will work out somehow, I focus on very low-carb, that’s easy and seems more helpful and more sustainable than OMAD was (and that was almost perfect for me. almost isn’t enough).

Number of meals, food choices, carb intake, these are all so individual…

#27

Not bad, I could live with this… But 160 is high-carb even in this country, it’s the limit for people with diabetes, usually. It’s high-carb for me.
My definition is personal, I use my personal ketosis carb limit, my personal limit for my old low-carb diet, crossing it is way more noticeable than going on/off keto but the numbers aren’t very different.
And I have extreme low-carb, maybe under 10g? I do carnivore there (my strict version or dirty or even almost carnivore) and it’s a very different world than barely being in ketosis.

But of course, talking and writing about such things and being clear enough requires some common numbers. Even keto isn’t clear, it has various popular limits, 20g (it makes much sense as it’s safe for most), 30g, 50g… It’s hard to talk like this, I say a word and who knows what I mean?
Zerocarb isn’t zero carb either but that’s fine. But I’ve seen people talking about their “carb-free” diets. They ate lots of vegetables and fruits, of course. Sometimes worse.
When I was a vegetarian and said so, some people still had no idea if I eat meat or not.
But we still should have some faith and try to talk and use labels to make it quicker if not necessarily clear…