Impressive set of low carb studies

(Bob M) #1

And in an interesting format, too:

(Bob M) #2

Hmm…I just changed the title, via the “pencil” function. I did not know I could do that.

(Polly) #3

. . . rather more worryingly @ctviggen Bob, I seem to be able to change your title using the “pencil” function. Thank goodness I am trustworthy, eh?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #4

Once you reach a certain level of forum defined ‘trust’ you have the ability to edit not only topic titles but the text within the OP itself. So, yes, when you see that pencil you have become a de facto topic editor.

(bulkbiker) #5

Unfortunately as most of us know the criteria used for “low carb” and “ketogenic” diets

57
Screenshot 2020-10-09 at 17.44.57.png1936×540 81 KB

Make the whole thing a bit pointless…
Especially for “low carb” diets.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #6

I think at least part of the problem is that researchers for the most part, there are exceptions of course, think that sub-50% carb intake is ‘low carb’. I suppose it is when the average intake is 60-70%. If you go back to pre-1960 studies you’ll find that researchers actually did know what low carb really means.

The past 50-60 years of dietary misguidelines have screwed everything and we’re going to have to live with the resultant nonsense until a lot of people with reputations and stipends to protect die and we can move on without hurting their feelings.

(bulkbiker) #7

Nick is a famous Low carb sceptic no I doubt any of his efforts are in favour of keto…

https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1314356896497721344

Some others have taken him to task already.

(Bob M) #8

I did not realize he was a low carb skeptic. Alas!

But sometimes we must question our own beliefs, too. Otherwise we become encased in our own bubble of like-minded folk. We need people like Amber O’Hearn, Brad from Fire in a Bottle, and the like to question our beliefs and potentially extend our knowledge.

#9

This is really nice! Thank you for sharing!

#10

That’s part of what makes it super nice!

I’ve noticed something interesting: when I read pro low carb papers, they seem to be anti-low carb! When I read anti-low carb papers… they seem to be rather pro-low carb!

Bias makes people, including researchers, “look” pretty ridiculous and exposes the weaknesses in their arguments. On both sides.

To begin with, there shouldn’t be sides. Shouldn’t it all be there for our better health and quality of life? The bias means something like, ok, there are potential problems and if I know about them, I can make this stuff work even better for me, because knowledge about a problem is the first step towards solving it.

So, to make my very low carb WOE work better for me, I’m not interested in knowing only about its positives. Anyway, if it’s a positive, I don’t need to do anything about it. Let it come!

I’m interested in the negatives. Nothing is perfect and I can live with that. I need to know about it, though, so as to take measures and make it work for me.

I know many members see my interventions, if they notice them at all, of course, as negative. It’s my way of thinking: when doing or preparing for anything, it’s the potential problems I need to know about.

The best part of life is becoming aware of what we don’t know. The mystery!