New Study, Just out on Wednesday

#1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.13639

371,159 subjects
50-71 years olds
Prospective cohort study: 23.5 years

Highlights
-Low carb diet was associated with the highest percentage of early deaths.
-There was a 38% higher risk for an unhealthy low-carb diet.
-The risk was slightly lower for a healthy low-carb diet, but still much higher than low fat.
-Max lifespan was associated with a low-fat diet
-Mortality was lower by 18%
-Cancer was lower by 18%
-Cardiovascular risk lower by 16%

Take the data for what you will. Potentially suggestive, not definitive. The scale of this study is interesting.

(Bob M) #2

Nina Teicholz is already all over this:

As someone who HATES nutritional epidemiology, I would throw this into the bin, where I keep all the nutritional epi studies, even those I think are correct.

(Michael) #3

I took a look at the study, and there are some HUGE issues. They call low carb a percentage of calories from carbs between 47.9% and 56.8% from carbs. Meanwhile the low fat has a range of calories from carbs from calories as 48.7% to 56.4%. Low carb had higher carbs than low fat on the high end.

Energy from fat on low carb was 27.4% to 36.1% while low fat range had fat energy from 26.7% to 36.4%. Low fat used more fat than low carb on the high end.

Please move this into the garbage pile, the study is an absurdly poor analysis with fabricated results based on miniscule percentage differences.

(Doug) #4

:smile: Holy &@^#%$*?! what a world we live in…

(Joey) #5

A solid idea. Done …

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #6

I believe it was either Malcolm Kendrick or Peter Dobromylskij who said that you could often tell from the names of the authors, what conclusion the paper would reach. He said the best thing to do with them was to print it out and chuck it directly into the bin. As I recall, he ended by saying something along the lines of “so much printing, so much binning”! :grin: :rofl:

(Greta) #7

Read this response & laugh -

https://twitter.com/nicknorwitz/status/1654244789846515712?s=46&t=PiQsjB-iM-OPQVNYXrvRYw

PSA: If you look in the methods of the new “low carb study increases mortality” paper the highest quintile of “low carb score” is 42% carbs…

A Burger King Whopper with Cheese and French Fries :fries: is literally lower carb (38%)… get out of here :joy:

#8

WHAT. I am used to (for me) very high carb percentages called low-carb (and they may be, there is such a definition but it doesn’t really give us information about how useful is to consume really low carb. the usual "low-carb for diabetics is 150-160g a day here, many people with a smallish energy need is already lower on their very common, HCHF diet! that “low-carb” is a normal high percentage carb diet!) but this just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever… :scream:
48% carbs? I couldn’t go that super high on high-carb on my wildest days when I jumped half a loaf of bread with a ton of honey :smiley: (I didn’t do that often but it happened.)
Even my high-carber SO with a huge sweet tooth needs a super unusual carby day FULL with grains, legumes, fruit and sweets to reach that. He easily goes below 30%… But yep, we both like fat (and protein), that definitely helps with the percentages and to some extent, satiation…

So there is no significant difference between the study’s “low-carb” and “low-fat”? I thought I had to look it up but even after minutes (I won’t read the whole thing, it’s not important for me, I eat the way my body likes anyway) I couldn’t find it. Oh well.
Even 10% wouldn’t be relevant to me, way too high for my body’s liking. I wouldn’t get sick, I would think but thriving? Nope.

It’s interesting for me that starchy vegs are “low-qual carbs” and whole fruits are “high-qual carbs” but I am biased as my body considers starches way, way, way better than simpler sugars… And both are bad for me in bigger amounts. Still. Probably the “fruits are healthy” dogma should be kept or something. But I still didn’t saw starchy vegs judges so harshly without judging basically all carbs… Odd.

#9

This study spanned 23.5 years, on average. Dietary inputs were measured once, at the outset, by questionnaire. Bin bin bin bin bin.

(Rossi Luo) #10

This is totally garbage, as I see that this study is from Peking University of CN, I know how the students here do studies, these studies are done for gaining degrees only. They say they have “371,159” participants here, that’s impossible because I can’t even find a person around me who knows what is carbohydrate. Most people don’t even know the difference between flour and sugar, here is few few people who knows low carb diet… It’s quite embarrassing for me, because this is the so called “best” university in this country