Hey all,
Anyone far smarter than me plan on looking into the newest anti keto Facebook rant Jillian michaels is so proud to post.
The first red flag is its a lancet article being referenced. With that said, how is their study inaccurate when it says we are all going to die sooner because we eat steak? Other red flags in the study? I love it when you intelligent people point out the flaws in said studies that I wouldn’t have picked up on.
Isn’t there a saying along the lines of “give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat forever”?
Why don’t you determine what’s wrong with the materials? Why don’t you learn about epidemiology and what’s wrong with it? Why don’t you apply that knowledge to that study?
If I had the time, I’d write an epidemiological primer we could post here. Maybe that would stop the incessant numbers of questions for every study like this that comes up.
You (or anyone here) could start here, as I believe she has a chapter/section on how to read studies:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Food-Pyramid-Politics-Interests/dp/0984755128
I have not read this book (I learned all of my information over the course of the last 10 years or so, reading many books like this and other information.) But it gets good reviews.
I didn’t want to read past this sentence:
" * People who ate significantly more or less carbs than that were more likely to die, according to the study.
… More likely to die? Pretty sure we all die someday. It’s articles like this that piss me off.
I did end up reading the whole article and lost count of the eye rolls.
@ctviggen thanks for the flame Bob. Really appreciate the helpful reply.
@Jennc714 I had some eye rolls as well but some of it I simply didn’t understand. I appreciate your response. This is supposed to be a helpful forum of people, which is usually the case. Unfortunately the Flames towards others is a reason I haven’t been around a lot. No reason to spend time on rudeness.
That study has bee picked apart no end - search ‘Lancet’ in the forum & you’ll find several threads. One thing to note - it wasn’t published in The Lancet as such. It was published in The Lancet Public Health which is a different, dodgier beast.
I appreciate that likeness. I did a search but found some links to older stuff. Apparently I missed the relevant ones.
I’m pretty sure the study she linked is the older one 
I’ve been wrong about stuff before though…
I employ a simple strategy to learn about my mistakes … I usually identify a perceived mistake in my wife who, promptly mind you, identifies all my mistakes along with my family’s, relative’s and friends. It is incredible how Jen, with no formal training in epidemiology, sociology or genetic-ology (even threatens to sign me a eulogy’s) has such insights 
Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
Firstly - with ANY paper find out who owns those scientists.
In this case it’s Novartis and Zogenix - big pharma. Let me guess - keto is not the answer, popping pills is.
Declaration of interests
LMS receives grant funding from the California Walnut Commission and Dairy Management Inc, which was not used for this project. SC reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and personal fees from Novartis and Zogenix, outside the submitted work. All other authors have no competing interests.
Also
Acknowledgments
The ARIC Study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts …
So lookup National_Heart,_Lung,_and_Blood_Institute in wiki
Managing 3 billion dollars. So pretty big money but where does this come from, yes tax payer money is mentioned but I’ll bet anything you like “industry” is in there somehow.
So is this a scientific paper or advertising?
People like Dr Phinney are independent, not a Coca Cola puppet.
Nina Teichholz spent her own inheritenace money and 10 years researching “The Big Fat Surprise”
That’s what we need, independent people.
NEXT - look at the tables there is a squizzy line near 0% carbs. So there is a gap in the vital information. They have not gone what we’d call “low-carb”. Seems like they stop at about 5%, so that’s 5% of 2000, or 100 g carbs. We would all call those way-too-high-to-be-keto-carbs.
Sorry I haven’t read any deeper, I don’t have the time or inclination. I’ve seen enough.
Another case of the fox telling the chickens what’s good for them. It’s all true I”m sure.
Report came out in August 2018 and was in the Lancet Public Health a pay per publication online mouthpiece. Was completely taken apart on about 5 threads on this forum alone. Two FFQ’s done 6 years apart then extrapolated out 25 years… complete and utter bollocks from beginning to end.
Does that help?
You might be interested in Nina Tiecholz’s article which is in response to the EAT-Lancet report. She explains the flaws of their claims:
Huge tiecholz fan but hadnt actually read this one. Exactly what I’m looking for.
All very good info in the replies. Thank you.
I believe Dr Ken Berry addressed this study when it first came out, I found his review helpful when I read through the study myself. Dr. Walter Willet was behind this study and also behind the recent EAT study, and (for me) if he’s name is on a study I just can’t take it seriously. Hope this helps.
