Research just out suggests low carb is bad?

#1

Someone help me with this: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/16/both-low-and-high-carb-diets-can-raise-risk-of-early-death-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

???

(Eamon) #2

Hi joziel,
It looks like we were both typing out our posts at the same time! Here’s mine on the same topic
It seems like a typically poor media reaction to a research paper, and I suspect they have an anti-meat agenda.

#3

Nonsense, It’s pretty obvious from the beginning that the article is anti fat and pushing plant based diets, it then goes to mention that the cardiologist that did this research is ALSO a nutritionist, which AUTOMATICALLY means they’ve been biased from years of anti fat, anti high meat teachings. We have WAY more than enough science at this point to suggest what we do is the healthier thing.

Did you read the attached findings? Laughable.

(Gary Clay) #4

Flawed methodology in that;

  1. The participants had to record their own food intake from which researchers calculated the macros. It is known that people tend to underestimate when doing this
  2. It was a 25 year study but only recorded a snapshot of what they ate in year one and year 6 so they could have eaten anything in the last 19 years and the researchers would be none the wiser.
    Who funded this???
    Need to follow the money :yen:
#5

Funded by the National Institutes of Health.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext

(charlie3) #6

If this news story encourages people doing keto to do more research that’s probably a good thing. Any research like this that doesn’t account for the prevelance of T2D and pre-T2D is just another load of crap.

#7

Thanks hoverjumper, I didn’t realise you also posted - I’m suitably reassured now!

#8

Thanks everyone, I knew it wasn’t to be believed but hadn’t quite worked out how to critique it.

I just don’t know how we are supposed to make progress in getting the message across that fat is good and carbs are bad, when the mainstream media keep publishing crap like this though… it undoes so much good work and science…

#9

Right?!?! Food questionnaires are dodgy at the best of times but twice in 25 years - it’s laughable. Would that journalists could ask better (or at least some) questions before ‘reporting’ this nonsense.

(Gary Clay) #10

To be fair the National Institutes Of Health have previously published a study supporting Keto approach

I still think the science in today’s study is flawed but don’t see any axe to grind or smoking gun

#11

There are several researches now pointing in a similar direction. See for example Dr Longo’s researches on longevity. He proposes as optimal for longevity a plant based diet with additional fish 3 times a day.
I’ve seen also an interesting paper of Dr Simpson (the one of PHL) full of very nice charts where for longevity a high carb diet was shown as optimal, while for losing weight a high fat diet was instead optimal. There was another chart about optimal reproductivity but I didn’t give it a good look.

Now all these are studies on average people. Not studies on people affected by metabolic syndrome.

(Gary Clay) #12

image
C3234D3F-8FCE-49D2-9A7C-8824C7F09FD2.jpeg800×1280 183 KB
Ahhh HOLD THE PHONE!

(Gary Clay) #13

Novartis manufactures the drugs clozapine (Clozaril), diclofenac (Voltaren), carbamazepine (Tegretol), valsartan (Diovan), imatinib mesylate (Gleevec/Glivec), ciclosporin (Neoral/Sandimmun), letrozole (Femara), methylphenidate (Ritalin), terbinafine (Lamisil), and others.

#14

Well, I’m an average person without metabolic syndrome, eating paleo/keto for long term health and longevity - not weight loss…

#15

Then you’re one of those people who would benefit from keeping your heads up and staying unbiased. Jmo.

In fact you could take a kraft test (after 2 weeks not in keto, because keto would distort the results). Because one can be thin and have low BG but still have an insulin behaviour for which staying low carb is a healthy choice. The Kraft test is the ultimate test in this regard.
Doctors don’t even know this test exist of course…
If you result negative, there’s no reason why you would have advantages from keto. If you’re positive then it is indeed for you the healthy choice you think it is.

#16

I agree that the article has weaknesses. Also <30% carbohydrates (the lowest carb intake quantile in the paper) isn’t super-low-carb anyway. Definitely not a reason to give up on the keto lifestyle, but should you really just dismiss the study out of hand? I haven’t seen a lot of studies including long term follow-up on low-carb diets, so at least it adds some information. Maybe there are identifiable factors (or confounding factors) that caused the higher mortality that it would be useful for keto people to know about.

(charlie3) #17

If half or more of the adult population is at significant risk for the various metabolic diseases that sort of simplifies the issues. The CDC is not a fringe group. If this is what they admit to it’s probably worse. I’ve listened to the plant people. They are interested in controling the food supply, not my health. My priorities are the reverse. For starters I want rock solid normal blood glucose and blood pressure. Then I want to see all the other relevent markers at optimal values. Whether I do that with plant food or animal food is a detail. The plant people will insist my intake of animal products must be zero regardless of my health. That is their politics, not necessarily optimal for my health. My health comes first, saving the planet comes second.

(Doug) #18

Exactly. They can’t even address low-carb eating from this.

#19

The results of the study aren’t surprising. Biology (including our physiology) functions in an optimal range that isn’t at maximal or minimal possible levels. Similarly, across a population, the outliers on a bell curve are never optimal:
Getting too much sleep is bad, as is getting too little sleep
Too much stress is bad, as is too little
Too much exercise or too little
Too many calories or too few

As it pertains to diet, I think science has made a strong case in support of the nutritional value of plants. There’s also evidence of the importance of protein, and animal products are the most efficient (bioavailability) source. Fats are also essential, they can come from food, they don’t need to come oils. So an optimally formulated diet for a population is likely to have a significant (maybe minimum of 15-25%) contribution from all 3 macros.

Many people on this forum are not the typical population. Some are using diet as a medical intervention to treat a disease. Carbs can be toxic to someone who is attempting to starve a glucose fueled tumor. Carbs can be detrimental to someone with a pancreas that’s burned out. Food as medicine does not use the same recipe as food for optimal health.

There is no good or bad without context. The optimal diet depends on what the objective is.

#20

I don’t know if that’s true, Margot. If you look at The Big Names in the keto world, none of them are overweight or suffer from metabolic syndrome, but all of them eat keto - Dominic D’Agostino, Miriam Kalamian, Mercola, Travis Christofferson, Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz - none of them have cancer, but all are eating keto for preventative reasons. Being in ketosis encourages cell apoptosis, so if you have any cells which are dividing in precancerous ways, it will encourage the body to nuke those cells before they develop into anything. There are many benefits to keto (allegedly) beyond weight loss…