Suggested youtube channel: Nutrition Made Simple - No BS, just science

(Steve Grand Rapids) #1

I love this guy. Seems most doctors mix science, their training and experience, and bias in what they preach. I’ve gotten pretty good at detecting their theory versus good science.

His name is Gil Carvalho. He just interprets the studies that have been done - nothing more.

The studies on Keto are very lacking. Like, people follow the basic diet but don’t test for actual ketosis. So basically, the studies don’t tell us much. I suppose I don’t care. I’m more concerned about my own N=1 study results.


Uh, oh, Simon, the vegan interviewer is a handsome guy. The camera and microphone loves him. Bart questions the opening saturated fatty acids comments.

Further in, I wonder what he has to say about Gil’s presented information?

In the mean-time, while I go and look things up, his association with a vegan social media platform seems to have upset Prof Bart Kay.

Ahh, I see, he is a nutrition diplomat.

Here is his video on the DIETFITS study. I do like the key point of the way of eating needs to be contextualised to the person pursuing it. My personal bias is how the LowCarb MDs examined the DIETFITS study design and results interpretations.

Prof. Bart is a bit too righteous for my tastes.

(Michael) #3

He is pretty good at hiding his obvious biases. I like watching him to understand the “standard vegan oriented “ perspective. While he only cites papers that support his desired position and then only quotes the pieces within the paper that again support his position, he does present the concepts clearly and provides a lot of citations that find useful to read myself. In general a LOT of people use his videos as their expert explanation to support eating more plants and less saturated fat.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #4

I suppose it depends on whose studies you are looking at. I’d say that Phinney’s and Volek’s work is well done, if anyone’s is. If Dr. Carvalho has challenges to their data, I’d sure be interested to hear them.

One of the biggest criticisms of research involving “low-carb” diets is that they are not anything near what you or I would call low-carb. The rat studies I’ve seen fed the rats a godawful “ketogenic” diet that was mostly dextrose and glucose (plus soy oil, if I recall corretly). Moreover, as Dr. Phinney points out, a lot of studies in which the ketogenic diet appears to come off badly are too short for the subjects to reach keto-adaptation. A two-week intervention is not nearly long enough. However there are a number of studies of people on an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet that did last long enough to produce meaningful results.

I came across a very interesting article in the literature from 1953, “Treatment of Obesity with Calorically Unrestricted Diets,” by Alfred Pennington. He was the corporate physician at Du Pont at the time, and successfully treated a number of obese employees, both workers and executives, with a low-carb, high-fat diet. So the science was known even way back then. (In fact, it goes back to the work of Savarin two centuries ago. Until carbohydrates suddenly became health foods in the 1980’s, the common wisdom was that we needed to restrict how much of them we ate, or we’d get fat.)

(Bob M) #5

That’s concerning, because there’s very little evidence against saturated fat being bad.

Of course, this was written by Nina Teicholz, and it’s not “peer reviewed”, so I’m sure Gil Carvalho will never use it.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #6

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #7

I was going to challenge this statement, but then I realised Nina Teicholz has no peer, except Gary Taubes.

(Bob M) #8

That is true. Touche! (I’m sure there’s a way to add the correct accent to that last “e”, but I don’t know how to do that.)

But there are those who will not let you cite to anything that’s not “peer reviewed”. I think to myself, “but peer review (1) is a bias (remember when we all thought everything revolved around the sun; I’m sure a paper saying the opposite would never get through ‘peer review’), and (2) is meaningless”. Just listened to an interview with Nick Norwitz, where they have data on LMHRs to publish, and it’s taking forever, because of “peer review”.

And while I haven’t seen the videos of the original link, there’s a way to hide behind “scientific evidence” to make the point you want to make. I mean if all we did was read stuff out of the Harvard School of Epidemiology, we’d KNOW that red meat is bad for us. But those of us who eat mainly red meat, lost quite a bit of weight, feel great, have endless energy, and have had so many benefits by eating DEADLY red meat, well, we’re just N=1s anyway. Ignore us. And, while you’re at it, ignore the RCTs and other studies showing red meat isn’t bad.


I personally could switch to my Hungarian keyboard setting as é is a Hungarian letter too but I don’t do that, Alt+130 does the same thing :wink: I need it for pâté a lot!
My tablet offers the most common accents when I type so it’s easier there.