https://www.kare11.com/article...ggests/507-585803285


I am starting to think most, if not all of these diet studies are a bunch of crap. Short of those conducted with institutionalized patients, the diet is self reported. That's dubious from the start.

Of course, this will be widely reported on the news until the next study comes along that says: "Low carb is good". Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, these "studies" have SERIOUS limitations.

I pay zero attention to these so-called "studies."

"Self-reported data can be flawed, because it relies on the subject's memory. Another limitation of the study: Diets were measured only twice during the 25-year study period, at the start of the study and again six years later."

You think? Completely useless. Not to mention....how many other lifestyle factors could there have been that weren't even asked about?

All the "studies" that linked red meat to heart disease and cancer are the same. Useless. There actually were real scientific double-blind studies on institutionalized patients (diets completely controlled) that showed zero correlation between red meat and cancer or heart disease. The politically motivated FDA and AHA ignore them and due to ethical considerations will never be done again.

Although antidotal in 18 months I'm down 60 pounds via low carb. Blood pressure is down enough that my doctor took me off BP medicine. Cholesterol is down, A1C is in the normal range, I sleep better, snore less, I'm told, back pain is gone and I avoided fusion surgery from the weight loss.

Other than that I got nothin'.

OK, I can't resit more comments on the sheer stupidity of this "study." Let's dig deeper. So, "low carb" means less than 40% of daily calories from carbs and shortens life by 4 years. Well, being over-weight/obese shortens life span by 15 years according to the medical community (probably from another crap study, yet heart disease and other illnesses related to diet, obesity and lifestyle are the biggest causes of death by far).

Further, even 30% of calories from carbs...is hardly "low carb" anyway. For a 2,000 cal/day diet, that would still be 600 cals or 150g from carbs.

Even further, does this study even bother to propose a theoretical causal chain? What exactly does the body get from 40-60% carbs vs less? Protein (ammino acids) are the building blocks of our cells, muscle etc. Fats are the building blocks of all our hormones. Carbs just provide faster energy, yet our bodies prefer fat as the emergency energy store of choice...

Since it was a self-reporting survey, were these people measuring their portions and calories? If not, how can the researchers even know, based on doofus #2's guess-timate?

More still, I hate this crap because someone like Jeff above, if they aren't real confident or committed, may read this garbage and get discouraged and give up, think they are doing the "wrong" thing when it is saving their life.

Last month the radio DJs were talking about a "study" that found no link between pasta consumption and being over-weight. So, their take was Olive Garden is back on the good list.

No crap, pasta (one particular thing) isn't directly linked to being overweight. Pasta, desserts, fast-food, too many overall calories, and too little exercise sure is!


From the actual study:

quote:

Procedures
Participants completed an interview that included a 66-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), modified from a 61-item FFQ designed and validated by Willett and colleagues,16 at Visit 1 (1987–89) and Visit 3 (1993–95). Participants reported the frequency with which they consumed particular foods and beverages in nine standard frequency categories (extending from never or less than one time per month, to six or more times per day). Standard portion sizes were provided as a reference for intake estimation, and pictures and food models were shown to the participants by the interviewer at each examination. We used the Harvard Nutrient Database to derive nutrient intakes from the FFQ responses.16

Sounds like it was super-accurate!

^^^^^

Agreed. The study was stupid, yet someone got funding for it.

My point in posting it was to show how stupid these are. Kind of like the one that said drinking diet soda makes you fat without controlling for the fact that fat people often drink diet soda anyway!

Obviously, there isn't a simple one size fits all answer. If what you are doing is working, keep it up. If you are doing something that has you gaining or not losing the way you want, try something else.

I'm with you MNSIG, I knew why you posted it.

A lot of the funding comes from the food industry (coca-cola, big sugar etc.) or groups with a chip on their shoulder having nothing to do with nutrition like the vegans.

The low carb community has some actual science on its side, but no $ or real influence. Who is going to fund massive low-carb studies? (cattle industry maybe). Who would fund fasting studies?

You have natural carbs with fiber and processed carbs with no fiber.

A piece of fruit vs high fructose corn syrup.

I wonder which one will raise your blood sugar the fastest?

Salt in 5 lb quantities causes bloating in rats....

This was an interesting video that touches on the financial motovations behind some of these studies.

https://youtu.be/TpALLBqcYTE

good ole Dr. Berry. In other news, PepsiCo has acquired SodaStream for 3.2 Billion.

As Stefan Molyneux said in response to Climate Change, "We would not want to mistake Government Science for Voluntary Science". I think it also applies to the food pyramid we have been fed for decades.



and Nina,

I have heard of a lot of these anti low carb/high protein diet studies are funded and pursued by vegetarians.

Woody Allen's Sleeper 1973

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."

Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.

Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?

Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

Dr. Melik: Incredible.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Yarchin:
Although antidotal in 18 months I'm down 60 pounds via low carb. Blood pressure is down enough that my doctor took me off BP medicine. Cholesterol is down, A1C is in the normal range, I sleep better, snore less, I'm told, back pain is gone and I avoided fusion surgery from the weight loss.

Other than that I got nothin'.

Way to go Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Yarchin:
Although antidotal in 18 months I'm down 60 pounds via low carb. Blood pressure is down enough that my doctor took me off BP medicine. Cholesterol is down, A1C is in the normal range, I sleep better, snore less, I'm told, back pain is gone and I avoided fusion surgery from the weight loss.

Other than that I got nothin'.

Winning!

Here's a crazy idea: different people have different dietary requirements and respond differently to different diets, and should stick to what works for them instead of following fads.

And exercise. Whatever else, stay as active as you can.

It’s the bad years at the end though. I don’t mind missing those if I’m healthy up to the point that I ACK THUD.

^^^^^^

I'm not sure it works out that way. A lot of individuals with CAD are the ones that ACK>THUD, while the "healthy" ones may live long enough to get cancers, etc.

I recall reading a few years ago that one of the biggest predictors of old age infirmity is orthopedic injuries at a younger age. Whether work related, auto, sports, whatever. Beating up your joints in youth and middle age will put you in a bad place later on.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Yarchin:
Although antidotal in 18 months I'm down 60 pounds via low carb. Blood pressure is down enough that my doctor took me off BP medicine. Cholesterol is down, A1C is in the normal range, I sleep better, snore less, I'm told, back pain is gone and I avoided fusion surgery from the weight loss.

Other than that I got nothin'.

Nicely done!

Last year's conversation with my former Doc....

Doc- Your cholesterol levels are down a little.

Me- Well I've been trying to watch it and eat things like oatmeal and such.

Doc- Dietary cholesterol has nothing to do with blood cholesterol. Btw, you're borderline so I'd like you to go on a statin drug and you are not to eat organ meat or shellfish.

Me- You can't have it both ways Doc.

^^^^

Yeah, at a physical a few years back the Doc said if we were related to me, he would drag me down to the Pharmacy and put me on Statins. That actually really got through to me. I was in great shape (fitness-wise) but my diet was a wreck (I mean, average!) You can absolutely be "fit" and un-healthy at the same time.

Anyway, I still told him I was never going to take drugs and trash my liver when I could just eat differently. Went mostly "Paleo" eating plenty of fat (but way less carbs) and dropped my overall cholesterol 65pts and my "good" cholesterol shot through the roof.

This is why I'm basically immune to any "study" or "expert" opinion on nutrition. I've done the research, know the background of the special interest groups, lies, and politics that went into the "status quo" guidelines and most importantly, have seen the results for myself and my wife with SAD bloodwork and Paleo(-ish) diet bloodwork on each of us.

Like the wonderful Nina Teicholz says in the excellent video clip above, I'm interested in the actual "Science" of nutrition with valid data...wherever it leads. Not the cherry-picked and manipulated garbage sponsored by the food industry. I look forward to the 2020 USDA guidelines and am very happy she at least was able to testify before Congress and the USDA looked at the research she sent them. Fingers crossed! P.S. the story of the 1st Food Pyramid is one of squared away USDA nutritionists coming out with a solid product only to have it be over-ruled and basically inverted due to politics...and now we have an "Obesity Epidemic."