Slashdot Mirror
Low-Carb Diets Could Shorten Life, Study Suggests (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: In the study, published in The Lancet Public Health, 15,400 people from the U.S. filled out questionnaires on the food and drink they consumed, along with portion sizes. From this, scientists estimated the proportion of calories they got from carbohydrates, fats, and protein. After following the group for an average of 25 years, researchers found that those who got 50-55% of their energy from carbohydrates (the moderate carb group) had a slightly lower risk of death compared with the low and high-carb groups. Researchers estimated that, from the age of 50, people in the moderate carb group were on average expected to live for another 33 years. This was: four years more than people who got 30% or less of their energy from carbs (extra-low-carb group); 2.3 years more than the 30%-40% (low-carb) group; and 1.1 years more than the 65% or more (high-carb) group.
The scientists then compared low-carb diets rich in animal proteins and fats with those that contained lots of plant-based protein and fat. They found that eating more beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese in place of carbs was linked with a slightly increased risk of death. But replacing carbohydrates with more plant-based proteins and fats, such as legumes and nuts, was actually found to slightly reduce the risk of mortality.
The scientists then compared low-carb diets rich in animal proteins and fats with those that contained lots of plant-based protein and fat. They found that eating more beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese in place of carbs was linked with a slightly increased risk of death. But replacing carbohydrates with more plant-based proteins and fats, such as legumes and nuts, was actually found to slightly reduce the risk of mortality.
Why do we keep covering these obvious causation vs correlation studies. Heck this one looks like it was crafted in reverse just to tarnish low carb diets. They get 2 minute blurbs on news stations and you never hear from them again. Ridiculous.
Follow the Funding...
Surprised?
According to findings on platforms like Reddit a lot of internet users will not read the article before forming an opinion on the piece. It's likely that they read headlines and subhead. Maybe they will read a summary if they feel like it. But from personal experience of the comment sections on major German newspaper that rarely happens as far as online platforms go. Which leads me to believe that this is a fairly common phenomenon among various cultures.
Of course it's a nice thing to know for online media whose revenue relies on generating clicks for their article. If all they do is to pick a catchy headline and perhaps write summery in a similar fashion, it's already enough to draw a significant amount of attention from their audience. On top of that the same phenomenon as illustrated above probably also applies to a significant portion ofjournalists, leading them to mostly only read press releases instead of working through the full papers.
I'm not sure in which direction the causality goes here as in whether those who publish papers have found out what gets you more likely published, journalists have found out what makes the most money, or both. In anyway the result stays the same.