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.
Almost everyone I know who eats low carb does so for a reason. They are fat, prone to be fat, diabetic, celiacs, or some other health problem that made them switch to low carb in the first place. Otherwise healthy people generally don't choose low carb without a health problem first.
Butter is good. Low carb leaves a lot of parameter space for what are you replacing it with. At the end of the day you pick a caloric intake and you pick a method of filling it. Turning down the mid range doesn't say what you did with the treble, base and volume knobs.
Here's the thing. If you lower your carbs and 2 years later your whole body still feels great then whatever you did probably was the right thing. I'm not saying eat what makes you happy. Because if you do that, and happy is pancakes, then 2 years from now you won't feel healthy or happy about how you feel when you aren't eating pancakes.. Unless maybe you are a kid.
You body doesn't have sense on a meal by meal basis but it lets you know you are not eating well overall.
SO no frigging way are the people on low carb diets long term and likeing how they feel doing damage.
On the other hand low carb diets could be bad ideas if for example you stay on the atkins diet or something equivalently stupid. Atkins is better than being obese but once you shed that, get off it man!
The thig about low carbs is that for some people it's incredibly easy. Once you stop using sugar you just lose the desire for it. it's not punishment. And that's the magic of low carbs. It's one of the few "diets" that doesn't lead to yo-yo. At least not for a subset fo people. It's sustainable.
It isn't for every one. But for some folks it is an easy way to feel good over the long term. That can't be unhealthy.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
If you cut all pasta, bread and cakes out of your diet, you won't actually die younger. You'll just wish you would.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No desserts. No sweets. No potatoes. No rice. No bread. No pasta. âoeWhen I say âno,â(TM) I mean âno, or not much,â(TM)â she notes... Kenyon, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UCSF, has been on her diet for two-and-a-half years. âoeI did it because we fed our worms glucose and it shortened their lifespan.â
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Many comments here about protein, and the sources of protein, yadda. For some bizarre reason scientists and the general public assume that low carb means high protein. IT DOESN'T. Every responsible low carb diet makes it perfectly clear that one should not eat much protein. For one thing, your body will use it to make carbohydrates. Why people choose to ignore this is baffling. More fat, less protein, much less carbohydrate is the formula. Is it that difficult to remember?
And let's not fuss about 'good' fat vs 'bad' fat. There are two primary concerns: Trans fats are bad. The other is never mentioned- rancid fat. This is a problem due to the fad of switching from animal fats to vegetable fats that started around the'80s. The good thing about animal fat is you know when it is rancid- it stinks. But vegetable fat doesn't. You don't know that you are poisoning yourself with it. Buy the smaller container of vegetable oil (if you must use it; lard is acceptable) and put it in the refrigerator after you open the bottle. Throw it out if you have any doubt. Coconut and MCT oil seem pretty stable at room temp and they are very good fuel for athletes and diabetics and most people.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I read a report this week that sticking long term low carb diets may trigger diabetes also.
Who to believe? I guess I should just outdoors and do some physical activity instead of stuffing my face with food while reading slashdot!
Was that "study" perchance funded by the corn growers lobby?
Who to believe?
Learn critical thinking. What critical word appears in the very first sentence of the summary?
Answer: "Questionnaire"
This was a SURVEY, of people that selected their own diets, not a controlled study. People that give up meat and eat "plant based proteins" are the same people that will exercise, avoid smoking, drink a glass of red wine instead of a keg of beer, etc. Correlation is not causation, and the results of this survey really don't mean anything.
I've been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years ago. I knew that lowering caloric intake can cure type 2 diabetes, but I am not fat, in fact, I am more on the skinny side, so I had few option of lowering my caloric intake much. However, I knew that carbs are associated with diabetes and started researching the issue more in depth. I decided to severely cut the amount of carbs I eat.
It was difficult at first, but as time went on, I gradually found it easier and easier. I replaced it with vegetables everywhere I could, which turns out to be a lot of places.
I am happy to announce that I have no symptoms or readings associated with diabetes anymore, and I do feel awesomely good. Whether this diet will shorten my life or not, I can't say (though I doubt it very much), but I really don't care. Quality of life matters more than length of life, and the quality of my life is so much higher than before the diet, I am glad to sacrifice a decade of shitty diabetic life for it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
...and are they still recruiting?
*asking for a friend
This study (really a survey) defines a low-carb diet as between 30-40% of calories. And the average is about 38% for the observed low-carbers.
That's lower carb, for sure, but it's not meaningfully low-carb. Ketosis (fat metabolism) doesn't begin until about 20% carbs (50-60g per day of carbs, as a rule of thumb).
A few months ago another study, 'proving' that low-carb diets had no advantages, also gave a firm conclusion recommending a 'plant based diet' while talking up low-carbing's supposed health issues. That study had low-carbing defined as 135g per a day, which is laughable.
It's as if the nutrition world is pushing a creationist diet (Adam and Eve were apparently vegetarians). Which is interesting, because Senator George McGovern, whose commission made it official US dogma that animal fat is bad for you, was a Christian. He pushed that agenda against the advice of his own scientists who advised him that the theory was unproven. The charts show the obesity epidemic starting at that point as diets went increasingly towards carbs. (Ironically, however, most of Christianity has never had a dogma of a literal translation of the bible; with Catholics even having the inventor of the Big Bang theory among their priests, Lemaitre; and Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk).
Meanwhile, Stanford Uni did a study of a bunch of diets, including low-fat and Atkins, where the study lead, who was a longterm vegetarian, was surprised to find that Atkins beat all the other diets in improvements on every single cardio-vascular marker.
It's a fascinating youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
And meanwhile, in another study, vegetarian women hit the menopause several years earlier than normal people. And the fertility rate in men has dramatically dropped. hmmmm........
Well, i can tell you that I won't be getting a case of 'vegan face' any time soon.
Sounds like a truism, but what you said is a falsehood.
Too many of my friends and colleagues are dying of sugar/carb addiction. They don't have to be huge, just not monitoring their blood A1C score (blood sugar).
It's not a fad diet. People consume a huge amount of starchy foods, sugary beverages, and worse, get no exercise. Type 2 diabetes is almost the epidemic that opoids are!
Often, people do this too late. The damage to their pancreas is already done, the effects of fat uptake because of enormous insulin dumps to battle the constant sugar cycles eventually takes its toll. Some people are even more reactant genetically; they don't need to have huge fat uptake to become insulin resistant.
The Lancet's study isn't an observation-- instead, people took a freaking survey-- people never lie on polls and surveys!! Right?? (looking at you, 538.com).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Bull shit. The human appetite evolved to deal with times when food frequently scarce. That's why sugar taste so good - it's high density energy. Following your appetites is NOT optimum in a land of excess such as most of us now live in.
No, you miss the point.
It's not about calories, it's about net carbs after fiber. Counting calories works well for high-output individuals, who in the US, are about 2 in 10. The rest of the people need to count carbohydrates by the gram or other measure.
Calories isn't so much of a figment, rather, it doesn't portray the accuracy of a nutritional diet. See https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ag... for questions. His other books are equally as well annotated, chapter and verse.
Truly and sincerely, it's not the calories, it's the carbohydrates net of fiber content.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The idea that you can extend the results of this study to the current definitions of "low carb" eating is bogus.
In this study "low carb" was 38% of calories from carbs.. way higher than anything you would need to approach nutritional ketosis (the target of current low-carb eating). In fact the group identified as "low carb" were basically "shitty lifestyle", and in the words of the study: "were more likely to be young, male, a self-reported race other than black, college graduates, have high body-mass index, exercise less during leisure time, have high household income, smoke cigarettes, and have diabetes."
So in fact the study showed something that is common sense.. people who don't care about their health fair worse than people who do.
No, you miss the point.
It's not about calories, it's about net carbs after fiber. Counting calories works well for high-output individuals, who in the US, are about 2 in 10. The rest of the people need to count carbohydrates by the gram or other measure.
Calories isn't so much of a figment, rather, it doesn't portray the accuracy of a nutritional diet.
Counting calories works for everyone. If you consume more energy than you need, the excess is stored as fat. Our population is not facing nutritional deficiency, but an obesity epidemic. And exercise is a pitiful amount of energy expenditure, so its not the lack of that. Its the lack of accurately counting kcal consumption that is causing it. Blaming carbs, protein and fats for this is foolish.
You completely missed the entire chemistry behind insulin, insulin reaction, ketosis, and more.
The obesity epidemic is the direct result of sugar/starch/carb addiction. It's like nicotine or crack-- but worse. Cheap carbs are the basal cause of the epidemic. Sugar feeds a serotonin release caused by a chemical pathway to the brain. It's addiction.
Calories aren't useful for most people, but carbs are necessary for all. You've been hypnotized by the BRIBED research. Read the book in the citation. Read its bibliography. Understand how the cereals and sugar industry have skewed "nutritional pyramids" and other fantasies of logic. KCals are a horrific reference point. Read the book. I have other citations available as well.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.