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.
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.
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.