The crusade against carbs

Oh and also, those of us who do follow LCHF diets here, advocate just that. A low carb, high fat diet. The study I linked to reviewed low carb diets, and low carb high protein diets.
 
Archer said:
Why is LCHF BS if people are not doing it properly?
Click to expand...

That's the other thing. Not everyone is the same, and if these diets aren't being monitored absolutely, how do we even know what they're doing?
 
Randhir said:
I'm about to leave, so I can't check up on everything, but is it really a good article? One of the sources doesn't work, and he seems fine cherry picking from another.

From his article:



From the actual review:
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's just a skewed representation of the studies to further the author's POV. Well spotted.
 
Sodan said:
Okay, so it's just a skewed representation of the studies to further the author's POV. Well spotted.
Click to expand...

And that's with a rushed, cursory perusal. I'm not saying he has an agenda, but he certainly seems to be pushing one.
 
Archer said:
Why is LCHF BS if people are not doing it properly?
Click to expand...

Because fat comes third.

Macro nutrient hierarchy goes:
Protein
Carbs
Fats

Your bodies preferred energy source is clean carbs.

Your brain needs fats ( mono and poly ) omega 3,6,9.


Animal fats and all other fats people eat while on LCHF is k@k and wrong and plain stupid.
 
3WA said:
Gout and cancer? ;)
Click to expand...

I seem to recall studies showing a ketogenic diet leading to a decrease in cancer. Take them with a pinch of salt, and almost all seem to advocate heavy further testing:

CONCLUSIONS:
These pilot data suggest that a KD is suitable for even advanced cancer patients. It has no severe side effects and might improve aspects of quality of life and blood parameters in some patients with advanced metastatic tumors.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21794124

This Needs a Lot More Research

Cancer is a nasty bitch. You can cut it away, radiate it and overload it with poison, but somehow it often still manages to survive and spread.

Ketogenic diets may turn out to be a useful weapon in the arsenal against this foul disease, but it is definitely premature to make any recommendations based on current research.
Click to expand...
http://authoritynutrition.com/ketogenic-diets-and-cancer/



Conclusions

A carbohydrate-restricted fat rich diet was well tolerated by 5 of 16 patients for 3 months and another 7 for at least 5 weeks until progression or death. No adverse laboratory effects were observed, but there was ongoing weight loss. The data of this pilot study further suggest that a KD might improve quality of life and classical blood parameters in some patients with advanced metastatic tumors. However, to judge effects on quality of life or cancer progression, randomized studies with sufficient numbers of patients are needed.
Click to expand...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/749855_5
 
Randhir said:
I'm about to leave, so I can't check up on everything, but is it really a good article? One of the sources doesn't work, and he seems fine cherry picking from another.

From his article:



From the actual review:
Click to expand...

The actual review also says "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed". I don't see how this is a cherry pick - the journal article just mentions some of its own limitations and indicates the need for more research. It's not like the results of this study were equivocal and then the article's author picked out convenient bits to suit his argument.


Here's the BMJ link that actually works:

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026
 
3WA said:
Gout and cancer? ;)
Click to expand...

And as my first post said, I bet you could find studies to the contrary
Cancer supposedly uses carbs as it's only source of fuel, so without that no cancer (sort of, your body can still produce the required energy)

Lots and lots of circles to go around in these discussions :D

Nerfherder said:
I think the liver has issues with so much protein...
Click to expand...

I personally struggle to get more than 100g of protein in a day on LCHF, which is not excessive at all given my activity and body weight (it's actually too little, I need to supplement it)
 
BCO said:
The actual review also says "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed". I don't see how this is a cherry pick - the journal article just mentions some of its own limitations and indicates the need for more research. It's not like the results of this study were equivocal and then the article's author picked out convenient bits to suit his argument.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely a cherry pick.

BCO said:
Here's the BMJ link that actually works:

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026
Click to expand...

Thanks, will check it out when I'm able.
 
Randhir said:
And that's with a rushed, cursory perusal. I'm not saying he has an agenda, but he certainly seems to be pushing one.
Click to expand...

As I just pointed out the quote in the article, is quoted verbatim from the study.
 
Randhir said:
I seem to recall studies showing a ketogenic diet leading to a decrease in cancer. Take them with a pinch of salt, and almost all seem to advocate heavy further testing:
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. Sorry. Of course a person who eats nothing but bacon and steak, and a person who eats almonds and avos are going to have different cancer risks, even if both are keto.
 
BCO said:
As I just pointed out the quote in the article, is quoted verbatim from the study.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You can quote verbatim and still be cherry picking. The author seems to push an absolute while the review calls for further testing.
 
Randhir said:
It's absolutely a cherry pick.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

The author of the article did not ignore data from the journal that contradicted his position, as the journal article did not even include any contradictory data. The journal article just mentioned its own limitations. The conclusions of the paper were that low carb diets were significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality rates and that more research was needed. It's a real stretch to accuse the author of cherry picking, when all did was leave out the bit saying more research was needed.
 
3WA said:
I was being facetious. Sorry. Of course a person who eats nothing but bacon and steak, and a person who eats almonds and avos are going to have different cancer risks, even if both are keto.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course. And a recent study suggests that cancer could be completely random. Bottom line: We don't know much about much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X