The crusade against carbs

BCO said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well look who just cherry picked :)

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition. A less common type of cherry picking is to gather only fruit that is easy to harvest ignoring quality fruit higher up the tree. This can also give observers a false impression about the quality of fruit on the tree.
Click to expand...


Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

Rigorous science looks at all the evidence (rather than cherry picking only favorable evidence), controls for variables as to identify what is actually working, uses blinded observations so as to minimize the effects of bias, and uses internally consistent logic."
Click to expand...

And before going on about it, I'm referring to the author cherry picking from the review itself.
 
creeper said:
Please elaborate your statement
Click to expand...

How does it add anything to the debate? It was totally unregulated, and doesn't sync with any type of diet advocated by anyone. No one here is advocating cutting out all carbs or all fats.
 
BCO said:
Where is the contradictory evidence in the journal paper though?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. My point is that the author takes their conclusion and bastardises it by not presenting their actual conclusion. He presents the review as being conclusive, when it calls for further testing as the testing carried out was limited.

However, the
observational studies were limited
Click to expand...
 
Randhir said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. My point is that the author takes their conclusion and bastardises it by not presenting their actual conclusion. He presents the review as being conclusive, when it calls for further testing as the testing carried out was limited.
Click to expand...

To be fair, how many studies of this nature would call themselves conclusive and not call for further testing?
 
OrbitalDawn said:
To be fair, how many studies of this nature would call themselves conclusive and not call for further testing?
Click to expand...

Which further illustrates why using a finding which the study itself says is not conclusive, and presenting the study as saying it is conclusive, is cherry picking.

And not to mention, not only does the study say it wasn't conclusive, it says it was limited. Which is even further away from being any kind of conclusive.
 
Randhir said:
Which further illustrates why using a finding which the study itself says is not conclusive, and presenting the study as saying it is conclusive, is cherry picking.

And not to mention, not only does the study say it wasn't conclusive, it says it was limited. Which is even further away from being any kind of conclusive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no argument there.

Just mentioning that one can't necessarily discount such studies. But, as you said, pinch+salt etc.
 
Randhir said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. My point is that the author takes their conclusion and bastardises it by not presenting their actual conclusion. He presents the review as being conclusive, when it calls for further testing as the testing carried out was limited.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What about the other two studies that have similar conclusions? Anyway, as per my OP - I was asking for your thoughts on the papers linked, more than on the article itself...

The article author's claim that "There are no comparable studies suggesting high-carbohydrate (starch-based) diets increase mortality, cardiovascular disease, or other common diseases. (Any negative references to carbohydrates in these articles apply to simple sugars, not starches.)**" probably needs further investigation - I'd be very interested to see if there were studies indicating higher all-cause mortality for diets high in unrefined carbs.
 
Thor187 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You post with such confidence you must be aware of some conclusive proper studies available to back up your statements. Please do share.
 
BCO said:
Fair enough. What about the other two studies that have similar conclusions? Anyway, as per my OP - I was asking for your thoughts on the papers linked, more than on the article itself...

The article author's claim that "There are no comparable studies suggesting high-carbohydrate (starch-based) diets increase mortality, cardiovascular disease, or other common diseases. (Any negative references to carbohydrates in these articles apply to simple sugars, not starches.)**" probably needs further investigation - I'd be very interested to see if there were studies indicating higher all-cause mortality for diets high in unrefined carbs.
Click to expand...

I'll take some time to look it over, but to be honest, I don't have the expertise in the field to be drawing comprehensive conclusions either way, and I also don't see the reviews doing consistent testing on subjects who undergo proper LCHF diets, so I'm liable to dismiss any conclusion made about LCHF diets.

Sodan said:
You post with such confidence you must be aware of some conclusive proper studies available to back up your statements. Please do share.
Click to expand...

No point. He does this from time to time.
 
Thor187 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sodan said:
You post with such confidence you must be aware of some conclusive proper studies available to back up your statements. Please do share.
Click to expand...

I could only lol
To just stay alive your body could not care less where it's energy comes from. Only under physical exertion is there some debate (strenght you want carbs, endurance you want fat), and even there it seems like it may not matter as much
 
Archer said:
I could only lol
To just stay alive your body could not care less where it's energy comes from. Only under physical exertion is there some debate (strenght you want carbs, endurance you want fat), and even there it seems like it may not matter as much
Click to expand...

Hence preferred and not 'only'
 
LCHFer for the rest of my life, no heartburn, no cravings, no irritability when my blood sugar crashes, healthy weight, more energy, asthma reduced, all blood counts perfect etc etc etc...

If I die early(I won't these studies are nonsense) at least I'll feel good.

I also read a study last week, my googlefu is weak today so can't find it, which indicated that low GI or high GI, refined or not, full grain or simple carbs have absolutely the same effect on your health and ALL are worse than an LCHF diet.
 
gram said:
Interesting Discussion :)

Carbs is not essentially bad, depends how they are used in your diet.

I am doing a Carb backloading, which is a best of both worlds scenario..

-low/no carb, high fat, moderate protein during the day
-Gym like a muddaeffer in the afternoon
-eat lots of carbs after that to replenish Glycogen stores

in the last 18 months or so...

lost +- 20 kg's
bmi is now around 13, ...could be better :(
cholesterol down
sugar down

I agree that gluten should not be demonized as well. You should only avoid it if you have a bona fide allergy to it.
Click to expand...

Generally rule of thumb is no heavy carbs after lunch. You could perhaps drop your BMI if you restricted carbs at night.
 
Is it possible to fit alcohol of any kind into an LCHF diet?
 
Ancalagon said:
Is it possible to fit alcohol of any kind into an LCHF diet?
Click to expand...

Spirits, yes. A Windhoek Lager has about 8g of carbs in it so you could budget a few in now and then.
 
ScottulusMaximus said:
LCHFer for the rest of my life, no heartburn, no cravings, no irritability when my blood sugar crashes, healthy weight, more energy, asthma reduced, all blood counts perfect etc etc etc...

If I die early(I won't these studies are nonsense) at least I'll feel good.

I also read a study last week, my googlefu is weak today so can't find it, which indicated that low GI or high GI, refined or not, full grain or simple carbs have absolutely the same effect on your health and ALL are worse than an LCHF diet.
Click to expand...

You said it,same here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X