jopar said:
Problem Xyzzy, is your synopsis is that you’ll using data that doesn’t exist! ....
To me all of this is very simple. All styles of diets have an associated risk. You should simply pick the style that has the least risk
for the situation you find yourself in. I am a diet only T2 therefore to keep my sub 5% HbA1c I will need to restrict my carbs, that's a given. My choice is then to pick the least risky balance between fat and protein based on the evidence as I interpret it. Currently I interpret a lchf diet safer than any other option including a lchp one by a wide margin.
If I had to really restrict my carbs down to vlc (Atkins style or otherwise) levels to keep safe I would still see that as less risky overall than allowing my levels to run too high. It really is that easy. When you do the same weighing up of risk as T1 you come to your own different conclusions based on the situation you find yourself in. Given that I need to restrict carbs low to inherently keep safe whereas the low carb argument for T1's is for subtly different reasons it isn't surprising we may come to different conclusions.
There are other debates to be had such as how safe a vlc diet is, if fat is bad, if low fat is bad, is grain bad etc, are processed carbohydrates bad, is sugar bad etc.? These debates may alter the balance of risks I or you have regarding the mix of our diets but in the end, to me, it does just boil down to what levels of physical data (BG level, BP level, CH levels) I am willing to accept.
Relating it back to the thread the problem is, as the introduction to the study states, that the average member of the public isn't as informed as they need to be and have chosen lchp because of the indoctrinated aversion to fat that is preached at them by many HCP's and the food and drink industry for no sane reason that I can tell. They haven't been given enough evidence to come to a correct and unbiased risk conclusion based on the situation they find themselves in.