Confirmation bias

[HairySmurf]

Confirmation bias, according to the Wikipedia definition, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a universal aspect of human reasoning and goes a long way in explaining various phenomenon from extreme political polarisation, to resistance amongst the scientific community to contrary ideas, to belief in the power of astrology and the paranormal. Once we become emotionally invested in an idea it becomes extremely difficult to shake our beliefs. Emotional investment is reinforced when our beliefs are challenged. On some level, we take it personally.

In the UK context a very good example is polarisation surrounding the Brexit referendum. At one extreme Brexit was portrayed as an imminent economic catastrophe of dire proportions, while at the other extreme it was portrayed as an amazing opportunity that would lead the UK into a new golden age. It is only when people became less emotionally invested in their beliefs and the realities smacked them in the face that extreme attitudes on both sides began to soften and shift.

It’s easy to spot from a detached distance, when an observer isn’t invested in either side of an issue. According to polls around 30% of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden. To say the evidence for that belief is thin and shaky is a vast understatement. Similarly, according to the most recent polling I can find on the subject, around 16% of Americans still believe that the government, media, and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshipping paedophiles. This is the core tenet of QAnon. It’s not as if QAnon believers are in some way more stupid than the average person. They just fell down a misinformation rabbit hole and stayed there, largely due to a constant stream of new conspiracy theories which they are encouraged to ‘research for themselves’, under the heavy influence of confirmation bias.

Where am I going with this? Well, the first thing I did when I became curious about low carb diets as a way to manage my diabetes was to check out the Wikipedia page:

Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On this page are references to long term risks associated with such a diet, specifically cardiovascular disease, stroke, and various cancers (references 30 and 46). I began checking out this forum hoping to find expertise in managing these possible risks – long term low carb best practise tips basically. What I found instead was flat-out denial that these risks might exist in the first place; denial that these health conditions had anything to do with diet at all. More than that I found denial that medication that might help a person manage some of those risks, specifically statins, had any tangible benefit. Meanwhile, back in the real world, articles like this one are not hard to find:

Statins reduce deaths from heart disease by 28 per cent, says longest ever study | Imperial News | Imperial College London

The study focused on men with high levels of 'bad' cholesterol and no other risk factors or signs of heart disease

www.imperial.ac.uk

Last night I found myself deeply, viscerally disgusted with a thread on this forum along these lines and I realized that I’ve become biased. I can no longer investigate a low carb diet and any potential long term health effects with an open mind and without confirmation bias steering me away. It’s done, mind closed, perhaps forever. What did it was not some study or expert who could prove that low carb in the long term was unhealthy. What did it was coming to the stark realization that there is no advocate expert on the low carb lifestyle who is not also an expert in denying any potential long term consequences in a very selective, blatantly biased way. Everything I see and read on the subject, written by staunch advocates on this forum and elsewhere, now screams rabbit hole. It’s a shame, because I don’t question for a second that a low carb lifestyle has many excellent benefits for a Type 2 Diabetic. A little more balance and some acceptance that nobody has all the long term answers would have gone a long way.

 

[Lamont D]

Confirmation bias, according to the Wikipedia definition, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a universal aspect of human reasoning and goes a long way in explaining various phenomenon from extreme political polarisation, to resistance amongst the scientific community to contrary ideas, to belief in the power of astrology and the paranormal. Once we become emotionally invested in an idea it becomes extremely difficult to shake our beliefs. Emotional investment is reinforced when our beliefs are challenged. On some level, we take it personally.

In the UK context a very good example is polarisation surrounding the Brexit referendum. At one extreme Brexit was portrayed as an imminent economic catastrophe of dire proportions, while at the other extreme it was portrayed as an amazing opportunity that would lead the UK into a new golden age. It is only when people became less emotionally invested in their beliefs and the realities smacked them in the face that extreme attitudes on both sides began to soften and shift.

It’s easy to spot from a detached distance, when an observer isn’t invested in either side of an issue. According to polls around 30% of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden. To say the evidence for that belief is thin and shaky is a vast understatement. Similarly, according to the most recent polling I can find on the subject, around 16% of Americans still believe that the government, media, and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshipping paedophiles. This is the core tenet of QAnon. It’s not as if QAnon believers are in some way more stupid than the average person. They just fell down a misinformation rabbit hole and stayed there, largely due to a constant stream of new conspiracy theories which they are encouraged to ‘research for themselves’, under the heavy influence of confirmation bias.

Where am I going with this? Well, the first thing I did when I became curious about low carb diets as a way to manage my diabetes was to check out the Wikipedia page:

Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On this page are references to long term risks associated with such a diet, specifically cardiovascular disease, stroke, and various cancers (references 30 and 46). I began checking out this forum hoping to find expertise in managing these possible risks – long term low carb best practise tips basically. What I found instead was flat-out denial that these risks might exist in the first place; denial that these health conditions had anything to do with diet at all. More than that I found denial that medication that might help a person manage some of those risks, specifically statins, had any tangible benefit. Meanwhile, back in the real world, articles like this one are not hard to find:

Statins reduce deaths from heart disease by 28 per cent, says longest ever study | Imperial News | Imperial College London

The study focused on men with high levels of 'bad' cholesterol and no other risk factors or signs of heart disease

www.imperial.ac.uk

Last night I found myself deeply, viscerally disgusted with a thread on this forum along these lines and I realized that I’ve become biased. I can no longer investigate a low carb diet and any potential long term health effects with an open mind and without confirmation bias steering me away. It’s done, mind closed, perhaps forever. What did it was not some study or expert who could prove that low carb in the long term was unhealthy. What did it was coming to the stark realization that there is no advocate expert on the low carb lifestyle who is not also an expert in denying any potential long term consequences in a very selective, blatantly biased way. Everything I see and read on the subject, written by staunch advocates on this forum and elsewhere, now screams rabbit hole. It’s a shame, because I don’t question for a second that a low carb lifestyle has many excellent benefits for a Type 2 Diabetic. A little more balance and some acceptance that nobody has all the long term answers would have gone a long way.

I am an advocate of the very low carb diet.
And I'm not closed mind about it.
And if I did, I'm sure the mods would jump all over me.
This forum is here for well over a decade because diabetics couldn't understand why the medical advice they were getting was not working.
And I joined to find out about, if anyone had a clue About My woes.
But there wasn't other than someone who had experienced it.
But I took on board that it might help me.
So, instead of relying on everyone else, I did the research, thexperimenting, the testing, the recording, I discussed it with my endocrinologist and my GP and I was thoroughly tested because it is a rare condition.
I found out myself and made those decisions on the outcomes.
No surprising, that it went against the advice given for the decade before by my medical professionals at that time. The textbooks in my case for my condition are not healthy for me.
So I learnt how to give advice about my experiences, the science of how and why what happens to me.
It is my experience that I give, not an agenda or a dogma.
I Have an open mind about what is beneficial to others.
It is in my writing space below.
I am an advocate of what is going to be beneficial to you.
A tailored dietary regime to your circumstances.
The reason is, when giving advice, it has to be for the individual, not the one size fits all.
We all have different responses to our needs.

But, I must say.
To let you know there is, out there, evidence, that for a lot of diabetics, lowering your carb intake, is beneficial, just as more exercise is, less food, better healthy food.
It all depends on how it improves your health.

And, finally. T2 diabetes should be known as carbohydrate intolerant. Just as I have been lactose intolerant since very young. But, it all depends on the level of intolerance. From one extreme to the other. I'm one end, very! You might be the other end, where you can tolerate quite a few.

Just to add, my many doctors, in discussion have alluded to needing complex carbs for brain function. I have heard this many, many times.
In my case, as an individual, does not bear this out.
My brain works better, remembers, recalls, relates to, works things out, better when either fasting or being in ketosis.
Why?
When the text books say it cannot be?

And brexit was the biggest mistake the country has ever made! That is not a bias! That is the truth borne out by actual facts!

 

[ianf0ster]

Did you look at Ref 30 - it says that causality cannot be proven and that further research is required. Also what that ref calls the lowest carbohydrate quartile isn't low carb - nowhere near, it's got 39% of total calories coming for carbs a median of 214gms of carbs per day.
Low carb starts at 130gms per day and Keto is under 20gms per day (though may be higher depending upon the individual).

Their results were Relative Risk, rather than the real risk which is absolute risk? Look at the graphs to scale and see the negligible difference.
They also had:
lowest educational level
highest alcohol consumption
equal highest % of smokers
equal highest % with diabetes
lowest amount of exercise

Edited to remove the exasperation from my post.

 

[JAT1]

Confirmation bias, according to the Wikipedia definition, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a universal aspect of human reasoning and goes a long way in explaining various phenomenon from extreme political polarisation, to resistance amongst the scientific community to contrary ideas, to belief in the power of astrology and the paranormal. Once we become emotionally invested in an idea it becomes extremely difficult to shake our beliefs. Emotional investment is reinforced when our beliefs are challenged. On some level, we take it personally.

In the UK context a very good example is polarisation surrounding the Brexit referendum. At one extreme Brexit was portrayed as an imminent economic catastrophe of dire proportions, while at the other extreme it was portrayed as an amazing opportunity that would lead the UK into a new golden age. It is only when people became less emotionally invested in their beliefs and the realities smacked them in the face that extreme attitudes on both sides began to soften and shift.

It’s easy to spot from a detached distance, when an observer isn’t invested in either side of an issue. According to polls around 30% of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden. To say the evidence for that belief is thin and shaky is a vast understatement. Similarly, according to the most recent polling I can find on the subject, around 16% of Americans still believe that the government, media, and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshipping paedophiles. This is the core tenet of QAnon. It’s not as if QAnon believers are in some way more stupid than the average person. They just fell down a misinformation rabbit hole and stayed there, largely due to a constant stream of new conspiracy theories which they are encouraged to ‘research for themselves’, under the heavy influence of confirmation bias.

Where am I going with this? Well, the first thing I did when I became curious about low carb diets as a way to manage my diabetes was to check out the Wikipedia page:

Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On this page are references to long term risks associated with such a diet, specifically cardiovascular disease, stroke, and various cancers (references 30 and 46). I began checking out this forum hoping to find expertise in managing these possible risks – long term low carb best practise tips basically. What I found instead was flat-out denial that these risks might exist in the first place; denial that these health conditions had anything to do with diet at all. More than that I found denial that medication that might help a person manage some of those risks, specifically statins, had any tangible benefit. Meanwhile, back in the real world, articles like this one are not hard to find:

Statins reduce deaths from heart disease by 28 per cent, says longest ever study | Imperial News | Imperial College London

The study focused on men with high levels of 'bad' cholesterol and no other risk factors or signs of heart disease

www.imperial.ac.uk

Last night I found myself deeply, viscerally disgusted with a thread on this forum along these lines and I realized that I’ve become biased. I can no longer investigate a low carb diet and any potential long term health effects with an open mind and without confirmation bias steering me away. It’s done, mind closed, perhaps forever. What did it was not some study or expert who could prove that low carb in the long term was unhealthy. What did it was coming to the stark realization that there is no advocate expert on the low carb lifestyle who is not also an expert in denying any potential long term consequences in a very selective, blatantly biased way. Everything I see and read on the subject, written by staunch advocates on this forum and elsewhere, now screams rabbit hole. It’s a shame, because I don’t question for a second that a low carb lifestyle has many excellent benefits for a Type 2 Diabetic. A little more balance and some acceptance that nobody has all the long term answers would have gone a long way.

Thank you for this interesting post and pertinent heads-up. I have to remind myself to ask "what are my biases? Do I have an open mind?" which are essential questions on any topic. Early in my diabetic journey the work of Dr. Richard Bernstein made an indelible impression on me and it was years before I realized that ultra low-carb does not work for me but I struggled to give it up because I'm reluctant to take any medication at all and the less insulin I would need seemed the best solution. I'm still much lower in carbs than pre-diagnosis (usually around 80 to 110 per day). Bias becomes belief, especially in an information world where everything has a positive and negative side; necessitating the careful process of thinking for one's self in contrast to the herd mentality.

 

[jjraak]

Mmhh... @HairySmurf
Some Interesting points.

I wonder how long it took, before "the World" accepted the conspiracy theorists at the time, suggesting worshipping celestial bodies & conferring on them a God like status, was an odd thing to do, ...became the norm

I wonder how long it took before "The World" accepted the conspiracy theorists at the time, that only royalty, priests & the very rich being able to read & write was a stupid idea,....became the norm.

I wonder how long it took before "The World " accepted the conspiracy theorists at the time that world clearly wasn't flat....became the norm.

How long before using leeches, witchcraft, etc as daily medical practices was rejected & replaced by the conspiracy theorists idea at the time, of a more scientific way of treatments....became the norm

It's all a "Conspiracy" until it becomes accepted as the norm.

Is there as much research and money put into low carb as there is into the benefits of sugar or carbs or even coka cola in our diets....probably not.

So until there is and maybe "the World" accepts that as the norm.

There will be gaps in our knowledge.
Moments of doubts.
A reluctance to believe those, who tell us what actually works for US, either doesn't or carries other risks to our health.

Much like the COVID vaccinations.
Blind adherence despite the counter arguements.
OR
Outright rejection despite data supporting the Vax

We each risk assess our daily choices.

For some that leads to confirmation bias...(aka my team's better that yours, regardless of trophies won )

But I'd suggest for the many, it's more nuanced .
Accepting & avoiding a known risk, until the perceived risks to us is more proven & overtakes it.

Sadly many of us, have had incidences where either medical professionals, as in diabetes, etc, or in the more general public, where swathes of the media, ( as in so many with 'sources in No 10'...lol ) who abjectly failed to report much of the chaos & corruption going on, have squandered & crushed our faith & trust in their word, being the complete truth.

Confirmation bias meets risk assessment... ?

A very modern day marriage.

Good luck finding your path through the fog of war & the rivers of disinformation.

I'm happy here on the banks watching, waiting & constantly sieving the information for gold nuggets as it's revealed to me.

 

[KennyA]

Confirmation bias (as with all the other sorts) is always very easy to detect in others, and much less easy to detect in oneself.

Types of Bias in Research | Definition & Examples

Bias in research is any deviation from the truth which can cause distorted results and wrong conclusions.

www.scribbr.co.uk

 

[zand]

I believe what I see in my blood test results, all of which have improved on LCHF. The most improved is Total Cholesterol, down from 8.7 to 4.8 without statins.

 

[JoKalsbeek]

Confirmation bias, according to the Wikipedia definition, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a universal aspect of human reasoning and goes a long way in explaining various phenomenon from extreme political polarisation, to resistance amongst the scientific community to contrary ideas, to belief in the power of astrology and the paranormal. Once we become emotionally invested in an idea it becomes extremely difficult to shake our beliefs. Emotional investment is reinforced when our beliefs are challenged. On some level, we take it personally.

In the UK context a very good example is polarisation surrounding the Brexit referendum. At one extreme Brexit was portrayed as an imminent economic catastrophe of dire proportions, while at the other extreme it was portrayed as an amazing opportunity that would lead the UK into a new golden age. It is only when people became less emotionally invested in their beliefs and the realities smacked them in the face that extreme attitudes on both sides began to soften and shift.

It’s easy to spot from a detached distance, when an observer isn’t invested in either side of an issue. According to polls around 30% of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden. To say the evidence for that belief is thin and shaky is a vast understatement. Similarly, according to the most recent polling I can find on the subject, around 16% of Americans still believe that the government, media, and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshipping paedophiles. This is the core tenet of QAnon. It’s not as if QAnon believers are in some way more stupid than the average person. They just fell down a misinformation rabbit hole and stayed there, largely due to a constant stream of new conspiracy theories which they are encouraged to ‘research for themselves’, under the heavy influence of confirmation bias.

Where am I going with this? Well, the first thing I did when I became curious about low carb diets as a way to manage my diabetes was to check out the Wikipedia page:

Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On this page are references to long term risks associated with such a diet, specifically cardiovascular disease, stroke, and various cancers (references 30 and 46). I began checking out this forum hoping to find expertise in managing these possible risks – long term low carb best practise tips basically. What I found instead was flat-out denial that these risks might exist in the first place; denial that these health conditions had anything to do with diet at all. More than that I found denial that medication that might help a person manage some of those risks, specifically statins, had any tangible benefit. Meanwhile, back in the real world, articles like this one are not hard to find:

Statins reduce deaths from heart disease by 28 per cent, says longest ever study | Imperial News | Imperial College London

The study focused on men with high levels of 'bad' cholesterol and no other risk factors or signs of heart disease

www.imperial.ac.uk

Last night I found myself deeply, viscerally disgusted with a thread on this forum along these lines and I realized that I’ve become biased. I can no longer investigate a low carb diet and any potential long term health effects with an open mind and without confirmation bias steering me away. It’s done, mind closed, perhaps forever. What did it was not some study or expert who could prove that low carb in the long term was unhealthy. What did it was coming to the stark realization that there is no advocate expert on the low carb lifestyle who is not also an expert in denying any potential long term consequences in a very selective, blatantly biased way. Everything I see and read on the subject, written by staunch advocates on this forum and elsewhere, now screams rabbit hole. It’s a shame, because I don’t question for a second that a low carb lifestyle has many excellent benefits for a Type 2 Diabetic. A little more balance and some acceptance that nobody has all the long term answers would have gone a long way.

Most people here'll say, get a meter, see what works for you... I've tried a lot of different diets, some affected my thyroid, heart or kidneys, intestines, what have you... I also was on different medications, some worked for me, some made my life living hell. You try stuff, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm still dealing with kidney stones (my right kidney is a veritable gravel pit), because I am one of the relatively few people who'll make them while on a carnivorous diet. It worked wonderfully for my blood sugars, cholesterol and emotional well-being, but it also landed me in hospital a few times, and I never leave home now without oxycodone, just in case one of the stones stirs when I'm out and about and colic prevents me from walking. For a lot of people though, that diet works like a charm, and I'll not advise against it unless there are other conditions/genetics at play that can have the effects a half year of doing it had in me, for instance. You don't know unless you try whatever you feel comfortable trying, and get regular blood testing (which everyone here did before C19 threw a wrench in and testing became a bit haphazard here and there... I'm back to once or twice a year now though, myself). I get my HbA1c, liver function, vitamins, cholesterol etc tested, on top of my own regular finger pricks at home. This is what works for me. Doesn't mean it'll work for you. And yes, I throw the Nutritional Thingy around, because it's a place to start when you're just diagnosed and scared... I remember not daring to eat because it felt like everything was poison, and everything I was told was healthy, made my BS go up into the twenties... It's a place to start, but it also states to test. Test. Test. To do further research, and to find what works. We're all different, with different needs, different lifestyles and rhythms... And sometimes choices need to be made, like when I need a jab of steroids in a joint or something, and it'll up my bloods for a week or two. But those are choices I make. And no-one here'll tell me off for doing it, if my hip or shoulder acts up. We're not a blinkered cult, and while there will always be people who are more adamant on some ways of dealing with diabetes than others (or any other condition, in any other forum or facebook group or whatever, worldwide), you are always the one to make a choice on what you want to do with your own body. We can be a bit enthusiastic, but we're not millitant, I don't think. I hope not, anyway.

We offer handholds. Advice. Make suggestions. What you do with them is entirely up to you, because quite simply, what works for one, won't for another.
Good luck,
Jo

 

[In Response]

From the way I read the comments from @HairySmurf he s not questioning that LCHF helps manage blood sugars.
His concern is the challenge in finding any evidence (except from those who push LCHF) that there are no negative, longer term side effects.

(Apologies Mr Smurf if I misread your comment.)

 

[zand]

Life itself has long term side effects. We all die of something, our bodies deteriorate with age. And how do you prove a negative? We do know that uncontrolled diabetes can cause future problems and if LCHF helps an individual to keep BG levels in a normal range surely that has to help ward off other conditions?

 

[HairySmurf]

It's all a "Conspiracy" until it becomes accepted as the norm.

There are conspiracies, which do indeed exist in this world, and there are conspiracy theories.

One darkly hilarious QAnon one, to take just one of hundreds of examples, is that the ship that blocked the Suez canal a few years ago was carrying containers of people that were being trafficked by powerful, evil elites. The basis for this theory is that the ship was owned by a company called Evergreen, and Evergreen was Hillary Clinton's secret service codename. That's it, that's the only basis for the theory, but for a QAnon influencer that's more than enough to work with.

If curious, for an example of how QAnon influencers exploit confirmation bias, check out the video below from 9:30 to 11:49. This video has not been banned from YouTube because the creator is very careful and circumspect. QAnon isn't mentioned anywhere in the video. This influencer appeals to specifically to religious people so the Evergreen Event is 'examined' from a religious standpoint.

To be absolutely clear, I do not equate the low carb lifestyle with QAnon in any way. Conspiracy theories are just the most extreme example that I can think of to illustrate the effects of confirmation bias on our perception of facts and reality.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

We offer handholds. Advice. Make suggestions. What you do with them is entirely up to you, because quite simply, what works for one, won't for another.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Certainly there is a good core of folk here who do operate in this manner, but there is still a lot of conjecture, confirmation-bias, opinion-posted-as-fact and misinformation that regularly appears. It is certainly much better than it was when I first joined, however, so that's definitely encouraging

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

It's definitely very difficult to distance ourselves from confirmation bias, especially when the evidence for our positions seems so compelling. But difficult as it is, it has to be done; at least if we are to take it upon ourselves to advise others on matters such as health.

@HairySmurf I imagine you and I would likely disagree on may things. However, I do really appreciate the open-minded enquiry you've demonstrated in certain threads. Chapeau!

 

[jjraak]

I remember not daring to eat because it felt like everything was poison

Truth.

 

[Lamont D]

Truth.

Welcome to my world.
How come?
Healthy food is dangerous to those with allergy or severe intolerance?
Healthy food have warnings on labels?
Healthy foods contain known poisonous additives in minute amounts?
Healthy foods contain especially industrial oils and sugars that are known to cause health problems?
Healthy foods are known to cause childhood diseases?
I could go on. But I would be accused of bias.

 

[Jaylee]

There are conspiracies, which do indeed exist in this world, and there are conspiracy theories.

One darkly hilarious QAnon one, to take just one of hundreds of examples, is that the ship that blocked the Suez canal a few years ago was carrying containers of people that were being trafficked by powerful, evil elites. The basis for this theory is that the ship was owned by a company called Evergreen, and Evergreen was Hillary Clinton's secret service codename. That's it, that's the only basis for the theory, but for a QAnon influencer that's more than enough to work with.

If curious, for an example of how QAnon influencers exploit confirmation bias, check out the video below from 9:30 to 11:49. This video has not been banned from YouTube because the creator is very careful and circumspect. QAnon isn't mentioned anywhere in the video. This influencer appeals to specifically to religious people so the Evergreen Event is 'examined' from a religious standpoint.

To be absolutely clear, I do not equate the low carb lifestyle with QAnon in any way. Conspiracy theories are just the most extreme example that I can think of to illustrate the effects of confirmation bias on our perception of facts and reality.

Hi,

These conspiracy guys always get it so wrong.. (re the YouTube link.)

Firstly, the sign for Pluto looks not only a little like the Chinese sign for “dog.” (Chinese sign being more angular.) It’s also backwards for “42,” the meaning to “life the universe & everything?” (Reference Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.)
I happened to be patiently waiting for goods purchased online to come from China during the Suez Canal incident.
The sign for Pluto also looks like a side on view of a fancy upturned chair…
There were problems with ordered furniture delivery at that time, too..

This is where it gets “deep.”

Leonardo da Vinci’s depiction of “the last supper” shows them seated at a table. There is suggestion, otherwise.
No chairs…. https://www.biblestudy.org/biblepic/last-supper-seating.html

Disney’s Pluto also looks like Scooby Doo.. (at a squint.) I love a good mystery.

 

[Lupf]

@HairySmurf thanks for starting this thread.
Let me make a few observations.
Observation bias is real. We all agree on this, no need to give more examples.

I would agree with the statement that In this forum there is observation bias in the sense that many of us are too happy to read about success of low carb diet, and all other information does not make an impact. I've said the same in earlier discussions, and your thread is an excellent reminder that we should not become a Low fat church, and keep an open mind.

I've also looked into long term studies, here is what I found:
1) Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective
cohort study and meta-analysis

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext

This study uses 15,428 adults in the US (ARIC study) and was followed over 25 years.

If you look at Figure 1

There is a clear increase in hazard ratio if energy from carbs is 30% or less (corresponding to below 100 to 150 grams of carbs per day depending on total calorie intake). There is also an increase, if energy from carbs is over 60%

2) Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext (behind paywall)
This study follows 135,335 individuals in 18 countries.

Looking at Figure 1 which shows relative mortality and major CVD risk:

The left-hand column shows a decrease in both relative mortality and major CVD risk,
by increasing energy from fat from 5% to 45%. This is the opposite of study 1)
The right-hand column shows an increase in both, if more than 60% of your energy are from carbs,
consistent with study 1).
There is lots more information in this paper, including splitting sample in different regions such as Europe or Asia,
I've appended a pdf.

From my physicist's point of view study 1) and 2) are hard to reconcile. it could be that the US cohort
had other health risks, which were not taken into account, but this is pure speculation.
The long-term effects LCHF diet is an area of active research and it will take time until the dust will settle.
If you've come across a study, please add it to this thread,
independent of its result, i.e. without confirmation bias please.

Note that Wikipedia is not an authority on ongoing scientific debates, and they are not exactly unbiased regarding low carb diets. They seem not to like controversy. For illustration you will not find an wikipedia articles on people like Dr Unwin, who is a GP reporting how his patients have improved (and how he saved a lot of money for the NHS). So for a serious discussion, I would ignore the wikipedia entries on low carb diet, ...

 

[AndBreathe]

I think when it comes to this sorts of thing, @HairySmurf , I don't believe there have been gazillions of folks living a low carb lifestyle, in our environment for a near lifetime. I understand some of the Scandi countries have higher numbers of low carbers than here, and have lower incidences of heart disease than us (almost who doesn't to be fair).

For myself, I adopted a reduced carb lifestyle over 10 years ago at diagnosis. It wasn't nearly so common then and there were quite a few people, even on this forum telling me and those like me we'd be pushing up daisies, or our arteries would be clogged up or on dialysis if we adopted a LC lifestyle.
I like to think I am a pretty independent thinking, and in fact if someone says I "must" do something, I almost feel compelled not to do it.

I did my reading, bought a meter, then eventually a set of weighing scales and went for it. I had my baseline data and recorded my data as I went along, educating myself to interpret it. I've done OK so far, 10 years in.

A couple of years ago I took part in some research running out of Leicester, on cardiac health for those living with T2. Participation meant I underwent a whole raft of tests and examinations, including MRI, stress MRI, CT, gas exchange tests, repeated with exercise, and an arm or two of bloods. I came out of that with good cardiac health, and near negligible calcification in my arteries.

Only another 2.5 years to go until it is all repeated.

So, for me, so far so good. Should that change, then my approach may have to change, but for me, I feel I assessed the starting point and laid my bets on a LC way forward. If at some point it becomes clear that's no longer the best way forward, I'll change. I will own any changes I make.

So, my steer to you would be to do your research, assess thee results known thus far and place your bets.

Nothing in this life holds a guarantee, except that none of us will get out of it alive. Our routes to the exist will vary, but we'll all end up in the same state, sooner or later. I'm just rather hoping I have a while to go yet.

 

[Lamont D]

Talking of Wikipedia.
Their webpage describing my condition, tells me to eat the same as if I had prediabetes as treatment, and still insists I use quick glucose, if I have a hypo! What about rebound effect? The rollercoaster effect.
I have no idea who writes this rubbish.
Having RH, is being carb intolerant, to various degrees, mine is severe.
And I have learned that healthy food for me is not much carbohydrate, and my specialist agreed with me.
It is the same advice with certain starchy vegetables.
I learned to trust my instincts and did my research.
Wikipedia is open to abuse by those who have agendas.
Knowing your condition following the science as it occurs to you, with symptoms and experience, and of course your glucometer, CGM and a food diary.
A balanced tailored diet designed by and for you, must be part of anybody's treatment.

Best wishes.

 

[HairySmurf]

Note that Wikipedia is not an authority on ongoing scientific debates, and they are not exactly unbiased regarding low carb diets. They seem not to like controversy. For illustration you will not find an wikipedia articles on people like Dr Unwin, who is a GP reporting how his patients have improved (and how he saved a lot of money for the NHS). So for a serious discussion, I would ignore the wikipedia entries on low carb diet, ...

Some excellent posts and a couple of highly illustrative examples made on this thread. Many thanks to all for taking the time to respond.

On the point above about Wikipedia it should be noted that anyone can make changes to a Wikipedia page. When a change is proposed you have to do a bit of digital battle with avid Wikipedia keepers and must prove your edits with references if your edits are contested. If no page exists for Dr. Unwin then, if anyone is inclined to learn about the process, a page may be created. Wikipedia is no more biased than the people who are willing to invest their time in adding to it and maintaining it.