Low Carb Diets Dangerous

M

Moggely

Guest
I have heard and read about Gary Fettke's troubles, he lives about 2 hours from me and i read his wife's blog as he was stopped from speaking. Quite a remarkable man.
 

Goonergal

Master
Retired Moderator
Messages
13,466
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Another low carb diet study

Which really doesn’t show anything - by the admission of the study author. It’s clearly an opinion.

“Banach (study author) noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous.

Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University and a nutrition expert who was not involved with the new study, said there are some important holes in this study that lead her to be skeptical of its claims.

For example, people who already had a higher risk of developing heart disease, stroke or hypertension might've been the ones who were more likely to adopt a low-carb diet, Lichtenstein told Live Science, but it's unclear from the data if that was the case.

And, of course, "association does not necessarily prove causation," Lichtenstein said. In other words, it's possible that the people in the study who adopted low-carb diets were already less healthy than the general population. So, the increased rates of heart disease mortality and death among low-carb dieters could have more to do with the dieters themselves than their diets.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy51

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
Which really doesn’t show anything - by the admission of the study author. It’s clearly an opinion.

“Banach (study author) noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous.

Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University and a nutrition expert who was not involved with the new study, said there are some important holes in this study that lead her to be skeptical of its claims.

For example, people who already had a higher risk of developing heart disease, stroke or hypertension might've been the ones who were more likely to adopt a low-carb diet, Lichtenstein told Live Science, but it's unclear from the data if that was the case.

And, of course, "association does not necessarily prove causation," Lichtenstein said. In other words, it's possible that the people in the study who adopted low-carb diets were already less healthy than the general population. So, the increased rates of heart disease mortality and death among low-carb dieters could have more to do with the dieters themselves than their diets.”
Thank you.
 

bulkbiker

BANNED
Messages
19,576
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Inteersting quote

""The message from our study is clear," Banach told Live Science. "Very long-term [low-carb dieting] should be avoided."

Banach noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous."

The message is so clear we can't really say how low carb is dangerous or how long it is dangerous for... i.e. its all guesswork.. Sounds like a remarkably similar methodology to the Harvard study as reported in The Lancet (not) Public Health.

Edit to add

"The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal." so a little early to say it is definitive maybe..
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
We have zero access to the study report or its data or methodology, so cannot comment on this except that the linked article here is just a blog and not very useful to man nor beast. The paper is not yet published, and has not been peer reviewed. I find their quoted death rates for a 6 year period follow up to be very suspect indeed, 51% eh? Chances of survival in Raqqa were better than that!

Edit to add: I believe this is the paper that was presented
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/esoc-lcd082318.php
 
Last edited:

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Which really doesn’t show anything - by the admission of the study author. It’s clearly an opinion.

“Banach (study author) noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous.

Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University and a nutrition expert who was not involved with the new study, said there are some important holes in this study that lead her to be skeptical of its claims.

For example, people who already had a higher risk of developing heart disease, stroke or hypertension might've been the ones who were more likely to adopt a low-carb diet, Lichtenstein told Live Science, but it's unclear from the data if that was the case.

And, of course, "association does not necessarily prove causation," Lichtenstein said. In other words, it's possible that the people in the study who adopted low-carb diets were already less healthy than the general population. So, the increased rates of heart disease mortality and death among low-carb dieters could have more to do with the dieters themselves than their diets.”
WebMD is carrying this symposium report, and also references Alice Lichtenstein. WebMD does not critique the study at all, and merely reports it as a news item.
 

Robin101

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Here's the thing. Most if not all the people here have an opinion, in many cases strong ones. Many people here are, by neccessity self taught/informed and pretty much ok with the choices they are making concerning low carb.
Rather than spend time highlighting the obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers are we not better off showcasing what WE are doing right and sharing that information so newer entrants to the complex problem of diabetes can make their choices.
There are some brave people here who have and are working hard to turn things around so lets continue to celebrate those successes and less time on rubbish research.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
Here's the thing. Most if not all the people here have an opinion, in many cases strong ones. Many people here are, by neccessity self taught/informed and pretty much ok with the choices they are making concerning low carb.
Rather than spend time highlighting the obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers are we not better off showcasing what WE are doing right and sharing that information so newer entrants to the complex problem of diabetes can make their choices.
There are some brave people here who have and are working hard to turn things around so lets continue to celebrate those successes and less time on rubbish research.

I agree but there is the old adage 'Know thine enemy'.

Not that anything other than low carb is an enemy but that when detractors throw bombs then it would be wise to at least try to diffuse them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy51

Robin101

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Type of diabetes
Type 2
I agree but there is the old adage 'Know thine enemy'.

Not that anything other than low carb is an enemy but that when detractors throw bombs then it would be wise to at least try to diffuse them.
But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Here's the thing. Most if not all the people here have an opinion, in many cases strong ones. Many people here are, by neccessity self taught/informed and pretty much ok with the choices they are making concerning low carb.
Rather than spend time highlighting the obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers are we not better off showcasing what WE are doing right and sharing that information so newer entrants to the complex problem of diabetes can make their choices.
There are some brave people here who have and are working hard to turn things around so lets continue to celebrate those successes and less time on rubbish research.
But first we need to discuss the findings to evaluate if they are or are not rubbish, These are generally trumpeted in the media as being the new truth, and so will attract an audience of believers regardless of whether the reported data is factual or not. Many newbies here will see those headlines and see the glossy videos and be put off trying new techniques. They may even come onto this forum and argue with us about what they have been told by others outside the forum.

So the experienced members here have a sort of duty of care to make sure that we try to reach consensus of what can be ignored safely and what we can pick up and run with. As someone who uses LC diet as a tool, the possibility of harm is one I am interested in solving to my advantage. It is important that we identify any weak methodology, or bias, so that pseudo science or vested interest is outed as soon as possible,

You say "obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers" but it is not always that simple or visible, and so yes we do need to spend some time disecting the latest studies and news items. There is plenty of room on the forum for the type of information you suggest we devote our time to instead, but discussions like this one are important to resolve and identify misleading info.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.

This is true but discussion and debate should not stop for a couple of reasons. Newly diagnosed people, especially those who lurk, read the discussions here and sometimes follow links etc and they then learn how to spot duff reports or at least how to investigate reports further.
The other reason to debate these issues is that not to do so risks confining oneself to an echo chamber.
I am by nature a person who needs to understand as much as I am able before forming an opinion, I never come to a view then refuse to change it.
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.
Now who is playing their game? You seem to be suggesting that we keep quiet and accept rubbish without question, and that IMHO is a very dodgy position to take. I disagree with your POV.
 

Robin101

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Now who is playing their game? You seem to be suggesting that we keep quiet and accept rubbish without question, and that IMHO is a very dodgy position to take. I disagree with your POV.
Actually a slight correction there. It's isn't my POV the question marks makes it more a PFD (point for discussion).
I too read most everything to acquaint myself with as many of the oft conflicting views on offer before making informed decisions. I'm a fan of LCHF and it works for me. The detail missed from some 'summaries' of these reports is almost criminal in the way it colours perception and discussion which highlights those practices is always to be encouraged. And I have learnt a great deal concerning the complexities of diabetes and nutrition on these forums. So all good.
 

DavidGrahamJones

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,263
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Other
Dislikes
Newspapers
I think the title of this message thread is slightly misleading. The very first line of the report in the Lancet says:
"Low carbohydrate diets, which restrict carbohydrate in favour of increased protein or fat intake, or both, are a popular weight-loss strategy."

Personally I didn't increase my protein or fat intake and when I have tried my total cholesterol goes up. Surely any conclusion they might come to is as a result of looking at low carb high fat diets not just low carb. Is it low carb or high fat that is the problem?
I'm not changing my dietary habits because even if I don't live those extra 4 years or whatever it was, at least I'll be in better health and on less medication.
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Actually a slight correction there. It's isn't my POV the question marks makes it more a PFD (point for discussion).
I too read most everything to acquaint myself with as many of the oft conflicting views on offer before making informed decisions. I'm a fan of LCHF and it works for me. The detail missed from some 'summaries' of these reports is almost criminal in the way it colours perception and discussion which highlights those practices is always to be encouraged. And I have learnt a great deal concerning the complexities of diabetes and nutrition on these forums. So all good.
Your PFD as you put it is only one small aspect of what needs to be explored, and you are the first to make that point, but so far no one has identified that as being what is probably wrong with this news item. There is suspicion of poor science and bad methodology that are probably more important. In proper scientific study reports there are chapters identifying the authors, and the sources of funding and any conflicts of interest which this report does not have, so we cannot pass comment on that aspect. Unless you have relevant additional info that could be discussed here...... I will continue trying to evaluate the science and maths behind this study.

One point is that the risk the study shouts out at us is Relative Risk (RR) that is always around 10x the actual risk. So it is a measure of hazard, not likelyhood. They are wrong to say someone on an LC diet is 32% more likely to die when the chance of it happening as a direct result of their diet is around 3 in 100 deaths in the general population (assuming this is what was used for the Q1 quartile that becomes their reference set). The sample size is also important since RR really only gives a useful result when the populations of both Q1 and Q(n) are similar in size, and both are large. Otherwise bias creeps in and the risk becomes proportionally worse. We do not know the sample sizes of the test data.

Also the confidence Interval shows how much variance is present in the data. They do not explain how variance in their results is handled, and there are no bubble charts from the individual studies in the meta analysis so some of the studies might actually be very poor indeed and thus unreliable.
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
It's an observational study, apparently, so not sure it means anything. I think we'd have to look for any COI too
It used the National Database NHANES in 2010 i.e. date as reported at symposium, and appears to be the last time that NHANES collated any info on diets.

Found this nuggett that talks about using this data and its validity.
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00319-5/fulltext#sec2

The section on A Failed Research Paradigm is pertinent to this discussion and was a review made in 2015

The other thing I discovered about NHANES is how the collation was done. They had a mobile unit (greyhound bus) that travelled around the country stopping at random. people were questioned on the day, but there was never any follow up.

So we have to ask - was the 2018 report a new analysis of the 2010 data, or an old report taken from archive The source report is not available unless you pay ECS for a copy.
 
Last edited:
P

pollensa

Guest
Right, I'm going to have pasta for dinner and ask my doctor to start me on medication.
This is such a funny but to the point reply, love it, putting fun aside for a moment, as you say, by taking medications you basically can eat what you want, I use example myself, Doc did this to myself re blood pressure pills, he said, if you take a pill every day, you can continue to eat salt as normal, if no pill you have to cut out salt, my thinking was, well why take a pill, simpler and more healthy to cut out the salt, Doc could not get his head round this thinking, preferred to pat himself on the back as a job well done, prescribe medications to allow patient continue salt, instead of saying, cut out salt three months, we see if pressure drops i.e. it was only 130/80 anyway highest! and if this does not work we try medications.