So now it appears Low-Carb diets also pose health risks!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8218780.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8218780.stm
Low-Carb Health Risks
- Thread starter haptagud
- Start Date
Sid Bonkers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,976
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
From Linked Article said:
I doubt if it will make much difference to the followers of the Bernstein doctrine. But it surely must ring some alarm bells.
It's funny how low-carbing allegedly increases the risk of atherosclerosis and therefore, LDL and triglycerides, yet most people who significantly reduce their starchy carb intake experience reduced triglycerides, lower LDL and higher HDL thus reducing their risk of atherosclerosis. Hmmm, mice fed an artificial high protein diet packed with synthetic compounds ...... or real people who eat real food and have well-documented lipid profile improvements? Think I'll pass on the pasta and stick to me lentils and veggies with a nice cheesy topping/
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
The 'low carb' mice did in fact demonstrate similar or lower CVD markers to the 'Western diet mice', but this was not reflected in the state of their arteries (which had a greater degree of plaque).Obviously mice are only a model and these findings may or may not be applicable in humans.However, they certainly convinced Professor Rosenzweig, to change his diet..
So this scientist, who is deemed competant to lead a research project, is unable to interprate the data correctly?
He would prefer to come on this board and read a few anecdotes in order to make a decision for himself?
He would prefer to come on this board and read a few anecdotes in order to make a decision for himself?
Why does such news always attract so much media attention?
Here's what they did to the mice in the 12 week study:
"The investigators proceeded to study a mouse model of atherosclerosis. These “ApoE” mice were fed one of three diets: a standard diet of mouse “chow” (65 percent carbohydrate; 15 percent fat; 20 percent protein); a “Western diet” in keeping with the average human diet (43 percent carbohydrate; 42 percent fat; 15 percent protein; and 0.15 percent cholesterol); or a low-carb/high-protein diet (12 percent carbohydrate; 43 percent fat; 45 percent protein; and 0.15 percent cholesterol)."
Not sure I would fare well on mouse food for 12 weeks. I will take my anti -oxidant vitamins which reduces the risk of Atherosclerosis, well at least so a medical report said
Rosenzweig also said “Although the precise nature and role of these cells is still being worked out – and caution is always warranted in extrapolating from effects in mice to a clinical situation – these results succeeded in getting me off the low-carb diet.” (The bold and underlined is my addition.)
So were back to "may" again. Interesting stuff.
K
Here's what they did to the mice in the 12 week study:
"The investigators proceeded to study a mouse model of atherosclerosis. These “ApoE” mice were fed one of three diets: a standard diet of mouse “chow” (65 percent carbohydrate; 15 percent fat; 20 percent protein); a “Western diet” in keeping with the average human diet (43 percent carbohydrate; 42 percent fat; 15 percent protein; and 0.15 percent cholesterol); or a low-carb/high-protein diet (12 percent carbohydrate; 43 percent fat; 45 percent protein; and 0.15 percent cholesterol)."
Not sure I would fare well on mouse food for 12 weeks. I will take my anti -oxidant vitamins which reduces the risk of Atherosclerosis, well at least so a medical report said
Rosenzweig also said “Although the precise nature and role of these cells is still being worked out – and caution is always warranted in extrapolating from effects in mice to a clinical situation – these results succeeded in getting me off the low-carb diet.” (The bold and underlined is my addition.)
So were back to "may" again. Interesting stuff.
K
Patch
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,981
- Type of diabetes
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Bunty - this man is a coward specifically because he uses words like "appears" and "probably". Scientific research is supposed to provide definite answers.
I would not expect a scientist to say "It appears that if I jumnp off a 100 storey building I would probably die". REAL evidence shows that he WOULD die. (maybe not a great example - but you see where I'm going with this)...
Scientists are supposed to look for EVIDENCE - not vague indications.
I would not expect a scientist to say "It appears that if I jumnp off a 100 storey building I would probably die". REAL evidence shows that he WOULD die. (maybe not a great example - but you see where I'm going with this)...
Scientists are supposed to look for EVIDENCE - not vague indications.
I think the point is with the scientific process you cannot make solid conclusions based on indicatiors. Similarly, although my anecdotal evidence would suggest that low-carbing is a good thing, it doesn't have any scientific value because there are too many variables. Maybe my results are caused by my eating of more vit C (I am eating more vit C), or perhaps it's due to a decrease in sugar etc.
The fact that this experiment was taken in controlled conditions gives it more weight than our anecdoctal evidence.
On a side note, everybody above the age of 21 has some degree of arteriosclerosis. It is a natural aging process, so by saying that you can avoid arteriosclerosis, your argument is null and void.
I wouldn't go as far as to call him a coward, as there are no certainties in science (e.g. smoking indicates a higher probability of lung cancer. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer etc.)
Reserving judgement on him until I see more of his work.
The fact that this experiment was taken in controlled conditions gives it more weight than our anecdoctal evidence.
On a side note, everybody above the age of 21 has some degree of arteriosclerosis. It is a natural aging process, so by saying that you can avoid arteriosclerosis, your argument is null and void.
I wouldn't go as far as to call him a coward, as there are no certainties in science (e.g. smoking indicates a higher probability of lung cancer. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer etc.)
Reserving judgement on him until I see more of his work.
Perhaps we should be looking to Dr Wolgang Lutz who's been successfully using LC for over 50 years treating a variety of medical conditions. He follows the same diet himself, and as far as I know he's still going strong in his mid nineties.
The link below is too extracts of his book Life Without Bread.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jo0n ... tz&f=false
info
And just to show he's no "quack"
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... BW20080204
Graham
The link below is too extracts of his book Life Without Bread.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jo0n ... tz&f=false
info
And just to show he's no "quack"
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... BW20080204
Graham
Sid Bonkers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,976
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
I'm sure your all correct to dismiss this piece of research as rubbish, everyone knows that loads of fat is good for you. :wink:
But
But
Does this not concern you just a little?
I carried out a real world study based on 1 subject. I was advised on DX that my Trigs level was 7.7 and the recommended level should be <2.
So I read as much of the advice from this forum that I could reasonably digest ands resorted to :-
Low Carb Diet
4 portions of oily fish per week
(Omega 3 supplement 200mg in 500mg of fish oil)
(Also exercise+metformin)
The result was that in 3 months my trigs had dropped from 7.7 to 1.
If anybody can tell me how this stacks up with the learned advice under discussion here, I would be very grateful.
Steve.
So I read as much of the advice from this forum that I could reasonably digest ands resorted to :-
Low Carb Diet
4 portions of oily fish per week
(Omega 3 supplement 200mg in 500mg of fish oil)
(Also exercise+metformin)
The result was that in 3 months my trigs had dropped from 7.7 to 1.
If anybody can tell me how this stacks up with the learned advice under discussion here, I would be very grateful.
Steve.
I'd guess that they're getting this sort of thing out while they still can. This type of diet will be seriously affecting both current and projected future profits for the major pharmaceuticals.
I'm going to get shot down in flames, but you know what? I'm past the point of caring.
I have absolutely no doubt that in some people, a diet low in carbohydrates is a bad thing for thier health; just in the same way that for SOME people smoking will lead to cancer. I understand that as such there is probably merit in being warned of the POSSIBLE outcome. BUT in both instances I believe that the majority (the vast majority at that) are unaffected by these 'worst case scenarios'.
Then there are the instances where no-one seems to be able to make up thier minds:
Red wine is good for you...drink in moderation.
Red wine is bad for you...avoid like the plague.
We are swiftly getting to the point where, in one way or another, EVERYTHING that we eat, or do, is going to 'be bad for us' and in some way or another be demonised, restricted, or discouraged, and I am SO tired of the Nanny State society we are becoming.
Incidentally I DO restrict my intake of Carbohydrates, and NO I do not smoke.
I have absolutely no doubt that in some people, a diet low in carbohydrates is a bad thing for thier health; just in the same way that for SOME people smoking will lead to cancer. I understand that as such there is probably merit in being warned of the POSSIBLE outcome. BUT in both instances I believe that the majority (the vast majority at that) are unaffected by these 'worst case scenarios'.
Then there are the instances where no-one seems to be able to make up thier minds:
Red wine is good for you...drink in moderation.
Red wine is bad for you...avoid like the plague.
We are swiftly getting to the point where, in one way or another, EVERYTHING that we eat, or do, is going to 'be bad for us' and in some way or another be demonised, restricted, or discouraged, and I am SO tired of the Nanny State society we are becoming.
Incidentally I DO restrict my intake of Carbohydrates, and NO I do not smoke.
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
Trig and cholesterol levels aren only part of the point, they were the same or lower in the 'low carb mice' so you would expect the amount of plaque to be similar but there was actually a greater amount of plaque.
What would be better evidence (though still anecdotal) would be to describe the appearance of your arteries before and after a low carb diet, arterial scan results for example.
As Handynial said earlier, you do not make dogmatic statements in science, all reports will include words like 'may' and 'suggests' but results are tested for significance. Most studies, just like this one, are merely tiny steps that may help eventually lead to a fuller understanding.
I've been trying to think how you might do a similar study with humans, it would be extremely difficult to do it because of the ethcs involved
Patch
One of the things I learned as I trained in science 40 years ago, was that there are no definites. If however the man said, " such and such was observed to happen", I would trust it more. I also noticed that none of the mice was on a low carb/high fat diet.
One of the things I learned as I trained in science 40 years ago, was that there are no definites. If however the man said, " such and such was observed to happen", I would trust it more. I also noticed that none of the mice was on a low carb/high fat diet.
Viv makes some very good points.
Just because my father in law lived to be nearly 90 and smoked like a chimney, it doesn't mean that smoking is harmless.
My own father was a smoker and died from cancer aged 66.
Two conflicting anecdotes, which is why the research has to be done to look for the facts, and the results interpreted with caution.
Good scientists are always willing to review their opinions and update them in the light of new evidence - it seems that this is what our man has done.
No point in calling him insulting names just because he is a good scientist.
Just because my father in law lived to be nearly 90 and smoked like a chimney, it doesn't mean that smoking is harmless.
My own father was a smoker and died from cancer aged 66.
Two conflicting anecdotes, which is why the research has to be done to look for the facts, and the results interpreted with caution.
Good scientists are always willing to review their opinions and update them in the light of new evidence - it seems that this is what our man has done.
No point in calling him insulting names just because he is a good scientist.
Science doesn't and never claims to provide definite answers to anything , only ordinary people think science is always exact , the scientific process is one of continual testing , " It is also an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods." seee wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method that's why scientists use words like "appears" and "probably".it takes many years and lots of work to say definitely about anything . Anthony Rosenzweig is not a coward he is obviously an intelligent and thoughtful man and scientist
