1. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2021 »
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Diabetes Forum should not be used in an emergency and does not replace your healthcare professional relationship. Posts can be seen by the public.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Guest, stay home, stay safe, save the NHS. Stay up to date with information about keeping yourself and people around you safe here and GOV.UK: Coronavirus (COVID-19). Think you have symptoms? NHS 111 service is available here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

Guardian Piece - Both Low And High-carb Diets Can Raise Risk Of Early Death, Study Finds

Discussion in 'Low-carb Diet Forum' started by JoeT1, Aug 17, 2018.

  1. JoeT1

    JoeT1 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    103
  2. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    16,983
    Likes Received:
    11,589
    Trophy Points:
    298
    I'm hunting for the original study but hearing quite a few flaws already...
     
  3. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    16,983
    Likes Received:
    11,589
    Trophy Points:
    298
    When they say that the lowest quintile of the 5 groups had a median energy from carbs of 37% I start to wonder about how "low carb" any of these diets were.
    Data comes from food interviews at 5 time points answering 66 questions. If the food hasn't been weighed and logged who can remember what they had yesterday? Even I who log everything can sometimes forget stuff...
    As none of the participants appears to be been on a ketogenic (or even particularly low carb) diet then drawing any conclusions is seriously flawed. Also the graph depicted is an extrapolation with anything below the 37% of energy from carbs being complete guesswork.
    I'm sure there are further flaws to but I'm sure someone will do a complete dissection of the evidence later. This was from a quick skim through the report which is here
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Krystyna23040

    Krystyna23040 Type 2 (in remission!) · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    6,697
    Trophy Points:
    178
    I posted this on another thread. When the BBC reported on the study they added the following disclaimer - which suggests the study was utter rubbish. The bit I was particularly cross about was that the diets were only assessed at the beginning of the study and 6 years later and people could have changed their eating patterns over the subsequent 19 years. So basically the researchers didn't have a clue what people were eating over the subsequent 19 years. So the study is fiction not science.

    The BBC says: However, there are limitations to the study.

    The findings show observational associations rather than cause-and-effect and what people ate was based on self-reported data, which might not be accurate.

    And the authors acknowledge that since diets were measured only at the start of the trial and six years later, dietary patterns could have changed over the subsequent 19 years.

    Prof Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London, also pointed out that the use of a food questionnaire in the study led to people underestimating the calories and fat they had eaten.

    "One explanation for the finding in this and the other US studies is that it may reflect the higher risk of death in the overweight/obese, who may fall into two popular diet camps - those favouring a high-meat/low-carbohydrate diet and those favouring a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet," he added.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Bingale1

    Bingale1 Type 2 · Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    23
    The best response to this study that I have read so far is by Campbell Murdoch on Twitter. I quote “The epidemiological study published in the Lancet is like saying "We looked at what the best speed is to join a motorway and concluded from studying 15,000 cars it's 65mph. 60mph or 70mph increases risk of death"
    Vs
    Clinical world "Adjust your speed to fit with flow of traffic."
     
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook