Links to studies supporting Low Carb/showing calorie restriction ineffective?

[copilost]

It's Dunning-Kruger effect in full flow

Right back at you sunshine! Although to be fair I don't know that you are incompetent . I repeat my previous question "Would it be so bad if some people responded better to a LCHF diet?".

 

[Goonergal]

Folks, please keep the discussion civil. Debate is fine, but trading insults is not.

 

[copilost]

Sorry, not intended to be insults but point taken (sheepish)

 

[bulkbiker]

Metabolic ward studies are the gold standard because they control all variables. Unfortunately they are costly and it would be unethical to do them long term (you have to keep people couped up).

That's why you don't find long term studies of this nature.

However long term studies are generally plagued by inaccuracies, such as self reported dietary intake, poor compliance and other issues.

Also it does not take 3 weeks to become keto adapted. This study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24351673/ shows it can take as little as 48hrs.

From the article you linked to

"Despite concern that they are often relatively high in fat, ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have been generally shown to compare favourably with low-fat diets in terms of weight loss" no mention of calories.

Also production of ketones and become fully fat adapted (i.e. running on stored fat) are two different states.

 

[ATZ]

Right back at you sunshine! Although to be fair I don't know that you are incompetent . I repeat my previous question "Would it be so bad if some people responded better to a LCHF diet?".

I was accusing Taubes of dunning-kruger, not yourself.

Absolutely not to your question. Some people do better on them and that is totally fine. I just don't understand the fascination with going out to "prove" LC or LCHF diets are in some way superior.

Tonnes of scientific data disproves that beyond belief. Unless you listen to those with vested interests in pushing said diet, like Atkins in the 90s and more recently Taubes and Fung etc.

 

[ATZ]

.

Also production of ketones and become fully fat adapted (i.e. running on stored fat) are two different states.

Nope. You are quite capable of alternating between fuel sources normally. If it "took weeks" to become fat adapted most hunter gatherers would starve.

Most people will dip into ketosis overnight quite naturally.

 

[ATZ]

This is a 12 month study comparing Keto to Zone (balanced macronutrients), LEARN (low calorie) and Ornish (low fat).

After you remove the initial water/glycogen losses from the keto arm of the study it performs as well (well equally poorly actually) at the 12 month mark as the other diets.

Full write up here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/comparison-of-diets-premenopausal-women.html/

0

 

[copilost]

the fascination with going out to "prove" LC or LCHF diets are in some way superior

In my experience it isn't this. I've been on a healthy carb, low fat diet for years and I felt really sick. The current policy of health institutions is to promote the LFHC diet which is fine except when it isn't. I think perhaps you misunderstand the people here, they aren't (necessarily) saying a LCHF diet is superior (though some will) but that for certain sub groups there is evidence that it LCHF is better. I understand you are a personal trainer (or diet counsellor) if this worked for one individual you'd sign up yes?

 

[copilost]

Tonnes of scientific data disproves that beyond belief.

It's also good you're an open minded sceptic, exactly what is needed. In your own professional experience what would you need to see to open the debate on LCHF for diabetics?

 

[Mbaker]

This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

Science isn't broken, people's interpretation of it is.

I would say it is the delivers presentation. We only have to look at the IARC findings and assertions about meat. If I remember correctly they looked at 14 studies, only 1 of which gave mild support to their claim and still came to negative conclusions. This science was used in the last week to try to shape dietary guidelines for millions. Another saying g eating bacon increases bowl cancer risk. So the risk goes from 5 in 5500 to 6 in 5500, how is that 18%, again used to push agendas in the name of proven science - and that is if you believe the bread, smoking etc had nothing to do with the so called risk increase.

If my IT Cloud business worked like the aforementioned science, I would be a unemployment statistic.

 

[ATZ]

I would say it is the delivers presentation. We only have to look at the IARC findings and assertions about meat. If I remember correctly they looked at 14 studies, only 1 of which gave mild support to their claim and still came to negative conclusions. This science was used in the last week to try to shape dietary guidelines for millions. Another saying g eating bacon increases bowl cancer risk. So the risk goes from 5 in 5500 to 6 in 5500, how is that 18%, again used to push agendas in the name of proven science - and that is if you believe the bread, smoking etc had nothing to do with the so called risk increase.

If my IT Cloud business worked like the aforementioned science, I would be a unemployment statistic.

It's presentation of the data typically, not the data itself.

Take the bacon and red meat bowel cancer headline you referenced. This is a misunderstanding of relative verses absolute risk.

An increase from 5/1000 to 6/1000 chance of bowel cancer from eating those foods is indeed an 18% increase in relative risk. That's headline worthy. But the absolute risk is still low and wasn't reported.

The media don't care about facts, just selling papers and website hits.

 

[Mbaker]

It's presentation of the data typically, not the data itself.

Take the bacon and red meat bowel cancer headline you referenced. This is a misunderstanding of relative verses absolute risk.

An increase from 5/1000 to 6/1000 chance of bowel cancer from eating those foods is indeed an 18% increase in relative risk. That's headline worthy. But the absolute risk is still low and wasn't reported.

The media don't care about facts, just selling papers and website hits.

I have the opposing view as many believe, chips, bread around the burger, the breading on the chicken, I cooked in vegetable oil are the real culprits. The data is in my view is useless, otherwise those on meat rich diets would be on their last legs and risks would definitely be seen in Type 2's who have reversed on meat and increased the very foods they say will kill you.

They purposefully use the misleading relative risk, and never hit the hazard ratio of 2, so the findings shouldn't even be reported - rubbish science. They know "we" and even health professionals understand absolute risk, as it is closer to the truth; everyone would laugh at 1.1% risk increase. The data says, if you eat fake foods of which 60% is veg oil, sugar and grains and some animal foods you will get sicker. Not one of David Katz numerous studies apply to me, and I am middle of the road.

 

[pdmjoker]

Metabolic ward studies are the gold standard because they control all variables. Unfortunately they are costly and it would be unethical to do them long term (you have to keep people couped up).

That's why you don't find long term studies of this nature.

However long term studies are generally plagued by inaccuracies, such as self reported dietary intake, poor compliance and other issues.
...

You seem to be saying that neither you nor anyone else can vouch for the long-term success of calorie restriction - that it is not possible to know its long-term success rate. That seems like a big problem....

 

[pdmjoker]

I'm not sure why you are looking for only these studies. It's important to review all the evidence both for and against a hypothesis in order to be able to weigh up the evidence fairly. To search only for evidence that supports your hypothesis would be deemed to be 'cherry-picking'. To reduce the chance of bias, it would be better to perform a systematic review.

You might like to have a look at these articles:-
https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=69
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/painres/download/whatis/Syst-review.pdf

Thank you. The reason is that some people seem to think Low Carb diets are without any medical support and that calorie restriction is thoroughly supported by medical studies. I was particularly addressing this perspective, not merely trying to support an existing hypothesis or even create a fair consensus view (which doesn't seem possible because of the comparatively small number of Low Carb studies).

However, Volek and Phinney have done stunning research work on Low Carb for decades. Volek PhD is a Registered Dietitian and Phinney PhD is also an MD. They seem credible...

 

[pdmjoker]

Nope. You are quite capable of alternating between fuel sources normally. If it "took weeks" to become fat adapted most hunter gatherers would starve.

Most people will dip into ketosis overnight quite naturally.

Hunter gatherers would have only had v seasonal access to fruit, berries and so on. Longer for nuts/seeds as they keep longer. So until agriculture man had very seasonal access to carbs and would have been fat adapted for most of the year.

You seem to be confusing two things: you don't need to be fat adapted to digest fat. Fat adapted means you are in Ketosis (fat-burning rather than glucose-burning mode). It means what energy-source your body is using. (Fat adaptation is not about whether you can digest fat or not.)

 

[ATZ]

Hunter gatherers would have only had v seasonal access to fruit, berries and so on. Longer for nuts/seeds as they keep longer. So until agriculture man had very seasonal access to carbs and would have been fat adapted for most of the year.

You seem to be confusing two things: you don't need to be fat adapted to digest fat. Fat adapted means you are in Ketosis (fat-burning rather than glucose-burning mode). It means what energy-source your body is using. (Fat adaptation is not about whether you can digest fat or not.)

Depends where said Hunter gatherers live. Some would have year round access to tubers, starch and fruit.

You don't need to fat adapted to be metabolically flexible. You are always burning a combination of carbs and fat. Ketosis has no inherent fat loss advantage, if it did it would have shown up in the Hall study I quoted above.

 

[bulkbiker]

Nope. You are quite capable of alternating between fuel sources normally. If it "took weeks" to become fat adapted most hunter gatherers would starve.

Most people will dip into ketosis overnight quite naturally.

Please remember where you are.. someone with hyperglycemia is pretty unlikely to "dip into ketosis overnight"..

Also from your study

"Even when the KLC diet group reported greater energy intake, weight loss was greater than in the LF diet group".

 

[ATZ]

[QUOTE="bulkbiker, post: 2101091,]
"Even when the KLC diet group reported greater energy intake, weight loss was greater than in the LF diet group".[/QUOTE]

You keep ingnoring the result and cherry picking soundbites to fit your narrative.

The key in that passage was "when reported" we know people misreport their intake.

 

[zand]

[QUOTE="bulkbiker, post: 2101091,]
"Even when the KLC diet group reported greater energy intake, weight loss was greater than in the LF diet group".

You keep ingnoring the result and cherry picking soundbites to fit your narrative.

The key in that passage was "when reported" we know people misreport their intake.[/QUOTE]
And you keep ignoring the fact tbat T2 diabetics not on medication have to reduce their carb intake to keep their blood glucose levels down.

 

[HSSS]

This study proves it's energy intake and not carbohydrate you need to be concerned with:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649

They compared a keto diet with a non keto diet, matched in calorie and protein intake, in a metabolic ward.

No difference in fat loss.

You need to widen your sources past those that confirm your bias.

Do you know of any studies in diabetics that support your theory that it’s no more effective that low calorie in order to convince us ?