Low Carb Diets Dangerous

[Oldvatr]

I never said hide the truth yes by all means warn people of the possibility of getting complications just do not say they will if they do not do low carb because we do not know that
Think of those who for whatever reason probably medical are not able to do low carb surely seeing a post telling someone they will certainly have life threatening complications if they do not do low carb is going to worry the life out of them wondering if that will be them is that what we want to do frighten those who can't do low carb

I used to have a similar problem with T1D;s telling me I must start using insulin immediately or else when I reported my bgl as being 20 mmol.l or so. In actual fact I was at a stage where I was daily exceeding 32 which is the upper limit that my meter could report.

My HbA1c came in at 99, and my GP referred me for insulin treatment, but then I discovered this wonderful site, and changed my lifestyle 3 years ago. As others have made clear I do low carb diets, and my daily avergae is today showing at 6.2 mmol/l and my weight is 65 kg (10 stone in old money) so I have proven that it is possible to turn a bad situation good by cutting the carbs. Now I am more carb tolerant and can sneak in the occasional treats without worrying. I can eat bread daily now, so I am not doing keto, but if I need to do that then I am trained and experienced enough to quickly switch as necessary. I no longer worry about the occasional slip up since I know I am generally in control.

So yes, if I had ignored the advice given here, then I ran the risk of complications, which were real for me having had 2 strokes and a heart attack in quick succession, in the words of that TV advert I really shouldn't be here. But I am! and happy to share my experience for those who may be seeking solutions. I have gained life through Low Carb, not lost it.

 

[Oldvatr]

an expert is:



according to the dictionary.

I would say we have a lot of experts on here. One does not need qualifications to be expert at something. I know of many medically trained and qualified persons who are not experts in type 2 diabetes, for example, or any other specialization.

my two consultants dealing with my other health issues both say I am the expert on my conditions and often know far more about it than they do in some ways.

the experts here are decoding and advising the new ones or those with less technical understanding. This gives us the accurate information to make informed decisions.

that is why I listen to the experts on here. Not to follow blindly, but to get the information I need and learn from their experiences.

I do not have a high level of knowledge when discussing endocrinology or the gut microbiome or even metabolism, so I am not an expert, This is my take on it.

 

[Oldvatr]

can I have a link to the post you are referring to?

Looks like post#123 and #124 on sheet 7 of this thread.

 

[Oldvatr]

Just to make it clear my post was not in any way against giving people good information and advice of course they should get that and there is plenty of it on the forum that was never in dispute as far as I am concerned. Also it was not anything to do with the study because if we disagree with that we can choose to ignore it so some will and some won't .
The facts we know is that low carb will lower BG levels and hopefully lower the risk of complications so yes of course that is the good information newbies should be given to help them decide what to do. .
The one and only thing I disagreed with was telling someone who has decided to do something different that they will have complications when we have no idea if they will Yes warn people that it is a possibility if they do not know that already and that low carb could help to lower the risk but we can't say they will certainly be the ones to get complications if they do not do low carb because we don't know that and that was all my post was about

I believe it was posts 123 and 124 that you are referring to, and in post 124 the responder was quite clear that if a certain choice of action was followed then there was a risk of complications as a result. They did not say YOU WILL but Up to you, so although you make a good point that such a statement would be wrong, it does not seem to be what was said.

 

[Brunneria]

I quote #123 and #124 below, so that people don't need to wade back pages to know what was said.

I am increasing calories from carbs and decreasing the equivalent number of calories from fats to make up. The increase in carbs calories will also allow for more of my proteins to come from pulses.Yesterday I bought a delicious wholemeal muesli loaf. I don't fancy losing four years of my life just to eat a lower carb diet.

If you want to risk your life (not to mention your eyes, feet, kidneys, etc) following a highly conflicted study that most commenters (not just here) have said is complete nonsense, up to you. Even the lowest carb diet was 35% of total calories. That is NOT a low carb diet.

Tannith has since retracted her statement that she will be returning to a carby diet (see post #180) on page 9, so I will just point out that the key word in @Indy51 's post is RISK.

There is plenty of evidence that RISK of complications rises as blood glucose levels rise, and that the longer they are high, the higher the RISK.

This is not scaremongering. This is verified by study after study, and Indy has provided a link to some of that information in #179, quoted below.

Thinking that this is probably a good place to point people to the newly-vamped Blood Sugar 101 page on Complications of various types:

https://www.bloodsugar101.com/complications

Scaremongering would be stating 'carbs will kill you early.'
Advising people that their RISK of complications and early death will increase if they eat enough carbs to raise their blood glucose to dangerous levels is helpful common sense.

 

[JohnEGreen]

I found this an interesting read.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/54/6/1615.full

The Pathobiology of Diabetic Complications

Below a short abstract from the full text.

"Over 13,000 articles published since 1966 seemed to show that all of these pieces of the puzzle were important in the pathogenesis of diabetic complications, yet two things suggested that something major was missing. First, there was no apparent common element linking these mechanisms to each other. Second, clinical trials of inhibitors of these pathways in patients were all disappointing. Trying to make sense of all this, we hypothesized that all of these mechanisms were in fact linked to a common upstream event and that the failure to block all of the downstream pathways could explain the disappointing clinical trials with single-pathway inhibitors. What we discovered is that all of these different pathogenic mechanisms do reflect a single hyperglycemia-induced process and that this single unifying process is the overproduction of superoxide by the mitochondrial electron transport chain.

We began by asking the following question: What processes are increased by intracellular hyperglycemia in cells whose glucose transport rate is not downregulated by hyperglycemia but not increased in cells whose glucose transport rate is downregulated by hyperglycemia?

We discovered that a consistent differentiating feature common to all cell types that are damaged by hyperglycemia is an increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (36,39). Although hyperglycemia had been associated with oxidative stress in the early 1960s (40), neither the underlying mechanism that produced it nor its consequences for pathways of hyperglycemic damage were known."

It seems to me that all indications show that if you keep your blood sugars low by what ever means, that you will significantly reduce your risk of developing complications.

And eating lower amounts of carbohydrates is one method of achieving this goal.

 

[lucylocket61]

I would not necessarily reject all the findings of a study simply because the leader is WFPB.

I am glad to hear this. Especially as none of us who have posted in this thread have rejected the finding of the study due to the leader being WFPB either.

we have rejected the study because it is wrong, flawed, inaccurate and uses incorrect terminology and comparisons and is unscientific..

 

[Mbaker]

presented facts are not always correct as we have seen in this study. An informed choice is only good if the data that is used to make the choice is the best available, and it is the function of this forum to analyse these 'facts' and discuss how reliable the data might be, and so how strong a foundation they may be for making those choices.

GIGO = Garbage In => Garbage Out.

I would add cross referencing outside of the forum is also vital. I listen to accounts of persons who for example have gone from Keto to Vegan and vice versa, I listen to the WFPB gurus. I am determined to never let confirmation bias be the basis of the pillar of mine and my families health. I hate dogmatism. I currently believe that starting from a Keto standpoint is great and then optimising either slightly up or down on protein or fat, depending on goals e g weight loss, muscle building etc.

 

[Guzzler]

I would add cross referencing outside of the forum is also vital. I listen to accounts of persons who for example have gone from Keto to Vegan and vice versa, I listen to the WFPB gurus. I am determined to never let confirmation bias be the basis of the pillar of mine and my families health. I hate dogmatism. I currently believe that starting from a Keto standpoint is great and then optimising either slightly up or down on protein or fat, depending on goals e g weight loss, muscle building etc.

Conformation bias is seemingly inherent in the report being discussed. This is why (finally) Keys' studies are held up as an example of how not to conduct research.

 

[bulkbiker]

Conformation bias is seemingly inherent in the report being discussed. This is why (finally) Keys' studies are held up as an example of how not to conduct research.

Just a shame that Harvard seem to have missed that particular lesson...and then bought some publication space in "Not the Lancet".

 

[Oldvatr]

Just a shame that Harvard seem to have missed that particular lesson...and then bought some publication space in "Not the Lancet".

Your pal Jason does the same thing in Media which is an online journal that I no longer trust as a proper source of info.

 

[bulkbiker]

Your pal Jason does the same thing in Media which is an online journal that I no longer trust as a proper source of info.

I think they just re-publish his blog entries from his IDM website? Unless I am thinking of something else...

 

[Oldvatr]

I think they just re-publish his blog entries from his IDM website? Unless I am thinking of something else...

Possible. There is no indication of this in the publication and presumably they have his permission to reprint.

 

[lindisfel]

How science based data can be taken from irregular considerably time spaced snapshots of diets, is bewildering to me. I wouldn't like to think such honest scientists filtered the evidence to suite their preconcieved theories!

We all know how a multination study became a seven nation study just to help us not get confused by too much evidence.

I put more rubbish out in my dustbins each week.
D.

 

[lindisfel]

Your pal Jason does the same thing in Media which is an online journal that I no longer trust as a proper source of info.

Gurus at dawn, eh!

 

[Sue192]

I rather like this study https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...f-milk-every-day-at-breakfast-time/ar-BBM8eRU Especially the second-to-last paragraph.

 

[Guzzler]

There is such a thing as edotirial bias. We have all seen the way a journalist can hack at a study until it is unrecognisable and have it passed by the editor for publication. Most of us can detect spin when we look closely.

 

[Mr_Pot]

I rather like this study https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...f-milk-every-day-at-breakfast-time/ar-BBM8eRU Especially the second-to-last paragraph.

I looked up Professor Goff and I see he was awarded The Kraft Foods Teaching Award from the American Dairy Science Association. Hmmm!

 

[Oldvatr]

I rather like this study https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...f-milk-every-day-at-breakfast-time/ar-BBM8eRU Especially the second-to-last paragraph.

Not a low carb diet for sure, There is a better reference to this from DUK
https://diabetestimes.co.uk/whey-protein-could-help-control-type-2-diabetes/
and from a paper in the BMJ
https://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000420

However a warning. Whey seems to amplify the Insulin response and in T2 who are Insulin Resistant then this may be bad news and may be making that condition worse, Whey used to be contra indicated for diabetics not so long ago, and that well known emporium H&B were advised not to sell it to diabetics, I had the manager of said shop block a sale to me once just after I was starting Low Carb, and I was looking for a LC snack to use. All his protein bars were whey, so I left empty handed, First time I have known H&B turn down a sale.......

See also this report as to the power behind the move to promote whey
https://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/the-core/whey-protein-diabetes-increasing-insulin-response/

 

[zand]

I rather like this study https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...f-milk-every-day-at-breakfast-time/ar-BBM8eRU Especially the second-to-last paragraph.

….and I have just started watering down cream to make lower carb 'milk' to put in my tea. Silly me lol.