• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Low Carb Diets Dangerous


Oh crumbs! ( not breadcrumbs obviously!) I’ve just bought a big bag of whey to use in some of the recipes in my new keto cookbook. This is a minefield!
 
Have a read of this one..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30101436/

edit to add this one too
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180816143041.htm
extra protein good after weight loss..
 
Totally agree @Oldvatr and yet no-one ever talks about this side of managing diabetes - there's quite a good summary of the effects here: https://pescience.com/blogs/blog/lesson-9-avoid-massive-insulin-spikes-from-your-whey

And I wrote about it in relation to T1D here: http://www.diabettech.com/diabetes/multi-factor-treatment-of-type-1-diabetes-how-far-off-it-are-we/

From what I understand, it's used in body building precisely because of that insulin spike to promote similar action in the body to HGH.
 
I somehow cannot see NICE producing something like this. DUK might, but then again it seems unlikely, DUK does now mention LC diets, but follows their statement with dire warnings and admonitions. I have not visited their site recenrly so it may have changed since I last looked, but I suspect it unlikely that they will change their stance, seeing who it is that funds them and sponsors them.

The Aussie stance is reasonable, but I felt let down considering the large amount of good research and endocrinology investigations going on in that country. The authors of this doc had to really dig deep to find some reference studies as evidence, and I suspect they had a rearguard action within their ranks to downplay the LC message by offering such paltry evidence and weak results. I mean, six months limit on benefits to diabetes control? Really???? After 12 months has no benefit over a high carb diet Really????

There is a mixture of conservative thinking with a nod towards the advances being made especially in aussiland, but its a step in the right direction.

Edit to add: I may have missed it, but I did not see a single mention of keto at all, Where have they been all these years?

Edit to expand: Just looked at what DUK are saying is suitable fare for a T2D, and it is the usual advice from the Neolithic Age. This is what they say about carbs now
The amount of carbohydrates you eat has the biggest effect on your blood glucose levels after eating. Therefore, reducing portions can help manage your glucose levels. It is also important to choose better sources of carbohydrates including wholegrains, pulses, fruits and vegetables and some dairy foods.
 
Last edited:
Indy51 said:
Diabetes Australia have now (very tentatively) said that low carb can be a useful tool for diabetes management:
Click to expand...

For people with type 2 diabetes, there is reliable evidence that lower carb eating can be safe and useful in lowering average blood glucose levels in the short term (up to 6 months).

. . . . . in the short term (up to 6 months)? See what you mean about tentative. Not even accurate is it? Still, it's a start.
 
To be honest looking at all the links between the Australian Dieticians and the breakfast cereal mob I think that this statement from Diabetes Australia is in fact a momentous change in tack. To even begin to agree that Low Carb diets have a place is really going on the face of what 98% of Australian dieticians have said and is likely almost totally down to Pete Evans and his crusade along with his supporters and Gary Fettke's being pilloried. It always looked to me like Australia was the worst place for decent dietary advice so in my view this has pushed them way up the order. I realise that it is Diabetes Australia and not an official government organ but even so a major step change. Is it enough or 100% correct no but just imagine if DUK came out with something similar we'd all be completely gobsmacked. So well done Oz!
 

Yes...coming to 3 years now...since diagnosis with HbA1c @11%.
No medication, no exercise, no will power...
Not sustainable my endocrinologist said...just like all the other naysayer...

It will lead to a mountain only if we took the wrong route...eat less move more...
 
Only thing I can disagree with here is why the change - I think it's probably mostly down to the CSIRO (our most respected scientific institution) that have come out with at least 2 diets emphasising higher protein and lower carb. I suspect DA couldn't really keep the denial going in the face of CSIRO research.
 
That's true had forgotten about them.. maybe the result of the Noakes trial as well?
 
bulkbiker said:
That's true had forgotten about them.. maybe the result of the Noakes trial as well?
Click to expand...
Hard to say on that one - when you're in the LC world, I think you forget how little of this info actually reaches the general public. I'd be surprised if most Aussies have even heard of Gary Fettke's struggles, let alone what happened to Tim Noakes. Pete Evans is an incredibly divisive character in Oz - real love/hate thing going on with a large dose of tall poppy syndrome added to the mix. The main stream media have had the long knives out for Pete big time, ditto for anything Paleo.
 
I'm guessing (hoping?) some of the pressure is also coming from from doctors who have seen their patients have success.

I note that they still recommend seeing an accredited practicing dietitian - will be interesting to see how the DAA respond.
 
I'm not sure I'm adding to the sum of human knowledge here but every week I write a social media blog for my non-diabetic contacts to raise awareness of T2 in particular. Having been an advocate of Low Carb diets, this week I thought I needed to address this study. You may or may not agree with the everything I've written, but bear in mind my audience is non-diabetics whose attention span to matters like this is naturally shorter - so I limit myself to fewer than 1000 words even though there is so much more to say. My post was as follows:

STUDY SUGGESTS OWNING LABRADORS INCREASES RISK OF BLINDNESS
Hello, in this week’s T2 diabetic blog (ignore if it’s not for you, thank you for those that read and comment), I address a couple of news stories from this week.
Firstly, having recently embarked on and advocated a low carb diet, I was slightly alarmed to read and hear a BBC headline on Friday about study that suggests low-carb diets apparently shorten life expectancy by about 4 years.
Never rely on the media article, always get to the source evidence. So I followed the link and read the published study in The Lancet. (link in comments below)
I’ll leave it up to you if you decide to read the study yourself – I am obviously biased so don’t take my word for anything. Here though are my observations on the study:

DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE PAPERS
First up, the study’s conclusions do not support the sensationalist BBC Headline of Low Carbs lowering life expectancy provided carbs are replaced with plant based proteins and fats, rather that just animal ones. In fact, here are the very final words of the study, the last verbatim message that the reader is left with to ponder:

“When restricting carbohydrate intake, replacement of carbohydrates with predominantly plant based fats and proteins could be considered as a long term approach to promote healthy aging.”

Well that’s a bit of a different final message isn’t it? And not surprisingly one that most deliberate low carb eaters already know – don’t just stuff yourself with meat and cheese, you need fibre too: and it doesn’t take 25 years to work that out. Lots of green veg, nuts, seeds, and some fruit are essential to a healthy low carb diet – and the study suggests that this approach is healthier than any carb based diet. The study also concludes that diets containing high carbs are more dangerous – it concludes that carbs are good provided only taken in moderation, which is fine except large proportions of the population have no flipping idea what moderation means, hence rising levels of T2.

The BBC however decided to print a story about the study being an attack on all low carbs: I’m not blaming them: it is a polarised debate and the media love to play both sides: leaving the public confused in the middle and at the mercy of advertisers and food producers feeding them a diet of rubbish that they like to eat but is contributing to an ever growing obesity and diabetic crisis.
But is the study itself any good? is it actually telling us anything?

SCIENCE: BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT.
Having established that the study conclusions are not as stark as the BBC suggests (in fact quite the opposite) I could stop there. Maybe I should.

Any study of long term effects of diet on populations are inherently flawed because it is impossible to collect data which is both scientifically and ethically sound (to do it properly would involve knowingly placing people in harm’s way for lengthy periods).

This study chose good ethics over good science and that is OK, but the science is very flaky. The study itself acknowledges its own limitations (note the BBC ignored these caveats):
- the study claims to cover a 25 year period. All they really did was to invite the subjects to complete a food questionnaire in year 1 and year 6 and then extrapolated the mean results over the remaining 19 years, assuming no change in behaviour over that time.
- It was not a clinical trial. It relied on people filling in a questionnaire of estimated food consumption – not even a food diary, but a snapshot opinion.
- It then measured who was still alive in year 25. It didn’t examine cause of death but drew associations between estimated diet over that period and rate of mortality.

Anyone see any problem with that methodology and its chances of gathering accurate data, and then drawing accurate conclusions from it?

Its findings measure correlation not cause. When you measure correlation you automatically take two massive risks:
1) that you conclude correlation between two things that are not actually co-related (eg the famous case of the correlated data of people killed in US swimming pool accidents versus the number of films released by Nicholas Cage).
2) That you conclude correlation, but get cause and effect the wrong way around (eg owning a labrador increases the risk of being blind)

Putting that into context, remember that a lot of people only start a low carb diet because of a health event in their life such as (in my case) a T2 Diabetes diagnosis, or sadly, diabetes complications having followed years of bad advice to keep eating carbs. Very sadly, by that point , for a lot of patients, quite a lot a damage has been done already – I’m one of the lucky ones.

As a Type 2 Diabetic I know that I live in a state of carbohydrate intolerance – therefore a low carb diet definitely improves my individual long term mortality risk: it doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily live longer than average – I can’t know that. The same is true of any T2 or insulin resistant adult (combined that’s c50% of people by the way).

KIDS WITH COMPLICATIONS
And the other story hitting the headlines this week is of the ever invasive reach of our diabetic and obesity crisis – that there has been a 40% increase in children being diagnosed Type 2; that there are 22,000 seriously obese children in the UK, that half of all new diagnoses of Type 2 are under the age of 35. That is real data, and points to a real problem. Maybe our society, our media and our government need to focus on fixing that.
 
Wow, This is massive just picking out some nuggets:

• a greater reduction in HbA1c in the short term (up to 6 months); 2,3,4

• a greater reduction in body weight in the short term (up to 12 months); 2,4

• a greater reduction in the risk factors for heart disease (triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and blood pressure) up to 2 years. 2,4

That point is gold dust. A significant authority breaking ranks and telling the truth. I am not sure where they get the short term business from, as many on here have gone much longer including me. But still this is big. Thanks.
 
Mbaker said:
. I am not sure where they get the short term business from, as many on here have gone much longer including me. But still this is big. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume it's an a**e covering measure - properly conducted long-term dietary studies are pretty thin on the ground. It's also easier than coming right out & admitting they were wrong. Baby steps .
 
Postscript on the subject of high BG and complications. New research paper from the upcoming November 2018 edition of Biomedicine & Pharmacology - link given by Gabor Erdosi on Twitter:

Chronic hyperglycemia mediated physiological alteration and metabolic distortion leads to organ dysfunction, infection, cancer progression and other pathophysiological consequences: An update on glucose toxicity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0753332218322406
 
This is the first 3 sections of a much more comprehensive report, and so is only the abstract. I think you have to register to obtain the full report. It is Elsevier, so should be ok. Beware Elsevier publish both the Lancet and their onlne open access variant Lancet, which is not so trustworthy. Not sure about this journal though, as it is not one I have come across before.

Thank you Indie. The abstract seems to be in line with what we understand to be complications, but should give more cell level details of mechanisms. Just confirms glucose excess is evil wherever it comes from

Edit to add You need to be member of a registered institution they recognise to get access rights. I cannot get any further.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…