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

Low Carb Diets Dangerous

Thanks everyone! I’ve just read the newspaper article and before I let myself worry about it I checked this forum - I knew you guys would be all over it!
I feel a lot happier now - it’s easy to be taken in by the scaremongering. I will read the actual Lancet article this evening with a healthy pinch of salt.
 
so, I still want to know, from those who can make sense of the article:

is it right that plant based proteins are better for us than animal based proteins?

(with the caveat that beans, lentils and the like spike me)
 
Type 2 diabetics use low carb diets for a particular reason. To fine tune blood sugar levels. This survey is talking about general population not Type 2 diabetics.

Any advantage to people with diabetes of a 55% carb diet (if any) would have to be compared with diabetics using a low carb diet to maintain good BG readings
 
lucylocket61 said:
so, I still want to know, from those who can make sense of the article:

is it right that plant based proteins are better for us than animal based proteins?

(with the caveat that beans, lentils and the like spike me)
Click to expand...
Goes back to the "healthy person" confounder - because health claims for years have been that red meat is unhealthy, health conscious people are less likely to have eaten much - also less likely to smoke, drink to excess and the other "unhealthy" risk factors for health. Smoking or non-smoking is the biggest anti-health factor of them all.
 
lucylocket61 said:
so, I still want to know, from those who can make sense of the article:

is it right that plant based proteins are better for us than animal based proteins?

(with the caveat that beans, lentils and the like spike me)
Click to expand...
The study won’t answer for you as it is an observational correlation study not a clinical trial.
 
I well remember some years ago sales of refrigerators exactly matched the increase in crime. Therefore refrigerated food was responsible for crime!
 
I think you will find that the standard Mediterranean Diet as supported by NICE for diabetics is a medium carb diet. The Pioppi diet is an LC variant of the Med diet, and the South Beach diet is somewhere in between these.
 
Plant based fats is what the study gives the thumbs up to, and uses nuts as their reference source, The Professor running the show is paid directly by the Walnut and Dairy foundation, so is not exactly isolated from this statement.

We should remember that some recent studies have established that omega-6 fats are not beneficial to us humans, and omega-3 fats are better. The first type of fats is found predominantly in vegetable oils and the second ones are found in animal fats especially oily fish. The B vitamins come mainly from animal sources, and can be rare in vegetable foods unless they are fortified as our flour and bread and cereals are in the UK.

Red meats expecially processed meats that use nitrite or nitrile preserving methods are indeed getting bad press at the moment, The same should be levelled at fish and cheeses that use the same processing, in fact anything that is labelled as 'smoked' since this is only an added flavouring that may be harmful to us.
 
Last edited:
Just noticed as well that one of the studies authors is Walter Willett who got a bit of a rough treatment at the recent Swiss Re conference and is a strong advocate of plant based nutrition... so obviously no bias involved there when they say that plant based is better than animal...
 
The BBC did pick that one up, and their interview with a nutritionist ended up praising WFPB as the cure all.
 
Oldvatr said:
The BBC did pick that one up, and their interview with a nutritionist ended up praising WFPB as the cure all.
Click to expand...
Well well what a surprise...!

Edit to add I see they quote Dr Alison Tedstone too about how "unhealthy" low carb diets are. The Naysayer in Chief herself. Yet another good reason to ignore the study.
 
bulkbiker said:
Well well what a surprise...!

Edit to add I see they quote Dr Alison Tedstone too about how "unhealthy" low carb diets are. The Naysayer in Chief herself. Yet another good reason to ignore the study.
Click to expand...
Is she the one that insists nutrition advice must be evidence based, She was on the box earlier today, but I missed what she had to say - shame.

PHE is in bed with
https://campaignresources.phe.gov.uk/resources/partners/national-partners

Not sure who Alison is in bed with. Nudge nudge wink wink say not more.
 
Oldvatr said:
The BBC did pick that one up, and their interview with a nutritionist ended up praising WFPB as the cure all.
Click to expand...
And the extrapolation on that graph on the BBC page is completely outrageous as the lowest carb intake that they looked at was 37% of energy so anything to the left of that is complete speculation with of course no "scientific" support yet it gets published..
 
britishpub said:
Basically

But it appears to be that if you get 50-55% of your calories from Carbohydrates you will live for a long time, any more or any less and you had better start making “arrangements”
Click to expand...

Living longer...doesn't necessarily mean we will have our sights, kidney, feets and eyes intact...
 
bulkbiker said:
One of the better debunkers maybe?
https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1030281641703497728
Click to expand...
I find this guy very difficult to understand exactly what point he is making. He seems to skip around all over the place. Mohammed Ali did it so much better and stung like a bee to boot.

What is his point ? is it the way they followed those participants? Well the endpoint being considered by the study is all cause mortality, which is freely available from public records in USA. The only requisite is that your death is noted in the public record. You gotta be dead within the 25 years else you are a survivor. Tick appropriate column. That is why the study could not identify any particular trajectory for any of their participants such as CVE, CHF, Stroke etc. i,e info that matters.

There is a parallel study (Harvard Nurses Study) that has a large participant pool, but also collect COD data so meaningful correlation is possible. That study has not so far drawn the same conclusions. Some Australian studies are ongoing and use actual hospital data to correlate their conclusions. Here in the UK we rely on the manufacturers and suppliers to provide the data. perform the analysis, and present their conclusions (Note: I said THEIR conclusions)

In USA the NIH is federal funded. Here we have NICE which is gov funded, Neither is supposed to be corrupt, is it? Neither has any agenda and are totally(?) independant. I mean, Eatwell has no vested interests has it? NOOoooo! not at all. just a few farmers and food sellers.
 
This is the source of that graph
https://www.thelancet.com/action/sh...l=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S2468-2667(18)30135-X

The reference level is 50% energy from carbohydrate. Results are adjusted for age, sex, race, ARIC test centre, total energy consumption, diabetes, cigarette smoking, physical activity, income level, and education. ARIC=Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities.

The study itself does own up to it being an extrapolation for the U curve conclusion a note that is lost when the graph is presented in isolation.
this is what they say
We created actuarial estimates of the age-specific probabilities of death according to each category of carbohydrate intake exposure, and used these estimates to obtain non-parametric age-based Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve for participants at each year of age in each carbohydrate intake category (>65%, 55–65%, 50–55%, 40–50%, 30–40%, and <30%).
 
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.…