M
Moggely
Guest
I have heard and read about Gary Fettke's troubles, he lives about 2 hours from me and i read his wife's blog as he was stopped from speaking. Quite a remarkable man.
https://www.livescience.com/63453-low-carb-diet-mortality.htmlWorth a watch:
Another low carb diet study
Tryhttps://www.livescience.com/63453-low-carb-diet-mortality.html
Another low carb diet study
Thank you.Which really doesn’t show anything - by the admission of the study author. It’s clearly an opinion.
“Banach (study author) noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous.
Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University and a nutrition expert who was not involved with the new study, said there are some important holes in this study that lead her to be skeptical of its claims.
For example, people who already had a higher risk of developing heart disease, stroke or hypertension might've been the ones who were more likely to adopt a low-carb diet, Lichtenstein told Live Science, but it's unclear from the data if that was the case.
And, of course, "association does not necessarily prove causation," Lichtenstein said. In other words, it's possible that the people in the study who adopted low-carb diets were already less healthy than the general population. So, the increased rates of heart disease mortality and death among low-carb dieters could have more to do with the dieters themselves than their diets.”
Inteersting quotehttps://www.livescience.com/63453-low-carb-diet-mortality.html
Another low carb diet study
We have zero access to the study report or its data or methodology, so cannot comment on this except that the linked article here is just a blog and not very useful to man nor beast. The paper is not yet published, and has not been peer reviewed. I find their quoted death rates for a 6 year period follow up to be very suspect indeed, 51% eh? Chances of survival in Raqqa were better than that!https://www.livescience.com/63453-low-carb-diet-mortality.html
Another low carb diet study
WebMD is carrying this symposium report, and also references Alice Lichtenstein. WebMD does not critique the study at all, and merely reports it as a news item.Which really doesn’t show anything - by the admission of the study author. It’s clearly an opinion.
“Banach (study author) noted several important limitations of the study, however. Because the follow-up period lasted only six years and the NHANES data is self-reported from one point in time, he can't say definitively what counts as "very-long term" or sufficiently low-carb to be dangerous.
Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University and a nutrition expert who was not involved with the new study, said there are some important holes in this study that lead her to be skeptical of its claims.
For example, people who already had a higher risk of developing heart disease, stroke or hypertension might've been the ones who were more likely to adopt a low-carb diet, Lichtenstein told Live Science, but it's unclear from the data if that was the case.
And, of course, "association does not necessarily prove causation," Lichtenstein said. In other words, it's possible that the people in the study who adopted low-carb diets were already less healthy than the general population. So, the increased rates of heart disease mortality and death among low-carb dieters could have more to do with the dieters themselves than their diets.”
Here's the thing. Most if not all the people here have an opinion, in many cases strong ones. Many people here are, by neccessity self taught/informed and pretty much ok with the choices they are making concerning low carb.
Rather than spend time highlighting the obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers are we not better off showcasing what WE are doing right and sharing that information so newer entrants to the complex problem of diabetes can make their choices.
There are some brave people here who have and are working hard to turn things around so lets continue to celebrate those successes and less time on rubbish research.
But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.I agree but there is the old adage 'Know thine enemy'.
Not that anything other than low carb is an enemy but that when detractors throw bombs then it would be wise to at least try to diffuse them.
But first we need to discuss the findings to evaluate if they are or are not rubbish, These are generally trumpeted in the media as being the new truth, and so will attract an audience of believers regardless of whether the reported data is factual or not. Many newbies here will see those headlines and see the glossy videos and be put off trying new techniques. They may even come onto this forum and argue with us about what they have been told by others outside the forum.Here's the thing. Most if not all the people here have an opinion, in many cases strong ones. Many people here are, by neccessity self taught/informed and pretty much ok with the choices they are making concerning low carb.
Rather than spend time highlighting the obvious shortcomings of a flurry of fame chasing researchers are we not better off showcasing what WE are doing right and sharing that information so newer entrants to the complex problem of diabetes can make their choices.
There are some brave people here who have and are working hard to turn things around so lets continue to celebrate those successes and less time on rubbish research.
But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.
Now who is playing their game? You seem to be suggesting that we keep quiet and accept rubbish without question, and that IMHO is a very dodgy position to take. I disagree with your POV.But the only way to do that is to have them retract the study (unlikely) or highlight alternative studies which are all out there. The issue is which focus sells news or 'column inches' and conflict always sells better than consensus. So to a certain extent any discussion on such poor studies serves the purpose of keeping them alive? A note on that is that BBC news online ranks and displays stories according to popularity, not veracity.
Actually a slight correction there. It's isn't my POV the question marks makes it more a PFD (point for discussion).Now who is playing their game? You seem to be suggesting that we keep quiet and accept rubbish without question, and that IMHO is a very dodgy position to take. I disagree with your POV.
Your PFD as you put it is only one small aspect of what needs to be explored, and you are the first to make that point, but so far no one has identified that as being what is probably wrong with this news item. There is suspicion of poor science and bad methodology that are probably more important. In proper scientific study reports there are chapters identifying the authors, and the sources of funding and any conflicts of interest which this report does not have, so we cannot pass comment on that aspect. Unless you have relevant additional info that could be discussed here...... I will continue trying to evaluate the science and maths behind this study.Actually a slight correction there. It's isn't my POV the question marks makes it more a PFD (point for discussion).
I too read most everything to acquaint myself with as many of the oft conflicting views on offer before making informed decisions. I'm a fan of LCHF and it works for me. The detail missed from some 'summaries' of these reports is almost criminal in the way it colours perception and discussion which highlights those practices is always to be encouraged. And I have learnt a great deal concerning the complexities of diabetes and nutrition on these forums. So all good.
It used the National Database NHANES in 2010 i.e. date as reported at symposium, and appears to be the last time that NHANES collated any info on diets.It's an observational study, apparently, so not sure it means anything. I think we'd have to look for any COI too
This is such a funny but to the point reply, love it, putting fun aside for a moment, as you say, by taking medications you basically can eat what you want, I use example myself, Doc did this to myself re blood pressure pills, he said, if you take a pill every day, you can continue to eat salt as normal, if no pill you have to cut out salt, my thinking was, well why take a pill, simpler and more healthy to cut out the salt, Doc could not get his head round this thinking, preferred to pat himself on the back as a job well done, prescribe medications to allow patient continue salt, instead of saying, cut out salt three months, we see if pressure drops i.e. it was only 130/80 anyway highest! and if this does not work we try medications.Right, I'm going to have pasta for dinner and ask my doctor to start me on medication.