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

More Evidence to Support Low-carbohydrate Diets for Metabolic Syndrome Reversal

I dont want to disagree with the findings but this is an example of sloppy science at its worst
1500 self reported what they had eat ( which we already know is an area with massive errors and bias) self estimated macro balance ( another area with established reporting errors and bias)
Low carb has to adopt a credible scientific approach if it is ever to gain credence In mainstream medicine
Sloppy / lazy science will only discredit the approach, which would be sad
 
Last edited:
Its the word low I don't like. To some people low means less than 20g of carb a day; to others it means less than 100g a day.
I did a 1200 calorie a day diet which eventually I realised was "low" carb diet simply because I was eating less. I could have also called it a low protein diet for the same reason.

When reading posts on this site I tend to to read previous posts to get an idea of what people mean by low carb.
 
Boo1979 said:
Sloppy / lazy science will only discredit the approach, which would be sad
Click to expand...
The article makes it clear that their findings were based on survey data which, to be sure, is low on the evidence hierarchy. What is useful is that it was published and it is showing up in the medical news sites. If it convinces just one GP to take a deeper look at the metabolic benefits of a low carbohydrate diet then it will have served a useful purpose.
BTW, the editor in chief of the Journal of Insulin Resistance is Dr. Jason Fung and the editorial board includes a 'who's who' of trailblazers the low carb world: Gary Fetke, Tim Noakes, Jeff Gerber, Zoe Harcombe, Aseem Malhotra, and Caryn Zinn to name a few. Their conflict of interest is that they are all passionate believers in the low carb approach - and not influenced by big pharma or big food, which works for me!
 
It could persaude 1 gp I guess, but sloppy / lazy science is just that and will rightly dissuade many more neutrals who read it than it will ever convince
Trailblazers are rarely the best people to evaluate data either - they and their views come with massive confirmation bias
 

The paper doesn't make a definitive statement on what they consider low carb, but they do say:
"The definition of a low-carbohydrate diet varies in the literature, but most in the field agree that anything over 130 g – 150 g per day is not low carbohydrate. An amount of less than 50 g of carbohydrate per day is considered very low carbohydrate"

So I interpret this to mean they consider below 130 g per day to be low carb.

The paper breaks down the self-reported average daily carb intake level of the people who were surveyed into 4 groups:

<30 g (49%), 30 to 50 g (32%), 50 - 100 g (16%), 100 to 200 g (2.7%), and 200 - 300 g (0.3%).
 
Boo1979 said:
Trailblazers are rarely the best people to evaluate data either - they and their views come with massive confirmation bias
Click to expand...
I agree that the hierarchy of evidence is important when interpreting research - in a perfect world. However, when industry funds RCT's or in other ways tries to control or manipulate the message to one that benefits their product (Big Tobacco, Big Sugar), or restricts access to research studies (for example, restricted access to Statin studies) then there is a problem.

Here is a link to a wonderful presentation by Dr. Rob Lustig and colleagues from yesterday which describes (among a host of other things) how the evidence can be manipulated, and how the food industry and their trade organizations with deep pockets have managed to control the message and influence public policy so well since at least the 1940's, giving us the metabolic mayhem we see today throughout the world:
https://lecture.ucsf.edu/ets/Play/9c2c1a8eaf4249c7b841471a5f7aa8141d

The presentation starts at 7:30 minutes into the recording, so fast forward to begin. It's almost 2 hours long but well worth the time IMHO. In the interests of full disclosure - I do have massive confirmation bias when it comes the points of view expressed in the presentation!
 

Thanks for linking that.. It was quite.. enlightening, especially with regards to lobbying activities and 'healthwashing'. I guess we should also thank the Russians for sharing all the Coca Cola documents in the DC leaks. I guess that may also show how their people were deeply embedded in the Clinton campaign.
 
Your last sentence is quite a sweeping statement . wow
 
As you say, it is sad that the data collected is merely hearsay and anecdotal from social media sources (fake news?), much the same as presented on this forum, It is not proving anything, merely whetting the appetite and pointing to possibilities. It is sad that the editors of this journal have a profound vested interest in the findings, and may also have had editorial influence in this publication. I too could not accept this study as a serious research project,

I prefer the work undertaken by Dr Unwin, which covers the same topic but in the NHS practice where he works.
 

Thanks for the link. Interesting new fact brought up by Rob Lustig about the possibility of dairy being protective. Still no independant research on artificial sweeteners it seems.
 
Oldvatr said:
It is sad that the editors of this journal have a profound vested interest in the findings, and may also have had editorial influence in this publication.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, hidden conflicts of interest are everywhere. This article from a few days ago describes how the authors of a US medical textbook 'Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine", 'the most recognised book in all of medicine', failed to disclose their conflicts of interest:
Authors of premier medical textbook didn’t disclose $11 million in industry payments

“It’s also a case study in hidden conflicts of interest. So says a group of researchers who found that Harrison’s and several other leading medical texts failed to disclose financial interests the authors had in the subject matter as well as payments they’d accepted from industry groups.”​

https://www.statnews.com/2018/03/06/conflict-of-interest-medical-textbook/
 
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.…