Pros and cons

[alaska]

It's interesting to see some of the different pros and cons of going low carb. I think it's important to look at headlines and research that oppose low-carb as well as ones that support it to form a more informed opinion.

Ones involving research would be really interesting to see.
News items may make good points or may be plain amusing.


Here's one to start things off

Here the idea of low-carbs affecting brain function is taken on
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/b/2008/12/14/low-carb-diets-bad-for-the-brain-dont-worry.htm

the article relates to the following study
http://tinyurl.com/bt2ak4

the study looks to be a relatively balanced study. i would read the abstract and then jump to the discussion unless you're very dedicated

this one seems to show that there were impairments when carbs were kept extremely low but that when carbs were at low levels, if anything, the brain worked slightly better.


I'm currently bookmarking diabetes and low-carb related links here
http://delicious.com/frominfinity

 

[alaska]

This report on the same study above (exploring how low-carb diets may affect the brain) has a completely different take on it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211112014.htm

The final quote seems to take an extreme interpretation
"The brain needs glucose for energy and diets low in carbohydrates can be detrimental to learning, memory, and thinking."

I've put 'low' in bold because it was when the low-carb particpants' carbs were restricted to extremely low carbohydrate intake. The study itself says:
"These data suggest that after a week of severe carbohydrate restriction, memory performance, particularly on difficult tasks (e.g., backward compared to forward digit span; spatial memory), is impaired."

And here we see from the study that the first week mentioned above was when particpants were taken down to 0g of carbs.
"Individuals who selected the LC diet received instructions to reduce their daily carbohydrate intake to 0 g for 1 week. For the second week, they could add between 5 and 8 g of carbohydrates per day. For the third week, they could add an additional 5–8 g per day (total 10–16 g per day)."

Just one small example here but it shows how things can be poorly interpreted.

 

[hanadr]

Alaska, when I picked up on that same piece of news, I was so dubious about it, I wrote to Daid Mendosa and I eventually got a mesage back from Richard Bernstein, who believes, from his own observations over many years. that once in tune with low carbs, people become mentally sharper, but they may have a transition phase. the trouble with that study is it's too short.

 

[Dennis]

Hi Alaska,

The "research" you are referring to is the infamous Tufts University paper that was discussed on the forum at quite some length when their report first came out last year. What most found very interesting, and somewhat alarming, is the leader of the research team is a professor with a specialism in endocrinology. As such she would have been very aware that in the absence of carbs the body burns fat, which produces ketones, and that the ketones are metabolised as a source of food for the brain and of energy for the body. She would also have been aware that (as Bernstein mentions) it takes a while for the brain to adjust to its alternative food source and that during that adjustment there can be a slight impairment in brain function. Also that, once adjusted to ketones, the brain actually functions better than it did on carbs. The adjustment period is usually reckoned to be a little over 3 weeks.

All of this is elementary science and so must have been known to the research team. Yet they deliberately restricted their research to a 3 week period. This makes it very obvious that the "research" was never intended to examine what are the effects of a low-carb diet, but to "prove" that low-carb diets are dangerous! It wasn't true research at all but simply designed to prove an already well established fact, and to scaremonger when released to the press! We will probably never know who funded this very spurious "research" but it was very obviously a body with a vested interest in rubbishing low-carb diets! One of the breakfast cereal manufacturers perhaps?

 

[Trinkwasser]

Hi Alaska,

The "research" you are referring to is the infamous Tufts University paper that was discussed on the forum at quite some length when their report first came out last year. What most found very interesting, and somewhat alarming, is the leader of the research team is a professor with a specialism in endocrinology. As such she would have been very aware that in the absence of carbs the body burns fat, which produces ketones, and that the ketones are metabolised as a source of food for the brain and of energy for the body. She would also have been aware that (as Bernstein mentions) it takes a while for the brain to adjust to its alternative food source and that during that adjustment there can be a slight impairment in brain function. Also that, once adjusted to ketones, the brain actually functions better than it did on carbs. The adjustment period is usually reckoned to be a little over 3 weeks.

All of this is elementary science and so must have been known to the research team. Yet they deliberately restricted their research to a 3 week period. This makes it very obvious that the "research" was never intended to examine what are the effects of a low-carb diet, but to "prove" that low-carb diets are dangerous! It wasn't true research at all but simply designed to prove an already well established fact, and to scaremonger when released to the press! We will probably never know who funded this very spurious "research" but it was very obviously a body with a vested interest in rubbishing low-carb diets! One of the breakfast cereal manufacturers perhaps?

ZING!!!