The latest rubbish from the media [emoji849]

Brunneria said:

And it is perfectly possible to get all necessary nutrients when people follow a well formulated keto or low carb diet, with a range of foods in the needed in appropriate portion sizes. There are many, many magnesium and potassium rich foods available to low carb/ketoers, if they choose to eat them.

Click to expand...

I agree with this thinking.

Imagine being given keys to an aircraft and being told, off you go then.

And as others have since highlighted on twitter the "low" carb part of this "trial" was 45% of energy from carbs..
My energy from carbs is usually 1 or 2 % per day so I really can't see 45% as "low" in anything.
Strange how the correct use of language is the first casualty in nutrition articles..

bulkbiker said:

And as others have since highlighted on twitter the "low" carb part of this "trial" was 45% of energy from carbs..
My energy from carbs is usually 1 or 2 % per day so I really can't see 45% as "low" in anything.
Strange how the correct use of language is the first casualty in nutrition articles..

Click to expand...

So we get back to the question of defining “low”. Low is a relative term. Several tiers of low should be clearly defined.

bulkbiker said:

Strange how the correct use of language is the first casualty in nutrition articles..

Click to expand...

I usually tend to think that the first casualty in epidemiology and meta analysis is the scientific method. The second casualty is the correct use of language that would otherwise give the game away. These stories skip the actual science and go straight to the headlines. Badly formulated diets can and do cause all sorts of health issues, but a well formulated ketogenic diet is not a badly formulated diet. Whether or not there is any truth in the causative links between low carbohydrate and heart rhythm problems, the purpose of this story in the mainstream is to debunk “keto” because it is harming the bottom lines of those who profit in one way of another from sick people.

In my very humble opinion.

Jim Lahey said:

I usually tend to think that the first casualty in epidemiology and meta analysis is the scientific method. The second casualty is the correct use of language that would otherwise give the game away. These stories skip the actual science and go straight to the headlines. Badly formulated diets can and do cause all sorts of health issues, but a well formulated ketogenic diet is not a badly formulated diet. Whether or not there is any truth in the causative links between low carbohydrate and heart rhythm problems, the purpose of this story in the mainstream is to debunk “keto” because it is harming the bottom lines of those who profit in one way of another from sick people.

In my very humble opinion.

Click to expand...

In my science Jim, “low” has to be clearly defined otherwise it stands no chance.

Listlad said:

In my science Jim, low has to be clearly defined otherwise it stands no chance.

Click to expand...

This is of course also true. In fact I recall that real science doesn’t even use words like low, high, hot, cold, fast, slow etc. and deals only in raw data. But that’s going off on a tangent somewhat

Listlad said:

So we get back to the question of defining “low”. Low is a relative term. Several tiers of low should be clearly defined.

Click to expand...

There are 3 macronutrients.. fat,protein and carbs.. to describe anything as "low" surely less than 1/3 of daily energy has to come from that macronutrient or the phrase is completely without meaning?
So at worst a "Low" carb diet should be lower than 33% of daily energy? Logic and language ?

Jim Lahey said:

This is of course also true. In fact I recall that real science doesn’t even use words like low, high, hot, cold, fast, slow etc. and deals only in raw data. But that’s going off on a tangent somewhat

Click to expand...

Not really as if these terms are not clearly defined then ambiguity reigns even more.

Indy51 said:

Click to expand...

I like Bret Scher. Always pleasant and very informative. I follow his Low Carb Cardiologist podcast.

bulkbiker said:

There are 3 macronutrients.. fat,protein and carbs.. to describe anything as "low" surely less than 1/3 of daily energy has to come from that macronutrient or the phrase is completely without meaning?
So at worst a "Low" carb diet should be lower than 33% of daily energy? Logic and language ?

Click to expand...

I am not disputing what you are saying. It is how it is communicated to everyone that is the tricky bit.

Listlad said:

Not really as if these terms are not clearly defined then ambiguity reigns even more.

Click to expand...

Only when it comes to reporting b******* in the press

bulkbiker said:

There are 3 macronutrients.. fat,protein and carbs.. to describe anything as "low" surely less than 1/3 of daily energy has to come from that macronutrient or the phrase is completely without meaning?
So at worst a "Low" carb diet should be lower than 33% of daily energy? Logic and language ?

Click to expand...

Also a valid point.

Jim Lahey said:

Only when it comes to reporting b******* in the press

Click to expand...

We will have to agree to differ there. There is a lot to be gained by making it clear what “low” means or any other shade of “low”, lest we give the press more chance / opportunity of getting it wrong.

Listlad said:

We will have to agree to differ there. There is a lot to be gained by making it clear what “low” means or any other shade of “low”, lest we give the press more chance of getting it wrong.

Click to expand...

I think we are all agreeing but are perhaps at cross purposes with the semantics. I was referring directly to the scientific method, which generally doesn’t use terms like low or high. Obviously in this context it is relevant and particularly so when it comes to reporting fictional “science”.

Jim Lahey said:

I think we are all agreeing but are perhaps at cross purposes with the semantics. I was referring directly to the scientific method, which generally doesn’t use terms like low or high. Obviously in this context it is relevant and particularly so when it comes to reporting fictional “science”.

Click to expand...

Or if low and high or other relative terms are used then they have to be defined. At the end of the day it all has to be passed on to other people whether it be in industry, in education or whatever so classification is important.

Hot and cold is a great example. Mrs Listlads idea of a cold day is 20 degrees C.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of data mining is all done with software these days. Input the desired causation and wait for the program to find the least tenuous correlations. Hit print. Publish. Achievement unlocked.

I don’t regard epidemiology as science. I think of it more as a statistical game of cognitive bias confirmation. On its own, it can only ever disprove causation, never causation. Yet it’s pretty much all we ever read about in the mainstream, dressed up as “studies”.

So the article doesn't define low carb, and people here deem the amount of carbs used in this study isn't really low carb - what ever low is. What is the definition of keto? my limited knowledge is that keto tends not to have any carbs in it and certainly does not include 45% of energy from carbs - please correct me if I'm wrong. So the study appears to monitor some people who could be described as being on a lower than recommended daily intake of carbs.

"It is the first and largest to assess the relationship between carbohydrate intake and atrial fibrillation, the most common heart rhythm disorder."

The 'most common heart rhythm disorder' if they are linking this to food, then it just backs up the idea that excessive carbs are to blame? If carbs help against A.fib then it wouldn't be the biggest?!

I maybe looking at this wrongly?! And I've probably not articulated it very well!

Thanks, @Indy51, for posting the comment by Bret Scher. These were also some of my initial thoughts.

In my mind, there are many weaknesses to the study.

First, as @bulkbiker and others pointed out, this was not really low-carb and especially not ketogenic -- rather most likely higher carb, higher fat, which we know is a problem. However, trust them to extrapolate from 45% carbs to 5% carbs (similar to the famous Havard study linking low-carb to increased mortality (again low-carb here was in the range of 40% of calories from carbs) and come to the conclusion that if 45% carbs increase a-fib than 5% carbs must increase it even more.

Second, the use of the food frequency questionnaire. I don't think people can accurately remember what they ate even yesterday. At least in my personal experience when posting in the "What did you eat?" thread on this forum, I have trouble remembering.

Third, the hazard ratio was 1.18, which is miniscule -- probably close to the hazard ratio of eating red meat. In an observational study, this probably shouldn't even be interpreted. I think the Bradford-Hill criteria suggest a hazard ratio of at least 2 to suggest causation.

I wonder why journalists who write about science don't need any scientific training? Are they really doing their job if they don't understand the subject matter on which they report?

How many T2s will be kept from trying a low carb woe by articles like this, and might eventually go on to suffer from some of the complications of diabetes? Who accepts responsibility for this?

Sorry for this rant, I'll step of my soapbox now.

Keto diet increases inflammation ??? Are they serious , high blood sugar causes inflammation .
I am not sure what type of study was that . Whenever I have carby food i feel palpitations , low energy and brain fog .Keto diet has given me my power back I am more energetic with Clear skin I am prediabetic