Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: lonely moa on December 08, 2014, 10:51:23 PM

Title: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on December 08, 2014, 10:51:23 PM
More dietary fun from Oz.  I hope that big Pharma doesn't pull this issue like it did the two last winter.


http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/ (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: wastrel on December 08, 2014, 10:54:06 PM
Big Pharma pulled this issue the past two winters?  I do not understand what you mean.  Can you explain?
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on December 08, 2014, 11:06:17 PM
The pharmaceutical industry in Oz forced ABC to withdraw two issues of Catalyst concerning diet and heart disease a few months ago.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: Harry Black on December 09, 2014, 09:38:08 AM
The data on statins is certainly open for varied interpretations.
There is fair reason to think the data might be skewed in favour of companies omitting negative results.
The pharmaceutical industry did ask ABC to remove the two episodes. ABC initially refused but eventually caved when they realised (as they admitted) that the piece broke their policy on impartiality. So it seems like their undoing was poor journalism against a powerful enemy.
Maybe big carb will do the same thing? I didnt read the whole piece but Tim Noakes pops up alot and he isnt noted for his balance on the issue if i recall...
But if their piece has balance then I doubt they have much to worry about.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: CarbShark on December 09, 2014, 02:56:56 PM
The data on statins is certainly open for varied interpretations.
There is fair reason to think the data might be skewed in favour of companies omitting negative results.
The pharmaceutical industry did ask ABC to remove the two episodes. ABC initially refused but eventually caved when they realised (as they admitted) that the piece broke their policy on impartiality. So it seems like their undoing was poor journalism against a powerful enemy.
Maybe big carb will do the same thing? I didnt read the whole piece but Tim Noakes pops up alot and he isnt noted for his balance on the issue if i recall...
But if their piece has balance then I doubt they have much to worry about.

As I recall, there was one line of dialog in one of the episodes that showed bias, and rather than follow their customary policy of issuing a disclaimer, they pulled the episode. (Don't know about the other episode.)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: Harry Black on December 09, 2014, 08:11:57 PM
I didnt listen to the programs. I just looked up some reports of the story. They admitted bias. I duno what to say beyond that.
Lets wait and see how this story goes. Im pretty sure it will be fine.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on December 10, 2014, 02:46:44 AM
Noakes has gone full circle.  He authored "The Lore of Running", a bible to some, and was the co-inventor of "goo", and has apologised for both.  He now follows a ketogenic diet.  His running times have improved and his T2D has disappeared. 
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on December 15, 2014, 12:35:06 PM
Dr Jeff Volek has published a new study of a very well controlled nutritional trial, comparing high saturated fat intake vs high carbohydrate intake.  Guess what; high fat intake reduced markers for heart disease and the high carb (55% of calories, mimicking the estimated percentage of the standard american diet) increased those markers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113605 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113605)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on January 11, 2015, 06:34:17 PM
My own private thread.  Cool.

A really great interview with Dr Dominic D'Agostino regarding the geekier aspects of ketosis.  From children with intractable epilepsy to navy seals to athletes.

 https://www.bulletproofexec.com/dominic-dagostino-ketosis-oxygen-toxicity-187/ (https://www.bulletproofexec.com/dominic-dagostino-ketosis-oxygen-toxicity-187/)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: Plastiq on January 12, 2015, 01:03:02 AM
Dr Jeff Volek has published a new study of a very well controlled nutritional trial, comparing high saturated fat intake vs high carbohydrate intake.  Guess what; high fat intake reduced markers for heart disease and the high carb (55% of calories, mimicking the estimated percentage of the standard american diet) increased those markers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113605 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113605)

I'm always a bit leery of short-term studies. I know studies are extremely fraught with difficulties, and it's easy to take pot-shots at them, but acute changes can balance out over time.

My own private thread.  Cool.

I'm following along, just don't have much to add.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on January 12, 2015, 01:59:55 AM
Volek and Phinney have been at it for 30 years.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on January 15, 2015, 12:51:16 PM
Noakes has gone full circle.  He authored "The Lore of Running", a bible to some, and was the co-inventor of "goo", and has apologised for both.  He now follows a ketogenic diet.  His running times have improved and his T2D has disappeared.

An excellent chat/interview with Tim Noakes and Mark Sisson here:

http://blog.primalblueprint.com/episode-50-mark-interviews-dr-timothy-noakes/ (http://blog.primalblueprint.com/episode-50-mark-interviews-dr-timothy-noakes/)

It contains an interesting look at how T2D can sneak up on a marathon runner.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on January 18, 2015, 03:30:04 PM
Fantastic conversation with Peter Attia here:  http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/12/18/peter-attia/ (http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/12/18/peter-attia/)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: DoktorBob on January 19, 2015, 05:45:29 AM
More dietary fun from Oz.  I hope that big Pharma doesn't pull this issue like it did the two last winter.


http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/ (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/)

I have greatly reduced my carb intake and cut out sugar (except for holiday meals) and get most of my carbs from either rice or potatoes.  but most of my meals are protein and lots of vegetables.

I feel great and lost weight.  Whether it is from simply reducec calorie intake or other factors, I do not know.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on January 19, 2015, 12:44:20 PM
Glad to hear you are eating healthily.  Sounds a bit like my diet... but I rarely eat rice, just spuds.  I am fortunate to live with a woman that is an exceptional gardener.

That's exactly what is explained in the interview with Tm Ferriss and Peter Attia.  NUSI is currently doing just that, using metabolic chambers and human volunteers.  Dr Attia would be happy to have the hypothesis that carbohydrates are the driver of obesity confirmed but equally happy to see it disproved.  NUSI has hired scientists and laboratories that don't see eye to eye and will keep the project honest.    The science just hasn't been done and the world has gotten fatter since industry and government started meddling in food in a big way.

Ate states, once again, that everyone knows the second law of thermodynamics, but just saying that putting on weight ls due to eating more than one uses is uninteresting.  He makes a little analogy something like Bill Gates is wealthy because he spends less than he earns.  It's  what is making people overweight and obese that is interesting and important.

NUSI is also addressing the growing problem of non-alcoholic liver disease in children (liver surgery is Attia's specialty).  The reigning hypotheses are too many calories, too much sugar or too much fructose. 
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: BoomWav on January 19, 2015, 02:50:11 PM
I lost 40 pounds in the last year and it was mostly by balancing my meals and running. I would eat closer to 2000 calories a day and I would try to eat more proteins through food. This mean.. no shakes or anything that I had to buy specifically for that. So I would buy a lot of chicken breast and eat a lot of chicken breast. When I calculated how much protein/carbs/fat I was eating and compared it to what people suggested, I quickly realised that my diet usually consisted in a lot of carbs, a bit of protein and a bit of fat. It seems that everything you buy these days are really high in carbs and low on everything else.

I blame the fat-free movement greatly for this. Nothing has fat anymore and we need some of the good fats if we want to eat calories that aren't carbs.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: Harry Black on January 19, 2015, 03:31:49 PM
But you lost 40lbs so why do you care about carbs/no carbs?
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on February 03, 2015, 02:46:31 AM
Nice to see a big win for the paleo diet,

http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160 (http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160)

All the markers of cardiovascular health are improved in the experimental group and they lost weight even though the researchers matched their calories to what should have kept them weight stable.

Can you image in that?  Jesus, everybody loses weight that should on a paleo type diet.  Too many vegetables and good fats... Hungry? Not.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: DoktorBob on February 03, 2015, 02:51:14 AM
Nice to see a big win for the paleo diet,

http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160 (http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160)

All the markers of cardiovascular health are improved in the experimental group and they lost weight even though the researchers matched their calories to what should have kept them weight stable.

Can you image in that?  Jesus, everybody loses weight that should on a paleo type diet.  Too many vegetables and good fats... Hungry? Not.

n=34...time to whip out the student-t
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on February 03, 2015, 12:23:18 PM
Nice to see a big win for the paleo diet,

http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160 (http://www.lipidworld.com/content/13/1/160)

All the markers of cardiovascular health are improved in the experimental group and they lost weight even though the researchers matched their calories to what should have kept them weight stable.

Can you image in that?  Jesus, everybody loses weight that should on a paleo type diet.  Too many vegetables and good fats... Hungry? Not.

n=34...time to whip out the student-t

It was mostly female, I'd agree, but that sex generally occupies the higher end of the obesity graphs. Better a tightly monitored small group of participants than a huge study relying on self reporting.  Small groups (of people or mice) seem to be adequate in nutritional studies.  I'd think that a small study of humans with a group of healthy fat/lean  body tissue would be interesting.
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: lonely moa on February 13, 2015, 12:33:46 PM
More conspiracy theories from that dodgy journal from Britain, the BMJ.  Industry bias in scientific research?  Who would have thought?


http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231 (http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231)
Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: David "Stubb" Oswald on February 27, 2015, 10:50:44 AM
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/)

Good read. Moa will probably hate it.

Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
Post by: CarbShark on February 27, 2015, 12:03:05 PM
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/)

    Good read. Moa will probably hate it.

    • If 80% of your calories come from fat, you become better at converting fat to energy.
    • There is not a consensus that being more efficient at converting fat to muscle available energy actually improves endurance sport performance.
      • A high fat diet probably hurts performance when it comes to having to sprint during an endurance event.

    This quote is flat out wrong:

    Quote
    But, Dr. Burke said, no study to date has shown that extremely high-fat, ketogenic diets actually “enhance sports performance,” only that they make endurance athletes better able to use fat as a fuel. And the same studies generally show that high-fat diets blunt performance during high-intensity sprints, which, even in fat-adapted athletes, demand fast-burning sugar stores.

    Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 1980s and it has been reinforced with numerous studies since.
     [/list]
    Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
    Post by: PB67 on February 27, 2015, 09:34:14 PM
      http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/)

      Good read. Moa will probably hate it.

      • If 80% of your calories come from fat, you become better at converting fat to energy.
      • There is not a consensus that being more efficient at converting fat to muscle available energy actually improves endurance sport performance.
        • A high fat diet probably hurts performance when it comes to having to sprint during an endurance event.

      This quote is flat out wrong:

      Quote
      But, Dr. Burke said, no study to date has shown that extremely high-fat, ketogenic diets actually “enhance sports performance,” only that they make endurance athletes better able to use fat as a fuel. And the same studies generally show that high-fat diets blunt performance during high-intensity sprints, which, even in fat-adapted athletes, demand fast-burning sugar stores.

      Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 1980s and it has been reinforced with numerous studies since.

      [/list]

      Citation required.
      Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
      Post by: lonely moa on February 27, 2015, 11:00:58 PM
        http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/should-athletes-eat-fat-or-carbs/)

        Good read. Moa will probably hate it.

        • If 80% of your calories come from fat, you become better at converting fat to energy.
        • There is not a consensus that being more efficient at converting fat to muscle available energy actually improves endurance sport performance.
          • A high fat diet probably hurts performance when it comes to having to sprint during an endurance event.

        Nice article; not sure why I would hate it.  I've read enough Phinney and Volek to know basically everything in that article.  Nothing there to disagree with.  Shame the author didn't remind us of the improvement in cardiovascular and general health markers with a LCHF diet, although he did tell us about the nearly inevitable weight loss.[/list]
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 28, 2015, 12:31:44 AM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865775 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865775)

        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 28, 2015, 01:08:05 AM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865775 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865775)

        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)

        That's generous for a second post.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on February 28, 2015, 08:04:52 AM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        "These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level."



        Quote
        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)

        "The low RQ and the fact that blood glucose and muscle glycogen were maintained during exhausting exercise after 6 wk of a PSF suggest that prolonged ketosis results in an adaptation, after which lipid becomes the major metabolic fuel, and net carbohydrate utilization is markedly reduced during moderate but ultimately exhausting exercise."


        I guess you don't understand the difference between "not compromised" and "enhanced".



        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on February 28, 2015, 09:15:59 AM
        My understanding (admittedly loose, interest in the endurance side of things is perfunctory) is that even though submaximal efforts are okay under keto, it's still not ideal because sprinting performance is impaired—the implication being that occasional sprinting is still part of endurance sports.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 28, 2015, 02:18:28 PM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        "These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level."



        Quote
        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)

        "The low RQ and the fact that blood glucose and muscle glycogen were maintained during exhausting exercise after 6 wk of a PSF suggest that prolonged ketosis results in an adaptation, after which lipid becomes the major metabolic fuel, and net carbohydrate utilization is markedly reduced during moderate but ultimately exhausting exercise."


        I guess you don't understand the difference between "not compromised" and "enhanced".

        Look at the data.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on March 01, 2015, 09:07:00 AM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        "These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level."



        Quote
        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)

        "The low RQ and the fact that blood glucose and muscle glycogen were maintained during exhausting exercise after 6 wk of a PSF suggest that prolonged ketosis results in an adaptation, after which lipid becomes the major metabolic fuel, and net carbohydrate utilization is markedly reduced during moderate but ultimately exhausting exercise."


        I guess you don't understand the difference between "not compromised" and "enhanced".

        Look at the data.

        I have, have you?

        My understanding (admittedly loose, interest in the endurance side of things is perfunctory) is that even though submaximal efforts are okay under keto, it's still not ideal because sprinting performance is impaired—the implication being that occasional sprinting is still part of endurance sports.

        This is what the data shows.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 01, 2015, 09:51:29 AM

        Quote
        Phinney showed this in studies on cyclists in the 19

        Citation required.

        The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric res... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776)

        "These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level."



        Quote
        Capacity for moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation t... - PubMed - NCBI
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7000826)

        "The low RQ and the fact that blood glucose and muscle glycogen were maintained during exhausting exercise after 6 wk of a PSF suggest that prolonged ketosis results in an adaptation, after which lipid becomes the major metabolic fuel, and net carbohydrate utilization is markedly reduced during moderate but ultimately exhausting exercise."


        I guess you don't understand the difference between "not compromised" and "enhanced".

        Look at the data.

        I have, have you?

        My understanding (admittedly loose, interest in the endurance side of things is perfunctory) is that even though submaximal efforts are okay under keto, it's still not ideal because sprinting performance is impaired—the implication being that occasional sprinting is still part of endurance sports.

        This is what the data shows.

        First, marathon runners and endurance athletes generally don't sprint, low carb or not. Second, once you've adapted to a ketogenic diet you continue to store glucagon and it is available for short bursts of sprinting or heavy lifting.

        There are also endurance athletes on very strict LCHF diets who excel at marathons, triathlons and iron man events.

        It is true that a strict LCHF diet would not be optimal for a number of activities (tennis; basketball; soccer; American Football) but in each of these sports there are athletes who excel doing a modified version of the LCHF diet which provides sufficient glucose when needed, which is something that the original article ignored.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 01, 2015, 01:05:26 PM
        Events like marathons absolutely involve sprinting. Not terribly frequently per event but its there and it makes a difference.
        Also, maintaining pace on inclines feels very similar to sprinting and is hugely taxing on energy systems.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on March 01, 2015, 01:12:28 PM
        First, marathon runners and endurance athletes generally don't sprint

        No, that never happens towards the finish line.

        There are also endurance athletes on very strict LCHF diets who excel at marathons, triathlons and iron man events.

        Yup, the question is whether they'd be that much better with carbohydrate.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 01, 2015, 01:22:16 PM
        Events like marathons absolutely involve sprinting. Not terribly frequently per event but its there and it makes a difference.
        Also, maintaining pace on inclines feels very similar to sprinting and is hugely taxing on energy systems.

        There is plenty of glucagon for some sprinting on LCHF dieting, but not extended sprinting. On a LCHF diet you'll be burning a combination of glucose, ketones and fat, to provide fuel for your marathon, which will get you up those hills. When fat and ketones are available jogging will burn those more than glucose, keeping that available for when you need the bursts of speed.

        If you're not leto-adapted you'll be burning glucose mostly, little fat and almost zero ketones, and you have comparatively small glucose reserves.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 01, 2015, 01:28:40 PM
        Im not making any claims one way or the other regarding LCHF for endurance athletes. Im just saying they do sprint and if they are doing something like long distance fell running then they will be doing it alot. Or at least operating at far higher levels of energy output periodically throughout an event.
        If you are saying the diet still lets them perform to the same or greater levels then thats all good and I will leave the discussion of that to people with more background in sports nutrition than me.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 01, 2015, 01:29:57 PM
        First, marathon runners and endurance athletes generally don't sprint

        No, that never happens towards the finish line.

        There are also endurance athletes on very strict LCHF diets who excel at marathons, triathlons and iron man events.

        Yup, the question is whether they'd be that much better with carbohydrate.

        So you're saying that the question is whether this guy, who switched from the typical high-carb diet to a LCHF diet and started winning ultra marathons (and beating course records) would have done better if he hadn't switched?

        http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/ (http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 01, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
        Im not making any claims one way or the other regarding LCHF for endurance athletes. Im just saying they do sprint and if they are doing something like long distance fell running then they will be doing it alot. Or at least operating at far higher levels of energy output periodically throughout an event.
        If you are saying the diet still lets them perform to the same or greater levels then thats all good and I will leave the discussion of that to people with more background in sports nutrition than me.

        I'm wondering if we're not mixing up terms. There's jogging, which is the bulk of marathons; running which is faster and marathoners do it for short periods and there is all out sprinting, which is more typical in a soccer game or a 50 yard dash than a marathon.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 01, 2015, 01:40:37 PM
        A sprint is running as fast as you can for a short distance. Obviously that will look different at the end of a 3hour jog than it does in a a 90min football match.
        Also there are more endurance sports in the world than marathons. Many of them have formats that require short bursts of intense output that feel very similar to sprinting.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 01, 2015, 02:28:26 PM
        A sprint is running as fast as you can for a short distance. Obviously that will look different at the end of a 3hour jog than it does in a a 90min football match.
        Also there are more endurance sports in the world than marathons. Many of them have formats that require short bursts of intense output that feel very similar to sprinting.

        It seems like the distinctions are not totally clear cut, but the point is that the muscles and exertion of  jogging burn much more fat and ketones in a keto-adapted runner. The muscles and exertion involved in sprinting and, to a lesser extent, running, require glucose as fuel.

        The important differences aren't how fast you can run, how it "looks" or how it "feels", the difference is which fuel the muscles are using. On a high-carb diet, if you're too exhausted at the end of a 3 hour jog to do a decent sprint, then you're probably not changing the fuel you're burning for what feels like a sprint to you.

        But, if you're on a LCHF diet, for 25 7/8 miles you'll be burning mostly fat and ketones all along and have some glucose/glucagon in reserve, for that sprint to the finish. (Kind of like the caveman who's been running the mammoth to exhaustion with his hunting party, but has enough glucose in reserve for that life-saving burst of speed when the prey turns on the hunter.)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 02, 2015, 01:43:49 AM
        Yeah, persistence hunting still happens all over the place and I cant imagine those people having access to lots of grains.
        As I said, I have very little interest in the lchf question as its not relevant to me. I was just nitpicking on the sprinting thing. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on March 02, 2015, 06:58:26 AM
        First, marathon runners and endurance athletes generally don't sprint

        No, that never happens towards the finish line.

        There are also endurance athletes on very strict LCHF diets who excel at marathons, triathlons and iron man events.

        Yup, the question is whether they'd be that much better with carbohydrate.

        So you're saying that the question is whether this guy, who switched from the typical high-carb diet to a LCHF diet and started winning ultra marathons (and beating course records) would have done better if he hadn't switched?

        http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/ (http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/)

        "Why didn’t he need much?  And what DID he eat?

        STEVE PHINNEY:  I wouldn’t tell you the details even if I knew because it’s confidential research information.  And I don’t think he’d want any of the details of what he’s doing to be public, because, realize, all of a sudden this guy knows absolutely that he’s got a remarkable competitive edge."

        Convenient.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 02, 2015, 08:26:47 AM
        Also, its entirely possible that he would have changed sports and done better on a different diet.
        Even if the diet was properly recorded and made public (research information shouldnt really be top secret should it?) and he was completely compliant with LCHF, it shows nothing about LCHF compared to other diets.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 02, 2015, 10:39:00 AM
        Also, its entirely possible that he would have changed sports and done better on a different diet.

        Right, but what happened with this anecdote is he switched to a LCHF diet and did remarkably well. All this proves is that it's possible to do quite well in endurance running on a LCHF diet.
        Quote
        Even if the diet was properly recorded and made public (research information shouldnt really be top secret should it?)

        Well, the runner wasn't doing research he was competing. Phinney and Volek were doing research, and when they publish (if it's published) then it will be public. That's the way things usually work, researchers rarely make their data public while they're doing research. 

        I'm wondering if this might be related to this race (although it's not specifically about macronutrient composition of the diet it's possible that they gathered lots of data and are writing more articles from the data)

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931590 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931590)

        Quote
        and he was completely compliant with LCHF, it shows nothing about LCHF compared to other diets.

        I don't think anyone is suggesting he wasn't LCHF. The "secret" is what specific foods he ate.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: David "Stubb" Oswald on March 02, 2015, 12:18:23 PM
        That's the way things usually work, researchers rarely make their data public while they're doing research. 

        Speaking as a scientist, it doesn't work that way. At least a month of the year you travel to conferences showing preliminary data with the hope maybe you overlooked something. And I am not talking about preliminary findings either, scientists are usually quite explicit about data if it is requested. I am skeptical about "ground breaking" research that can't be shown until it is published at some later date. One subject, top secret, this sounds like bullshit research.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 02, 2015, 12:36:41 PM
        That's the way things usually work, researchers rarely make their data public while they're doing research. 

        Speaking as a scientist, it doesn't work that way. At least a month of the year you travel to conferences showing preliminary data with the hope maybe you overlooked something. And I am not talking about preliminary findings either, scientists are usually quite explicit about data if it is requested. I am skeptical about "ground breaking" research that can't be shown until it is published at some later date. One subject, top secret, this sounds like bullshit research.


        A lot of science is done to develop products (drugs, for example) and they keep their information very close to the vest.

        I'm not sure if they have attended any conferences and shared data or not, but I don't think it's unusual to not share data, or the specifics of someone's diet, while being interviewed for someone's blog.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 02, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
        http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-documentary-about-incredible-physical-performances-on-lchf-just-released (http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-documentary-about-incredible-physical-performances-on-lchf-just-released)

        I may see the movie this weekend, but here's the trailer
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 06, 2015, 03:10:34 PM
        Sprinting is moving as fast as one can over a relatively short distance.  Full stop. The 400m race is still a sprint.  The average healthy athletic person can do maybe twenty seconds to failure, maybe less.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 06, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
        Sprinting is moving as fast as one can over a relatively short distance.  Full stop. The 400m race is still a sprint.  The average healthy athletic person can do maybe twenty seconds to failure, maybe less.

        Well, that might be a definition for runners and sprinters, but the important point for this discussion is what fuel is required for the kind of activity. The all-out sprint as fast as you can for a short distance requires glucose/glucagon as fuel. The running as fast as you can for a distance like 400m can be done on a mix of ketones, fat and glucose. Jogging, even a marathon, and even jogging your fastest near the finish line, can be done on a mix of mostly ketones and fat and some glucose.

        The are other exercises (some forms of weight lifting, for example) that also require mostly glucose for fuel, while other forms of exercises can be fueled mostly with ketones and fat.

        That's the important distinction, what fuels the muscles for that specific activity.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 06, 2015, 04:26:18 PM
        pretty sure I looked like I was jogging/hobbling the last time I finished a 26mile run but Im also pretty sure I remember feeling like I was sprinting compared to the previous 25.5 miles.
        Yeah. I started too early
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 06, 2015, 05:14:43 PM
        pretty sure I looked like I was jogging/hobbling the last time I finished a 26mile run but Im also pretty sure I remember feeling like I was sprinting compared to the previous 25.5 miles.
        Yeah. I started too early

        But what you looked like and what it felt like is not necessarily what it was. Most likely you were running most of the race mostly on glucose and it didn't matter if you tried to go faster at the end because your tank was out of fuel (glucose/glucagon).

        A LCHF marathoner, on the other hand, would have been running the race mostly on ketones and fat, and would have had reserves of glucose/glucagon at the end, so the theory goes.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 06, 2015, 06:50:07 PM
        A glimpse of what current elite marathoners actually do to fuel themselves, in training and racing. 

        http://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-for-runners/a-peek-inside-elite-marathon-fueling (http://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-for-runners/a-peek-inside-elite-marathon-fueling)

        Keep in mind, though, two hour ten minute marathons were run in the 70's with absolutely no fuel and little or no water during the race.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 06, 2015, 09:13:11 PM
        pretty sure I looked like I was jogging/hobbling the last time I finished a 26mile run but Im also pretty sure I remember feeling like I was sprinting compared to the previous 25.5 miles.
        Yeah. I started too early

        But what you looked like and what it felt like is not necessarily what it was. Most likely you were running most of the race mostly on glucose and it didn't matter if you tried to go faster at the end because your tank was out of fuel (glucose/glucagon).

        A LCHF marathoner, on the other hand, would have been running the race mostly on ketones and fat, and would have had reserves of glucose/glucagon at the end, so the theory goes.
        Well since you dont actually know how I had been eating, thats a bold claim. But again, Im not trying to discuss what food has what effect, im merely saying that even if my body was out of fuel and incapable of doing what I asked (It did quite well actually) the very fact that it was trying to achieve what would be classed as a sprint, counts as a sprint from the bodies own perspective. 100% output is 100% output regardless of what the actual numbers are (Of course I know that no sprint is actually a 100% effort but this is the casual term we use.)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2015, 11:13:12 AM
        pretty sure I looked like I was jogging/hobbling the last time I finished a 26mile run but Im also pretty sure I remember feeling like I was sprinting compared to the previous 25.5 miles.
        Yeah. I started too early

        But what you looked like and what it felt like is not necessarily what it was. Most likely you were running most of the race mostly on glucose and it didn't matter if you tried to go faster at the end because your tank was out of fuel (glucose/glucagon).

        A LCHF marathoner, on the other hand, would have been running the race mostly on ketones and fat, and would have had reserves of glucose/glucagon at the end, so the theory goes.
        Well since you dont actually know how I had been eating, thats a bold claim.

        Based on your responses I made the assumption that you weren't eating a LCHF diet.

        Quote
        But again, Im not trying to discuss what food has what effect, im merely saying that even if my body was out of fuel and incapable of doing what I asked (It did quite well actually) the very fact that it was trying to achieve what would be classed as a sprint, counts as a sprint from the bodies own perspective. 100% output is 100% output regardless of what the actual numbers are (Of course I know that no sprint is actually a 100% effort but this is the casual term we use.)

        At this point we're talking past each other.

        My point is that there are several forms of exercise that require glucose for fuel. Sprinting and weight lifting.

        There are also some exercises that require very little glucose, and can be fueled mostly by fat and ketones, including jogging for long distances.

        And there are some that can burn a mix of glucose and fats/ketones, such as running harder than a jog, but not an all out sprint.

        But, if you're burning mostly carbs, none of that matters since nearly all of fuel you're burning is glucose for all those forms of exercise.

        Your point seems to be that "sprinting" is defined by the effort put into the activity and if you try to run as fast as you can, even if you're not running very fast, even if you're still using the same muscles and burning the same fuel as when jogging, that makes it a sprint.

        But, that's not relevant to the discussion. (I'm not sure if fitness experts and researchers would agree or not)

        If you're on a LCHF diet and keto-adapted then when you're jogging you're burning mostly fat and ketones. You're heart is burning mostly ketones, your brain is burning a mix of glucose and ketones. If you need to sprint, your sprinting muscles will burn whatever glucose is stored in them in the form of glucagon. That would be available for short bursts but not long runs.

        If you're not on a LCHF diet, and are on a diet high in carbs and not keto-adapted, none of that is relevant. Your body is burning mostly one fuel, glucose. Your heart is burning glucose; your brain is burning glucose and your muscles used in jogging are burning glucose almost exclusively. If you switch from a jog to a sprint, you're not switching fuels, but simply burning more glucose faster.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on March 07, 2015, 12:09:13 PM
        If you're not on a LCHF diet, and are on a diet high in carbs and not keto-adapted, none of that is relevant. Your body is burning mostly one fuel, glucose. Your heart is burning glucose; your brain is burning glucose and your muscles used in jogging are burning glucose almost exclusively. If you switch from a jog to a sprint, you're not switching fuels, but simply burning more glucose faster.

        Yeah, because no one can burn fat unless they're keto. Please stop posting.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2015, 02:30:35 PM
        If you're not on a LCHF diet, and are on a diet high in carbs and not keto-adapted, none of that is relevant. Your body is burning mostly one fuel, glucose. Your heart is burning glucose; your brain is burning glucose and your muscles used in jogging are burning glucose almost exclusively. If you switch from a jog to a sprint, you're not switching fuels, but simply burning more glucose faster.

        Yeah, because no one can burn fat unless they're keto. Please stop posting.

        That is flat out false. There are cells all over the body that can and do burn fat directly. There are some cells that only burn glucose, some that burn glucose and ketones. 

        When you're not keto-adapted you burn mostly glucose and some fat.

        But fats can be directly oxidized (burned) for fuel.

        Fatty acid metabolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism)

        Fatty Acid Metabolism - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21173/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21173/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on March 08, 2015, 09:48:38 AM
        That is flat out false.

        You don't say, genius. Unbelievable. Please refer to last sentence of my previous post.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 08, 2015, 11:38:58 AM
        I was really only interested in clarifying the point on where and when sprinting may be relevant. I have very little interest in the science of LCHF vs anything else.
        Really my diet is all over the place, I could spend a month or so on what I see described as low carb or I could spend a few weeks eating almost exclusively rice, I aim for a traditional balanced diet of irish food but it varies as to whether or not I get it.
        I rarely see much fluctuation in my fat or fitness markers, hence my lack of interest in learning more at this point, though I do check this thread as due dilligence in case something changes my mind.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: DoktorBob on March 09, 2015, 06:16:42 AM
        pretty sure I looked like I was jogging/hobbling the last time I finished a 26mile run but Im also pretty sure I remember feeling like I was sprinting compared to the previous 25.5 miles.
        Yeah. I started too early

        But what you looked like and what it felt like is not necessarily what it was. Most likely you were running most of the race mostly on glucose and it didn't matter if you tried to go faster at the end because your tank was out of fuel (glucose/glucagon).

        A LCHF marathoner, on the other hand, would have been running the race mostly on ketones and fat, and would have had reserves of glucose/glucagon at the end, so the theory goes.
        Well since you dont actually know how I had been eating, thats a bold claim.

        Based on your responses I made the assumption that you weren't eating a LCHF diet.

        Quote
        But again, Im not trying to discuss what food has what effect, im merely saying that even if my body was out of fuel and incapable of doing what I asked (It did quite well actually) the very fact that it was trying to achieve what would be classed as a sprint, counts as a sprint from the bodies own perspective. 100% output is 100% output regardless of what the actual numbers are (Of course I know that no sprint is actually a 100% effort but this is the casual term we use.)

        At this point we're talking past each other.

        My point is that there are several forms of exercise that require glucose for fuel. Sprinting and weight lifting.

        There are also some exercises that require very little glucose, and can be fueled mostly by fat and ketones, including jogging for long distances.

        And there are some that can burn a mix of glucose and fats/ketones, such as running harder than a jog, but not an all out sprint.

        But, if you're burning mostly carbs, none of that matters since nearly all of fuel you're burning is glucose for all those forms of exercise.

        Your point seems to be that "sprinting" is defined by the effort put into the activity and if you try to run as fast as you can, even if you're not running very fast, even if you're still using the same muscles and burning the same fuel as when jogging, that makes it a sprint.

        But, that's not relevant to the discussion. (I'm not sure if fitness experts and researchers would agree or not)

        If you're on a LCHF diet and keto-adapted then when you're jogging you're burning mostly fat and ketones. You're heart is burning mostly ketones, your brain is burning a mix of glucose and ketones. If you need to sprint, your sprinting muscles will burn whatever glucose is stored in them in the form of glucagon. That would be available for short bursts but not long runs.

        If you're not on a LCHF diet, and are on a diet high in carbs and not keto-adapted, none of that is relevant. Your body is burning mostly one fuel, glucose. Your heart is burning glucose; your brain is burning glucose and your muscles used in jogging are burning glucose almost exclusively. If you switch from a jog to a sprint, you're not switching fuels, but simply burning more glucose faster.

        I went on a diet and lost two stone and I did whilst eating carbs, so I surely was not in ketosis.  You mean to tell me that those 28 pounds I lost were all water weight?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2015, 11:06:07 AM
        I went on a diet and lost two stone and I did whilst eating carbs, so I surely was not in ketosis.  You mean to tell me that those 28 pounds I lost were all water weight?

        Nope. You probably lost a combination of fat and muscle, as people do when they go on high carb weight loss diets.

        Were you doing marathons at the same time? (That's what I was referring to, use of energy for marathon runner on a high carb diet).

        And just to be clear, "mostly" doesn't mean "totally" or "exclusively" it means that throughout the race you'd be burning more glucose than fat. Early on it would be nearly exclusively glucose; as the race goes on and your insulin drops you'd burn a higher proportion of fat, but still predominately glucose; especially if they're handing out cups of gatoraide on the course. If you try to sprint late in the race that form of exercise requires glucose and you don't have as much readily available so you don't switch fuels and you don't really sprint you simply jog a little faster and it feels like sprinting.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on March 09, 2015, 11:55:43 AM
        Nope. You probably lost a combination of fat and muscle, as people do when they go on high carb weight loss diets.

        Oh my god, please stop. This is so over-generalized to the point of abject falseness it's not even funny.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2015, 02:05:53 PM
        Nope. You probably lost a combination of fat and muscle, as people do when they go on high carb weight loss diets.

        Oh my god, please stop. This is so over-generalized to the point of abject falseness it's not even funny.

        What, exactly do you think is false? He didn't lose a combination of fat and muscle? Most people don't lose a combination of fat and muscle on a high weight loss diet?

         
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 12, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
        Nice interview with Richard Feinman on the LLLC show this week.


        http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/ (http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 17, 2015, 01:34:17 AM
        If one needed any more evidence to convince you that Fat is good for athletic endeavour, click this:

        http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/excursions/post/husband-wife-row-pacific-ocean-high-fat-diet/ (http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/excursions/post/husband-wife-row-pacific-ocean-high-fat-diet/)

        Unbelievable.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2015, 01:19:23 PM
        Linking from another thread...



        - No, metformin is not insulin, is not ersatz insulin, and does not directly create insulin. I am not an endocrinologist but my doctors have explained it to me that what it does is it stimulates the pancreas to create insulin for you, which the pancreas will usually do in amounts that will not give you insulin shock (indeed, an issue with metformin is that over time it can stop working so well as the pancreas stops responding to it).

        - However, metformin is far from the only prescription that diabetics take. In addition to injecting insulin, which you can control and scale back depending on how many grams of carbohydrates you just ate or are planning to eat, there are other pills out there that interact with the body differently. Some do not interact with the pancreas in precisely the same way that metformin does and because of that it is possible to go into insulin shock if you take your dose but do not ingest enough carbohydrates. I have had this personal experience twice with two different medications. Insulin shock FWIW is terrible and not something I'd wish on anybody.

        - That being said, if you are a diabetic a low-carbohydrate diet might be right for you. I personally would have a lot of trouble staying on it, but if you believe you can handle it, perhaps it could work out. I know of some dieticians who prescribe an Atkins-style diet to diabetics. Here's the thing, though: you need to consult with your doctor before you do this, and this goes whether you're a Type I or a Type II. If you have the insurance for it, you may also wish to consult with a dietician separately, as carbohydrates are kind of a "sneaky" form of calories that take several forms. I suspect that if you're reading this and are a Type I, you probably already know this because you've lived your live with it, but I'm sorry, Type IIs, there is no easy fix here, and you in particular *absolutely* need to speak to your doctor before starting something like this.

        The link I posted made it pretty clear that it does not spur the pancreas to produce more insulin. My understanding it lowers it's blood sugar through a different mechanism.

        That's the only quibble I have with your post.

        I'd also point out that saying LCHF diets are good, or not dangerous is not "giving advice," any more than saying LCHF diets are dangerous is also giving advice.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 19, 2015, 01:20:44 PM
        Responding here...

        .... SNIP....
        I'd also point out that saying LCHF diets are good, or not dangerous is not "giving advice," any more than saying LCHF diets are dangerous is also giving advice.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: David "Stubb" Oswald on March 24, 2015, 10:52:22 AM
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets.html)

        Quote
        The debate is not as simple as low-fat versus low-carb. Research shows that animal protein may significantly increase the risk of premature mortality from all causes, among them cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. Heavy consumption of saturated fat and trans fats may double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 24, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets.html)

        Quote
        The debate is not as simple as low-fat versus low-carb. Research shows that animal protein may significantly increase the risk of premature mortality from all causes, among them cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. Heavy consumption of saturated fat and trans fats may double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease

        ... Dean Ornish.

        I'll see you and raise you:

        http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/dr-dean-ornish-blasts-high-protein-diets/ (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/dr-dean-ornish-blasts-high-protein-diets/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 24, 2015, 01:54:24 PM
        When the site is called "proteinpower" you better believe they know about protein.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 24, 2015, 02:14:25 PM
        And wait, there's more, the Spanish/Mediterranean Diet.  A short review by a radiation oncologist with links to the original studies.

        http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2015/03/23/wine-weight-loss-low-carbs/ (http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2015/03/23/wine-weight-loss-low-carbs/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: David "Stubb" Oswald on March 24, 2015, 02:54:51 PM
        Just for the record, I am not advocating a mostly plant diet. But I am not convinced high fat diets are better. Considering people have lost weight, improved cardiovascular, and have seen improvement in cholesterol by eating exclusively out of a vending machine I am firmly in the total calories camp. I just like to post about the benefits of low animal diets when they come across my news feed. I am not here for an honest argument, I am just here to post a link to a popular press article to counter the constant postings of high fat diet articles in vaguely related health topics.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 24, 2015, 03:52:38 PM
        I am not convinced high fat diets are better.

        A high fat diet is no good unless it's also low-carb.


        Considering people have lost weight, improved cardiovascular, and have seen improvement in cholesterol by eating exclusively out of a vending machine ...

        What are you referring to?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 04, 2015, 09:04:53 PM
        There is a new doc from Oz about the overconsumption of sugar "That Sugar Film".  There is a short interview with the author and principle actor here:  http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/20173586/damon-gameau-sugar-surfeit (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/20173586/damon-gameau-sugar-surfeit)

        Damon incorporate 40 teaspoons of sugar a day from "healthy" sources like yogurt, dry cereal, fruit juice and muesli bars.  The sort of products that parents feed their children with the idea that things with 'natural' or 'natures choice' would be a healthy source of nutrition.  He didn't eat any ice cream, lollies or soft drinks for the 60 days of the trial.  The results were horrific. 

        40 teaspoons a day is what the average teen would consume.  That's 160 grams or about 600calories.

        It has been all around Oz and we await it in NZ. 

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 07, 2015, 02:56:40 PM
        If one is still mired in the idea that a LCHF diet isn't appropriate for an athlete, this is interesting:

        http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/12099/944-zach-bitter-is-an-ultramarathon-world-champion-fueled-by-lchf/ (http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/12099/944-zach-bitter-is-an-ultramarathon-world-champion-fueled-by-lchf/)

        Zach seems to be the worlds best ultra runner.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on April 08, 2015, 08:20:48 AM
        Cant quite phrase this right to get an answer from google so maybe you know of the top of your head-
        Are there examples of high level athletes who stepped up a noticeable notch in performance after switching to lLCHF?
        So the above guy seems to have always done this. And the likes of LeBron dont seem to have changed much (to me...Im not a fan so correct that if Im wrong)
        But I would be very interested in cases where people tried it and got significantly better results. Good or bad. Wouldnt prove much though, its purely a question that occured to me so if you dont know off hand then no worries.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 08, 2015, 10:32:02 AM
        Cant quite phrase this right to get an answer from google so maybe you know of the top of your head-
        Are there examples of high level athletes who stepped up a noticeable notch in performance after switching to lLCHF? 


        http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer (http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on April 08, 2015, 01:53:28 PM
        Cant quite phrase this right to get an answer from google so maybe you know of the top of your head-
        Are there examples of high level athletes who stepped up a noticeable notch in performance after switching to lLCHF? 


        http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer (http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer)

        LOL. Did you even read the article?

        Quote
        Adopting a diet of gluten-free pasta, brown rice, oatmeal plus other gluten-free carb-rich foods saw his energy levels soar. Novak went on to win an incredible 10 tennis titles, three Grand Slams and 53 consecutive matches in 2011.

        Not exactly LCHF.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on April 08, 2015, 02:05:51 PM
        In fairness, I only asked for names that I could check out myself one way or the other so the article was a bonus bit of help.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 10, 2015, 06:38:39 PM
        The two articles below are more about Paleo/primal eating (ancestral, if you like), not necessarily LCHF but tend to be.  There is certainly nothing lost in eating this way, unless one thinks that if they are lean, eating sugary foods, grains and seed oils is fine (even though NAFLD affects more than 25% of all Americans).  Dr. Cate of the Lakers is certainly a fan of eating real food, ditching grains sugar and bad oil.

        Maybe we have to wait and see for the results, but when top end cancer researchers have cut sugar from their diet do to strong correlations they see in their studies... it makes me think twice about eating a bag of chocolate chippies even if it does have a heart healthy tick.

        Meredith and Sami set a record, crossing the Pacific to Hawaii last August on a ketogenic diet http://www.fatchancerow.org (http://www.fatchancerow.org)  And as I pated before  Zach Bitter holds the 12 Hour World Record, 100 mile American Record, and 200k American Record and keeps nutritional ketosis.

        http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/24373097/nutrition-in-the-nba-part-ii-paleo-diet-takes-hold-for-variety-of-reasons (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/24373097/nutrition-in-the-nba-part-ii-paleo-diet-takes-hold-for-variety-of-reasons)

        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-players-to-adopt-radical-paleo-diet-in-2015-afl-season/story-fni5f91a-1227133470817 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-players-to-adopt-radical-paleo-diet-in-2015-afl-season/story-fni5f91a-1227133470817)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 11, 2015, 09:26:10 AM
        I wouldn't say I follow a necessarily "low carb" diet, but it's considerably lower carb than many other people might be eating.

        I've become a big fan of Bill Shrapnel, aka the Sceptical Nutritionist, after reading his blog. He has an excellent multifactorial model for assessing carbohydrate quality, which balances glycemic index, fiber and nutrient density. It makes the argument that pure, natural, unadulterated whole grains are not as much of a silver bullet as many might argue, due to their relatively low nutrient density. Fortified breakfast cereals, though possibly a bit higher in GI, are offset by their nutrient profile, making them a better choice than natural oatmeal, for example. And legumes rank the highest.

        Right now, most of my starch carbs are coming from potatoes, fortified cereals, blueberries and black beans, but they're not necessarily the staple of my diet.

        Here's the article
        http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=369 (http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=369)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 02:02:09 PM
        The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

        At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.   
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 11, 2015, 02:47:48 PM
        The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

        At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.

        Not just that, but the GI index is based on weight of the food. It measures how much 50g of a given food raises blood sugar.  Since serving size and calories and/or carbs per gram of foods vary widely, it's not that useful in formulating weight loss dietary advice.   

        Also, it measures glucose two hours after meals, which means it misses the immediate insulin spike of sugars and refined flours.

        Diets based on GI have not been found to be as effective as LCHF.

        The GL index addresses the first issue. It's based on the serving size of the food rather than an arbitrary dose by weight. But it also measures glucose after two hours.

        (The two-hour figure is more helpful for diabetics, not so much for weight loss dieters).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 03:15:34 PM
        Food high in fructose has a low GI and a large effect of fat production n the liver.  Not so bad during serious exercise, though, I hear.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 11, 2015, 04:39:38 PM
        Food high in fructose has a low GI and a large effect of fat production n the liver.  Not so bad during serious exercise, though, I hear.

        Not really. There are very few foods that are high in fructose, and also low in glucose or starch. I can think of only one, and that's highly refined to reach that state (agave nectar).

        Sucrose, for example, is 50/50 fructose/glucose, and is lower GI than refined white flower, which is all starch. But even though it's less than the GI of refined flour it's still not "low."

        GI Database
        http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?ak=list&food_name_search_type=cn&food_name=&gi_search_type=gt&gi=100&gl_search_type=lte&gl=&lop=AND&orderBy=GIG%20DESC&find=Find+Records&page=1 (http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?ak=list&food_name_search_type=cn&food_name=&gi_search_type=gt&gi=100&gl_search_type=lte&gl=&lop=AND&orderBy=GIG%20DESC&find=Find+Records&page=1)

        Glycemic Index Testing & Research
        http://www.glycemicindex.com/testing_research.php (http://www.glycemicindex.com/testing_research.php)

        But your are right, fructose does trigger TG formation in the liver (NAFLD).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 05:06:15 PM
        There are plenty of "foods" that are very high on fructose compared to glucose.  I'd reckon a little googling would find some sports nutrition with only fructose.  The first link is to an article in praise of such 'nutrition', the second, a line of products.

        http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx (http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx)

        http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine (http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 11, 2015, 06:09:51 PM
        There are plenty of "foods" that are very high on fructose compared to glucose.  I'd reckon a little googling would find some sports nutrition with only fructose.  The first link is to an article in praise of such 'nutrition', the second, a line of products.

        http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx (http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx)

        http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine (http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine)

        Yeah, I wouldn't call those foods. Not sure what the GI index is, but they've definitely go the biochemistry fouled up.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 11, 2015, 07:01:37 PM
        Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss? "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of nutritional science research is headed these days.

        We have a limited number of sources of calories we can eat in a day, so deciding general rules for which foods should be recommended over others needs to be viewed in different contexts. A lot of nutritional research is going in the direction of high GI foods, in general, disproportionately contributing to total glycemic load in terms of the nutrients they offer. If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 07:36:22 PM
        Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss? "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of natural science research is headed these days.

        We have a limited number of sources of calories we can eat in a day, so deciding general rules for which foods should be recommended over others needs to be viewed in different contexts. A lot of nutritional research is going in the direction of high GI foods, in general, disproportionately contributing to total glycemic load in terms of the nutrients they offer. If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.

        I started this thread and I'd like to think the topic is health. 

        I'd also like to think the choice is not between a bowl of cheerios and a bowl of rice.  That's a very straw man IMHO.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 11, 2015, 08:24:03 PM
        Not just that, but the GI index is based on weight of the food. It measures how much 50g of a given food raises blood sugar.  Since serving size and calories and/or carbs per gram of foods vary widely, it's not that useful in formulating weight loss dietary advice.

        Also, it measures glucose two hours after meals, which means it misses the immediate insulin spike of sugars and refined flours.

        Diets based on GI have not been found to be as effective as LCHF.

        The GL index addresses the first issue. It's based on the serving size of the food rather than an arbitrary dose by weight. But it also measures glucose after two hours.

        (The two-hour figure is more helpful for diabetics, not so much for weight loss dieters).

        Glycemic index is one of many factors being looked as a way to measure the quality of carbohydrates and the relation to heart disease. Weight loss was never mentioned in my original reply, nor the topic of the original link which I posted.

        The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

        At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.   

        I started this thread and I'd like to think the topic is health. 

        I'd also like to think the choice is not between a bowl of cheerios and a bowl of rice.  That's a very straw man IMHO.

        In terms of the research currently being done about diet and optimum general health, no, GI is not immaterial.

        And there are many people in poverty with little to no income, whose food sources are incredibly limited, so deciding upon which criteria general nutritional health recommendations are based on is an important matter of public health. In the early 1900s, pellagra was an epidemic in the poverty-stricken southern United States because we did not know that the nixtamalization of maize was required to unlock niacin for absorption. Had we known about nutrient density back then, many people would not have suffered. Knowing which carbs to recommend and for what reasons, especially on a LCHF diet, is key.

        You may not be in that position, but having to choose between a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios may just be a reality for many people.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 11, 2015, 08:59:30 PM
        Also, adding on to the point estockly made about glycemic index vs. glycemic load, wouldn't it follow that if two foods are equal in GI but Food A is twice as nutrient dense as Food B, Food A would be a better choice because you could get the same amount of nutrients with half the contribution to daily glycemic load as Food B?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 09:46:09 PM
        From what I have read, many added vitamins and minerals are not particularly bioavailable, and in the case of vitamin E and calcium, these added nutrients can lead to very deleterious effects, including death.

        Vegetables, dairy, eggs, and meat/fish have all the vitamins and minerals (in excess) that one might need to be healthy.  These are low carb foods, satiating and tasty.  On my recent trip to Cambodia, it seemed that for a very economically poor country, there was generally all these foods available and eaten by the general population.  There is processed and sugary food as well, but that was more expensive and not the main fare.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 11, 2015, 10:09:48 PM
        Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss?

        My concern is healthy eating in the context of weight loss through burning stored fat and prevention of weight gain through excess fat storage.

        Quote
        "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of nutritional science research is headed these days.

        That's what they say, but weight loss is not always healthy, and eating ANYTHING isn't as healthy as eating a carefully planned LCHF diet. Calorie deficit is not the most important factor in healthy weight loss.

        Quote
        A lot of nutritional research is going in the direction of high GI foods, in general, disproportionately contributing to total glycemic load in terms of the nutrients they offer.

        You're mixing models here. Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load are simply two different ways of measuring how foods impact blood sugar. Of course high GI foods will be high on the GL index. To calculate GI they use 50g of each food; to calculate GL they use the serving size for each food.

        But here's the thing, you don't need any carbohydrates in your diet. You need fat. You need protein. The minimum daily requirement for carbohydrate intake is zero.
        Quote
        If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.
        The choice shouldn't be cheerios or rice. The choices should be cheerios or bacon and eggs; rice or steak.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 11, 2015, 10:11:11 PM
        Also, adding on to the point estockly made about glycemic index vs. glycemic load, wouldn't it follow that if two foods are equal in GI but Food A is twice as nutrient dense as Food B, Food A would be a better choice because you could get the same amount of nutrients with half the contribution to daily glycemic load as Food B?

        No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 11, 2015, 11:09:33 PM
        Also, adding on to the point estockly made about glycemic index vs. glycemic load, wouldn't it follow that if two foods are equal in GI but Food A is twice as nutrient dense as Food B, Food A would be a better choice because you could get the same amount of nutrients with half the contribution to daily glycemic load as Food B?

        No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.

        I believe I understand it completely. If you think I have it wrong, I invite you to explain to me my error.

        Glycemic load is a function of a food's glycemic index and the amount of that particular food eaten. So even if a food has a particularly high glycemic index, if it is nutrient dense, you don't need to eat very much of it to get its nutritional benefits, which means that food contributes a very low glycemic load.

        Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.

        Which is exactly the point that I was making with linking to Bill Shrapnel's model. Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation. Unenriched white rice: high GI and pretty nutrient poor - not a relatively good carb recommendation.

        Which means that in determining relative carbohydrate quality, GI is one factor but is by no means negligible. Hence my Food A and Food B comparison. Given two foods with identical GI's, the food with the better nutrient profile is a better choice.

        What is mistaken about that?

        EDIT

        Carrots and white rice are an obvious, easy to understand example, which is why I used it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2015, 11:23:34 PM
        If one's entire meal was carrots, you would be correct.  But if one eats a few carrots (or potatoes) seasoned with butter and accompanied by a decent steak and a few other green vegetables, a heathy person (me) hardly sees a blip in in my blood sugar.  I've done my blood sugar at postprandial intervals and that's what I saw; the glycemic load of the carrots and potatoes is swamped by digesting things with little or no glycemic load.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 12, 2015, 12:07:58 AM
        I'm sorry, but I don't think you're understanding the very simple point that I'm trying to make and you're arguing against something I'm not even saying.

        I've done my blood sugar at postprandial intervals and that's what I saw; the glycemic load of the carrots and potatoes is swamped by digesting things with little or no glycemic load.

        Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.
        ......
        .... Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation.

        We are quite literally saying the exact same thing but in different contexts.

        "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of nutritional science research is headed these days.

        That's what they say, but weight loss is not always healthy, and eating ANYTHING isn't as healthy as eating a carefully planned LCHF diet. Calorie deficit is not the most important factor in healthy weight loss.

        Read what I said and read what you said and notice that we're saying the same thing. I would lose weight eating 1600 calories of Twizzlers every day but the negative health effects would be detrimental.

        The choice shouldn't be cheerios or rice. The choices should be cheerios or bacon and eggs; rice or steak.

        But if one eats a few carrots (or potatoes) seasoned with butter and accompanied by a decent steak and a few other green vegetables...

        This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 12, 2015, 12:50:34 AM

        This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.

        The Cambodians I met would be lucky to get a dollar a day.  Unlike vegans, they eat literally everything and get all the vitamins and minerals they need.  They understand nutrition.  Their culture has taken care of it.  In the industrialised world, most of us didn't listen to our grandmother (well, for most of this forum, great grandmothers). 

        You want a LCHF diet, it is time to drop the idea of shunning animal products.  One would struggle with the amount of olive and coconut oil to achieve it.  Expensive, as well.

        And I am saying, worrying about the GI thing is a waste of time.  Just don't eat an entire meal of high glycemic food and one won't raise one's blood sugar inappropriately; that's the point of GI, isn't it?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 12, 2015, 01:00:20 AM
        Sorry, come again?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 12, 2015, 01:22:42 AM

        This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.

        The Cambodians I met would be lucky to get a dollar a day.  Unlike vegans, they eat literally everything and get all the vitamins and minerals they need.  They understand nutrition.  Their culture has taken care of it.  In the industrialised world, most of us didn't listen to our grandmother (well, for most of this forum, great grandmothers). 

        You want a LCHF diet, it is time to drop the idea of shunning animal products.  One would struggle with the amount of olive and coconut oil to achieve it.  Expensive, as well.

        And I am saying, worrying about the GI thing is a waste of time.  Just don't eat an entire meal of high glycemic food and one won't raise one's blood sugar inappropriately; that's the point of GI, isn't it?

        You have anecdotes, I have statistics and information. I would not rely on arguments from antiquity and traditionalism in a skeptical forum to make your case, especially when they're blatantly refuted by the evidence.

        http://www.fao.org/ag/AGN/nutrition/khm_en.stm (http://www.fao.org/ag/AGN/nutrition/khm_en.stm)

        "Women also seemed to be affected by malnutrition. According to the UNICEF/WFP survey, the prevalence of women 15 to 49 years old with a BMI<18.5 kg/m2 was 28.5%. As for children, the analysis by food economy zone showed that women in the forest were the most affected by CED with 60% having a BMI<18.5 kg/m2.

        The FAO Sixth World Food Survey estimated that the DES in Cambodia did not cover the requirements of 29% of the population in 1990-92, compared to 13% in 1969-71, therefore indicating that the proportion of the population which is "undernourished" in terms of food inadequacy has increased. The problem is not only availability, but also access and utilization of food, as well as a lack of diversity in the diet of the typical Cambodian. As a consequence, there are high rates of night blindness in children 24-59 months (3.6%) and pregnant women (10%). The national weighed total goitre rate was 12% in school children aged 8 to 12 years."

        Also, your experience in Cambodia means no food deserts in American cities and rural regions?

        And forgive me if I defer to actual nutritional scientists doing actual research in scientific journals for what is worth studying in nutritional science.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 12, 2015, 03:03:43 AM
        The WHO in 2013 have a much brighter picture than the FAO in 1990.

        Average life expectancy 70/75.  Pretty good for a country that still suffers from unexploded US munitions.

        http://apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/report.aspx?iso=khm (http://apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/report.aspx?iso=khm)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 12, 2015, 11:38:59 AM
        Also, adding on to the point estockly made about glycemic index vs. glycemic load, wouldn't it follow that if two foods are equal in GI but Food A is twice as nutrient dense as Food B, Food A would be a better choice because you could get the same amount of nutrients with half the contribution to daily glycemic load as Food B?

        No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.

        I believe I understand it completely. If you think I have it wrong, I invite you to explain to me my error.

        I'll do my best.

        GI is measured by testing blood sugar two hours after consuming a food containing 50g of carbohydrates.
        GL is measured by testing blood sugar two hours after consuming a typical serving of food.

        In the case of carrots, to reach 50g you would need to eat about 4 cups , but the typical serving size used in measuring GL is about 1/4 cup; which is about 5g of carbs. (EDIT: I'm going to verify to those amounts, that sounds off)

        Quote
        Glycemic load is a function of a food's glycemic index and the amount of that particular food eaten.


        No. There is no mathematical relation between the two. They are two different measures of the same effect. But one is not a function of the other. GI measures the blood sugar impact of the same amount of carbs in a given food after two hours; GL measures the blood sugar impact of a typical serving size. One shows only how efficient the body is a removing carbs from the food, the other shows the typical impact of that food on blood sugar.

        Quote
        So even if a food has a particularly high glycemic index, if it is nutrient dense, you don't need to eat very much of it to get its nutritional benefits, which means that food contributes a very low glycemic load.

        No. Fat is a nutrient and has no impact on blood sugar. So one food (bacon) can be more nutrient dense than another (carrots) and have  lower GI and GL. 

        Niether GI or GL measure nutrient density. Only the effect of blood sugar using two very different criteria.

        Quote
        Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.

        Which is exactly the point that I was making with linking to Bill Shrapnel's model. Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation. Unenriched white rice: high GI and pretty nutrient poor - not a relatively good carb recommendation.

        First, neither food is acceptable on a LCHF diet. Second, GI and GL don't tell you anything about nutrients or nutrient density. Only the effect on blood sugar based on the body's absorption of the food; or the body's blood glucose response to a typical serving size.

        And even then, as Moa pointed out, these are only measures in isolation. If ate either those foods with and without high fiber (soluble and insoluble) you'd get very different effect on your blood sugar.

        Quote
        Which means that in determining relative carbohydrate quality, GI is one factor but is by no means negligible. Hence my Food A and Food B comparison. Given two foods with identical GI's, the food with the better nutrient profile is a better choice.
        What is mistaken about that?

        GI and GL only give you one narrow slice of the nutrient value of a food. And, especially on a LCHF diet, the least helpful slice.

        Your approach seems to be to use the GI index to chose which carb heavy food to eat and have the least impact on blood sugar.

        An even better approach would be to avoid carb heavy foods altogether, and keep daily carb intake to an absolute minimum. 

        You don't need carbs in your diet at all. You do need fat and protein.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Herra Efahyggja on April 13, 2015, 11:02:49 PM
        I was way more combative than I should have been. I think I was way too hyped up on caffeine and a bit manic... it was a bad day. I apologize.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 14, 2015, 02:04:03 AM
        I was way more combative than I should have been. I think I was way too hyped up on caffeine and a bit manic... it was a bad day. I apologize.

        Thank you.  I'm afraid I can't blame caffeine.  I need to rein myself in sometimes.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 18, 2015, 04:00:38 PM
        Would a LCHF diet be the first intervention for a diabetic, type I or II?  These people think so.

        http://www.uab.edu/news/innovation/item/4997-low-carb-diet-recommended-for-diabetics (http://www.uab.edu/news/innovation/item/4997-low-carb-diet-recommended-for-diabetics)

        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 23, 2015, 10:54:58 AM
        Obesity is caused by diet,  not exercise? 

        More fuel for the fire.

        Exercise is good … but it won't help you lose weight, say doctors | Society | The Guardian
        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/obesity-owes-more-to-bad-diet-than-lack-of-exercise-say-doctors (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/obesity-owes-more-to-bad-diet-than-lack-of-exercise-say-doctors)

        It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet -- Malhotra et al. -- British Journal of Sports Medicine
        http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/21/bjsports-2015-094911.full (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/21/bjsports-2015-094911.full)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 23, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
        That is a great journal article.  Three well informed researchers with a powerful opinion. 

        I took the message on board fifteen ears ago and never looked back.  It s just great to be able to eat my own fat so easily.  Those guys are absolutely right about the ability to maintain high levels of physical activity without resorting to constant carbohydrate feeding. To free one's
        self of the need for continuos feeding is truly liberating. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 23, 2015, 05:32:55 PM
        And now this...

        Just two weeks of drinking sugary drinks boost risk factors for heart disease, study suggests -- ScienceDaily
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422142515.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422142515.htm)

        A dose-response study of consuming high-fructose corn syrup–sweetened beverages on lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for cardiovascular disease in young adults
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/22/ajcn.114.100461 (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/22/ajcn.114.100461)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 23, 2015, 08:00:56 PM
        And now this...

        Just two weeks of drinking sugary drinks boost risk factors for heart disease, study suggests -- ScienceDaily
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422142515.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422142515.htm)

        A dose-response study of consuming high-fructose corn syrup–sweetened beverages on lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for cardiovascular disease in young adults
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/22/ajcn.114.100461 (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/22/ajcn.114.100461)

        Now convince this forum that even a small dose of coke or whatever is a problem.  I already "hear N=85, too small", "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, nobody reads that"... whatever.  I would think someone will say something like "they'll pry that can of Coke from my cold dead hand".
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 02, 2015, 04:14:52 PM
        An excellent read from two top researchers in the field:

        http://www.ketothrive.com/nutrition/the-rehabilitation-of-beta-hydroxybutyrate/#more-199 (http://www.ketothrive.com/nutrition/the-rehabilitation-of-beta-hydroxybutyrate/#more-199)

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 02, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
        This is a very good discussion about the changes and the science, but the best part is in the intro. It's LOL funny.

        Science Friday: After Decades of Dietary Warnings, Eggs Make a Comeback (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/02/27/2015/after-decades-of-dietary-warnings-eggs-make-a-comeback.html)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 03, 2015, 02:27:54 PM
        This is a very good discussion about the changes and the science, but the best part is in the intro. It's LOL funny.

        Science Friday: After Decades of Dietary Warnings, Eggs Make a Comeback (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/02/27/2015/after-decades-of-dietary-warnings-eggs-make-a-comeback.html)

        I liked this.  WW still clings to the old dogma, even as the waters of doubt rise about him.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 04, 2015, 06:38:16 PM
        American Low-Carb President Coming Up? (http://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb-president-coming-up)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 14, 2015, 04:13:51 PM
        A piece on the CBC about flavour with respect to nutritional quality.  The Dorito effect.

        http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-7-2015-1.3064589/mark-schatzker-our-flavourless-food-leads-to-unhealthy-cravings-1.3064608
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 31, 2015, 02:35:24 PM
        Just another meta-analysis considering colorectal cancer and red meat.  Red meat gets the nod for safety.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25941850
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
        http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html (http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html)

        So same calories from fructose and glucose, and one causes more weight gain. Hmmm.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 01, 2015, 08:44:48 PM
        http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html (http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html)

        So same calories from fructose and glucose, and one causes more weight gain. Hmmm.

        Neither of us is surprised.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 05, 2015, 03:12:17 AM
        It just keeps coming.  Ditch the grains, help your heart.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26003334/

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: wastrel on June 05, 2015, 10:49:32 AM
        (http://i.imgur.com/u4wiyE6.jpg)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 05, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
        (http://i.imgur.com/u4wiyE6.jpg)

        Interesting post, for topic with 3k views.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 05, 2015, 07:23:40 PM
        (http://i.imgur.com/u4wiyE6.jpg)

        Interesting post, for topic with 3k views.

        Ta.  thinking of something like that, but my inherent politeness got in the way...

        Have you heard this interview with Dr Perlmutter, btw.  Long one

        http://blog.primalblueprint.com/episode-70-dr-david-perlmutter/#more-939
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 05, 2015, 08:09:21 PM
        my inherent politeness got in the way...

        I have no such handicap
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 22, 2015, 07:25:19 PM
        This could go in just about any of the diet/carb/ancestral diet/nutrition threads, but I'll just place it here.

        It uses another source to further illustrate the point that following the reduced fat/increased carb guidelines strongly correlates with the rise in rates of overweight and obese Americans. Which is pretty much what I (and Taubes, and Atkins, and Westman, and Phinney and Volek, etc.) have been saying all along.

        Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965–2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity - Nutrition

        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext

        gr3_lrg.jpg 2,449×1,347 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg

        gr4_lrg.jpg 1,619×961 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg

        gr5_lrg.jpg 1,619×940 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 23, 2015, 02:32:01 PM
        It could be more nuanced than  just the macronutrient ration per se.  The human diet also (as well as carbohydrate ratio) increased the amount of antibiotic and glyphosate consumption that both will affect the gut micro biome which have both been shown to increase weight.

        The correlation is quite striking, I admit, land the mechanism (insulin and leptin resistance) is more than plausible.  One would disregard this at one's peril. 

        ...oh,  suppose most of the population has.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 24, 2015, 09:33:29 PM
        And this: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=2338262


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 25, 2015, 04:06:34 AM
        You didn't write that article yourself, did you?  Or did you get Gary or Nina to write it?

        Tatyana should definitely read it; I'd like to read her arse covering comments.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 25, 2015, 04:07:41 AM
        It is almost unbelievable, that article.  Lawyers may be sharpening their pencils.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 09, 2015, 03:02:01 AM
        From the BMJ... by some of the usual suspects.

        http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/07/bjsports-2015-094911.full
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 31, 2015, 05:44:16 PM
        Jimmy Moore hits 1000!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on September 01, 2015, 12:56:45 PM
        That's some impressive longevity. Maybe there's something to this diet after all.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Shibboleth on September 01, 2015, 02:47:03 PM
        Move over Ty Cobb.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 01, 2015, 04:59:08 PM
        This could go in just about any of the diet/carb/ancestral diet/nutrition threads, but I'll just place it here.

        It uses another source to further illustrate the point that following the reduced fat/increased carb guidelines strongly correlates with the rise in rates of overweight and obese Americans. Which is pretty much what I (and Taubes, and Atkins, and Westman, and Phinney and Volek, etc.) have been saying all along.

        Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965–2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity - Nutrition

        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext)

        gr3_lrg.jpg 2,449×1,347 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg)

        gr4_lrg.jpg 1,619×961 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg)

        gr5_lrg.jpg 1,619×940 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg)

        Correlation?  Seriously?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on September 02, 2015, 10:25:52 AM
        Jimmy Moore hits 1000!

        Pounds?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on September 02, 2015, 11:18:04 AM
        Jimmy Moore hits 1000!

        Pounds?
        Google says episodes.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Shibboleth on September 02, 2015, 11:53:03 AM
        Manic episodes?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 02, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
        Episodes of the Livin La Vida Low Carb Show.  Sorry.  Jimmy podcast is quite eclectic and he remains absolutely polite and cool with some of the more testy interviewees. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Plastiq on September 04, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
        This could go in just about any of the diet/carb/ancestral diet/nutrition threads, but I'll just place it here.

        It uses another source to further illustrate the point that following the reduced fat/increased carb guidelines strongly correlates with the rise in rates of overweight and obese Americans. Which is pretty much what I (and Taubes, and Atkins, and Westman, and Phinney and Volek, etc.) have been saying all along.

        Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965–2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity - Nutrition

        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext)

        gr3_lrg.jpg 2,449×1,347 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666312/gr3_lrg.jpg)

        gr4_lrg.jpg 1,619×961 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666306/gr4_lrg.jpg)

        gr5_lrg.jpg 1,619×940 pixels
        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/cms/attachment/2028306880/2046666313/gr5_lrg.jpg)

        Correlation?  Seriously?

        At this point you still take him seriously? Seriously?  ;D
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2015, 05:17:39 PM

        Correlation?  Seriously?

        The Dietary Guidelines were an epidemiological intervention. 

        There are not a lot of good ways to show if a population-wide intervention worked or not or had unintended consequences.

        There are numerous examples in science and medicine where exactly this kind of correlation is used to show the impact of an intervention on a population.

        The back-to-sleep campaign; reduction of lung cancer rates following reduction of smoking are two that come to mind

        If the correlation had been the other way (reduction in obesity following implementation of guidelines) that would be used as proof that the guidelines worked

        At the very least this correlation proves that the guidelines didn't work.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 05, 2015, 06:07:19 PM

        Correlation?  Seriously?

        The Dietary Guidelines were an epidemiological intervention. 

        There are not a lot of good ways to show if a population-wide intervention worked or not or had unintended consequences.

        And of any of them, ecologic correlations are, bar none, the worst.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2015, 06:59:26 PM
        You got that wrong. Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation. And while it's not as strong as other evidence could be there are some cases where you simply can't do an experiment. You can't have a researcher tell 50 moms to always put their babies to sleep in their backs and another 50 to always put them on their tummies, then see how many die before they're a year old.

        Since the dietary guidelines were issued without any scientific evidence to show that they would be effective, correlation was the only evidence they could have used, if there had been a positive correlation. Instead there was a negative correlation.

        Surely that proves, in an unbiased analysis that the guideline did not have the intended effect.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 05, 2015, 07:38:10 PM
        You got that wrong.

        Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

        Quote
        Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation.

        Meh.  Ecologic correlations or lack thereof are pretty useless as evidence: confounding at the individual or group level can produce a spurious correlation or mask a real one.  Using USDA data, I can "prove" by ecologic correlation that the obesity epidemic is due to chicken.  The correlation between chicken intake and obesity is actually stronger than the correlation between sugar intake and obesity. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
        You got that wrong.

        Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

        That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

        So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

        Correlation <> causation. But a lack of correlation suggests no causation.
        Meh.  Ecologic correlations or lack thereof are pretty useless as evidence: confounding at the individual or group level can produce a spurious correlation or mask a real one.  Using USDA data, I can "prove" by ecologic correlation that the obesity epidemic is due to chicken.  The correlation between chicken intake and obesity is actually stronger than the correlation between sugar intake and obesity.

        That depends on what you're trying to measure or show. If you're using this kind of evidence to prove something about a specific nutrient, for example, then you're right, not that good.

        But if you're trying to analyze the impact of an intervention. That's different.

        The dietary guidelines were an intervention. Now 40+ years later we can look at data that show the effect of the intervention.

        Confounding factors at the individual or group level are part of the data. There is no reason to look at this intervention or judge it any differently than we do any other intervention.

        If obesity rates dropped then that would be evidence that the intervention was successful.

        But obesity rates didn't drop. They increased, rather dramatically.

        So, yes that is good evidence that the intervention did not do what they intended nor what they expected. (Despite general compliance in the population with the macronutrient guidelines.)

        And it's also evidence that it may have had the opposite effect and actually caused more obesity.

        ES
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 05, 2015, 08:38:34 PM
        You got that wrong.

        Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

        That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

        So, you've been told you were wrong twice today by nutritional epidemiologists. 

        Quote
        So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

        Oh, you mean the peer review process that led to all the "bad science" you keep referring to?  When you agree with the conclusions of the study, peer review is good; when you disagree, it's bad.  And with a straight fact you say I have "potential bias"?

        Discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.  Long ago you admitted that you were not arguing to learn anything about the subject, but to perfect your arguments.  Funny thing is, your arguments have getting worse.  I think there was a time that you would have admitted that ecologic correlations are bad evidence, you would not have relied on the false dichotomy that it's either controlled experiments or ecologic correlations, and that you would have actually realized that that was a false dichotomy.

        It is amazing that the longer you discuss this subject the lower the quality of arguments become.  There is no point in continuing to discuss this subject with you.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2015, 12:12:38 PM
        You got that wrong.

        Since between the two of us, only one of us has a graduate degree in nutritional epidemiology, I doubt that I am the one who is wrong.

        That's interesting, you're the second person I've conversed with who can say that. The other is one of the authors of this paper.

        So, you've been told you were wrong twice today by nutritional epidemiologists. 

        Nope. But you're wrong again.

        Quote
        So it's between you and your potential bias on the subject and her and the peer review process that led to publication of this article?

        Oh, you mean the peer review process that led to all the "bad science" you keep referring to?  When you agree with the conclusions of the study, peer review is good; when you disagree, it's bad.  And with a straight fact you say I have "potential bias"?

        Nice deflection. Clearly I was comparing your biased comments to peer reviewed science.


        Discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.  Long ago you admitted that you were not arguing to learn anything about the subject, but to perfect your arguments.

        Wrong again. That is a total mischaracterization. My purpose is to learn, and I do hone my arguments, which is also part of the learning process.

         
        Quote
        Funny thing is, your arguments have getting worse.  I think there was a time that you would have admitted that ecologic correlations are bad evidence, you would not have relied on the false dichotomy that it's either controlled experiments or ecologic correlations, and that you would have actually realized that that was a false dichotomy.

        You didn't read the paper linked to, obviously.

        It is amazing that the longer you discuss this subject the lower the quality of arguments become.  There is no point in continuing to discuss this subject with you.

        So, another way to avoid responding to a reasonable argument.

        Once again, science uses epidemiological evidence in a number of valid ways. One way, as in this case, is to measure the impact of a population-wide intervention.

        But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

        Not sure how one could come up with stronger evidence about the effect of the dietary guidelines on the population over the last 40+ years.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Shibboleth on September 06, 2015, 12:50:33 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 06, 2015, 01:03:01 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154 (http://chartsbin.com/view/1154)

        In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.™ 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 06, 2015, 01:15:27 PM

        But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

        ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2015, 01:33:23 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154

        Considering that obesity is excess stored fat, and that stored fat is calories taken in and not burned, then that's pretty much a tautology.

        Yes we have taken in more calories than we have burned. The paper linked to points to a reason why. (The dietary guidelines.)

        As for carbohydrate consumption, that data is an oversimplification.

        First, a percentage of carbs in a diet is not the best measure. The percentage of carbs in a very high calorie diet may be lower than the percentage of carbs in a low calorie diet, but the amount of carbs consumed may still be higher.

        Second, that data only looks at total carbs, and doesn't distinguish between sugars and refined flours.


        Have a look at data for sugar consumption:

        The food consumption quantity (grams per person and day) of sugar and sweeters
        http://chartsbin.com/view/511

        Who Has the Sweetest Tooth ?
        http://chartsbin.com/view/32076
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2015, 01:36:02 PM

        But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

        ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.

        Quote
        Methods
        We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of the NHANES data, documenting how macronutrient consumption patterns and the weight and body mass index in the US adult population have evolved since the 1960s.

        The NHANES data, which, I believe you have cited in the past, is experimental, not ecologic.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2015, 02:00:24 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154 (http://chartsbin.com/view/1154)

        In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.

        In other words, when ecologic data based on very broad population wide statistics agree with your predetermined position it's definitive and settled science.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 06, 2015, 04:03:50 PM

        But, if you'd read the paper, you'd realize that this actually went well beyond simple ecologic correlations.

        ORLY?  Show us a single finding from that study that is not ecologic.

        Quote
        Methods
        We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of the NHANES data, documenting how macronutrient consumption patterns and the weight and body mass index in the US adult population have evolved since the 1960s.

        The NHANES data, which, I believe you have cited in the past, is experimental, not ecologic.

        Except the individual-level data isn't being used in any analysis in the paper, only group-level summaries from it.  Nice try.  Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on September 06, 2015, 04:04:45 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154 (http://chartsbin.com/view/1154)

        In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.

        In other words, when ecologic data based on very broad population wide statistics agree with your predetermined position it's definitive and settled science.

        Not really.  I don't think those international comparisons are useful.  I was making a joke.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2015, 04:10:25 PM
        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154 (http://chartsbin.com/view/1154)

        In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.

        In other words, when ecologic data based on very broad population wide statistics agree with your predetermined position it's definitive and settled science.

        Not really.  I don't think those international comparisons are useful.  I was making a joke.

        So, even your jokes are biased!?

        (click to show/hide)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Shibboleth on September 06, 2015, 04:21:30 PM

        I think that the most obvious and best correlation is the increase in caloric intake over the past four decades. For the average office working man in America they should probably be eating around 2500 calories. If you have a less sedintary job I would push that number a little closer to 3k depending on your age. The average american man eats well over 3k calories so they are taking in more energy than they are expending so the body stores that energy.

        America has one of the lowest contributions of carbohydrates to total consumption as compared to the world. Unfortunately they have the highest caloric intake.

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1154 (http://chartsbin.com/view/1154)

        In other words, It's the Calories, Stupid.

        Lol

        Broscience

        You will love this video especially if you have spent any time around the gym and witnessed the odd love affair between lifters and poptarts

        http://youtu.be/Wd8tZiHexPc
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 08, 2015, 04:59:49 AM
        An interesting article in the BMJ.

        http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000273.full?sid=3d36b292-2ff2-4f8e-82d0-3f4fb33f0d28
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Shibboleth on September 08, 2015, 09:57:48 AM
        As for carbohydrate consumption, that data is an oversimplification.

        First, a percentage of carbs in a diet is not the best measure. The percentage of carbs in a very high calorie diet may be lower than the percentage of carbs in a low calorie diet, but the amount of carbs consumed may still be higher.

        Second, that data only looks at total carbs, and doesn't distinguish between sugars and refined flours.


        If you are coming from the point that carbs are fine but American's eat too much and the wrong kinds I am ok with that statement. I completely agree with the statement, "If you eat too much cut down on carbs, especially if you are sedentary." If you are coming from the standpoint that humans shouldn't be eating a high percentage of carbs in their diet and it is making them fat... I disagree.

        Yes, Americans should eat less processed food and better carbs. They should stay away from carbs with a high glycemic index index most of the time. I don't know why that needs to be extrapolated into the idea that you need to body hack yourself by eating little to no carbs. Yes, they were wrong to demonize fat but I don't know why now we need to be demonizing carbs. Americans aren't getting fat because the percentage of carbs are too high in our diet. They are getting fat because they eat too many calories and yes the wrong kind of carbs exacerbate matters.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 08, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
        Second, that data only looks at total carbs, and doesn't distinguish between sugars and refined flours.


        If you are coming from the point that carbs are fine but American's eat too much and the wrong kinds I am ok with that statement. I completely agree with the statement, "If you eat too much cut down on carbs, especially if you are sedentary." If you are coming from the standpoint that humans shouldn't be eating a high percentage of carbs in their diet and it is making them fat... I disagree.

        A little disagreement never hurt anyone.

        Once again, though, you're failing to distinguish between types of carbs, and that is a misrepresentation.

        It is very difficult to eat a high percentage of calories from carbs in the diet (50% or more) without eating a significant amount of fast, simple high GI carbs. (sugars, refined flours, etc.) Yes, it can be done, but that is not the dietary pattern that leads to overeating and obesity.

        If you're eating good helpings of non-starchy veggies at every meal, keeping protein moderate and eating good fats (not transfers), you're carb intake will be much closer to 15% than 50% of calories, and you will lose weight.

        Quote
        Yes, Americans should eat less processed food and better carbs. They should stay away from carbs with a high glycemic index index most of the time.

        We agree here.

        Quote
        I don't know why that needs to be extrapolated into the idea that you need to body hack yourself by eating little to no carbs.


        That's not the low-carb advice. The low carb advice is to eat little or no sugar, starches or refined flours (the high GI carbs). If you were to look at the LCHF eating plans of allowable foods, I don't think you'd find much to object to.

        Quote
        Yes, they were wrong to demonize fat but I don't know why now we need to be demonizing carbs. Americans aren't getting fat because the percentage of carbs are too high in our diet. They are getting fat because they eat too many calories and yes the wrong kind of carbs exacerbate matters.

        And that's why the link to the article I posted is so interesting. For some reason, until about 40 years ago the obesity rate in the US was low and stable year after year. Then it began to rise dramatically (hockey-stick like). Now more than half the adult population is obese, 3/4 are overweight; we have an epidemic of childhood obesity; infants and toddlers have high obesity rates.

        So, of course, obesity is excess stored fat; stored fat comes from calories eaten but not burned. Then the question is why?

        What has changed in the last 40 years to make the entire population from babies to construction workers prone to being overweight and obese.

        The paper I linked to back in June is more evidence that the high carb, high simple carb, moderate fat dietary pattern that resulted from the USDA dietary guidelines may be to blame.

        (My personal opinion is that we have suffered a "perfect storm" in the diet of the population, the dietary guidelines are a significant factor, among several that have sent us on this unhealthy path).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on October 07, 2015, 02:00:28 PM
        This is a nice article about how the US guidelines for nutrition have viewed saturated fat, and in particular, diary fat over the last several decades and how this position has been challenged of late.  Nothing I haven't read previously, but all in a well written package in the Washington Post.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/06/for-decades-the-government-steered-millions-away-from-whole-milk-was-that-wrong/?postshare=4941444232257473
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 13, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
         http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-effect-of-quitting-sugar

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on October 13, 2015, 01:28:18 PM
        I haven't visited this site for a while. I'd rather look at pictures of Sarah Wilson, though.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 15, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
        Interesting, so eating all the sugar you want is what causes diabetes.

        If you're interested in discussing that, go ahead and start a topic for it. I kind of doubt that a single study with no follow up will be found persuasive.

        In the meantime, how about preventing diabetes by not eating all the sugar you want?

        But then I can't eat all the sugar I want.

        But yeah, eating sugar is a risk factor for diabetes type II. Has anyone here argued otherwise? There's an article in the latest Scientific American about why that is. Allopurinol inhibits the formation of uric acid which causes increased blood pressure, a rise in blood sugar, increase in fat storage, etc. BTW, eating a lot of meat increases the levels of uric acid, so that's probably not that healthy from a Metabolic Syndrome standpoint. But yeah, obviously more studies are needed.

        Metabolic Syndrome? All of the indicators for that diagnosis improve, significantly, on a LCHF diet. And that's with all that steak and bacon and sausage and pork and chicken, etc.





        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2015, 11:42:35 PM
        Dietary Intervention for Overweight and Obese Adults: Comparison of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets. A Meta-Analysis

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817

        Quote
        This trial-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LoCHO diets with LoFAT diets in strictly adherent populations demonstrates that each diet was associated with significant weight loss and reduction in predicted risk of ASCVD events. However, LoCHO diet was associated with modest but significantly greater improvements in weight loss and predicted ASCVD risk in studies from 8 weeks to 24 months in duration. These results suggest that future evaluations of dietary guidelines should consider low carbohydrate diets as effective and safe intervention for weight management in the overweight and obese, although long-term effects require further investigation.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on October 24, 2015, 07:27:05 PM
        There have been a couple of great interview with Denise Minger of late, concerning her massive article about the effectiveness of low fat diets for a variety of problems.  The low fat clinical therapies she speaks of are actually low fat; less than 10% of calories.

        I sometimes wonder how many people here actually try to follow what they think is a healthy way of eating, or just what they can get away with, whilst they can.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 30, 2015, 01:22:04 PM
        Low Fat diets are not better.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185540.htm
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on October 31, 2015, 02:12:33 AM
        Low Fat diets are not better.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185540.htm

        Ummm, Denise cites only studies that are less than 10% fat by calories and basically done with clinical supervision.  She makes a crucial difference here.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on October 31, 2015, 04:34:07 AM
        There have been a couple of great interview with Denise Minger of late, concerning her massive article about the effectiveness of low fat diets for a variety of problems.  The low fat clinical therapies she speaks of are actually low fat; less than 10% of calories.

        I sometimes wonder how many people here actually try to follow what they think is a healthy way of eating, or just what they can get away with, whilst they can.
        Im definitely all about getting away with stuff. I get my blood checked once a year, keep around 15% body fat and watch my fitness markers.
        So until I start to see myself straying outside those lines that would mark an increase in risk, why would I not indulge in things I like?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 31, 2015, 09:57:36 AM
        Low Fat diets are not better.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185540.htm

        Ummm, Denise cites only studies that are less than 10% fat by calories and basically done with clinical supervision.  She makes a crucial difference here.

        Actually, I was posting that just as a general diet comparison, not in direct response to Minger's point.

        You're right, though, the extreme low fat diet Minger cites is not sustainable.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 31, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
        There have been a couple of great interview with Denise Minger of late, concerning her massive article about the effectiveness of low fat diets for a variety of problems.  The low fat clinical therapies she speaks of are actually low fat; less than 10% of calories.

        I sometimes wonder how many people here actually try to follow what they think is a healthy way of eating, or just what they can get away with, whilst they can.
        Im definitely all about getting away with stuff. I get my blood checked once a year, keep around 15% body fat and watch my fitness markers.
        So until I start to see myself straying outside those lines that would mark an increase in risk, why would I not indulge in things I like?

        15% body fat is pretty low (these days) how do you measure it? What fitness markers to you watch?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 19, 2015, 09:20:05 PM
        If you ever wanted to know about ketosis and fasting, it's all on at Tim Ferriss with Dr Dom D'Augustino.  You got athletics, resistance training, breath holding, navy seals, kids with intractable seizures, cognitive improvement and cancer.

        Makes one think about spending a bit more time in ketosis.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 26, 2015, 12:53:37 PM
        Tis is a short talk from the NZ Ancestral Health Symposium discussing the differences between acellular and cellular carbohydrates and the affect on the but microbiota.   I found it quite interesting.  My GP went to this symposium and has been asked to write nutritional guidelines for the practice.  The standard, tired old ones just aren't cutting it, I guess.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5XVDe2ia0&feature=youtu.be
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 04, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
        There is this study in PLOS1 that finds LCHF diets superior to low fat for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817

        A nice interview with the author here:

        http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 04, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
        There is this study in PLOS1 that finds LCHF diets superior to low fat for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817)

        A nice interview with the author here:

        http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/ (http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/)

        Be sure to click on the "About the Authors" tab.  Try not to laugh.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on December 05, 2015, 08:01:19 AM
        There is this study in PLOS1 that finds LCHF diets superior to low fat for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817)

        A nice interview with the author here:

        http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/ (http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/)

        Be sure to click on the "About the Authors" tab.  Try not to laugh.
        Im not sure what that should look like, so Im not sure why you find it amusing?
        Whats the problem with it?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 05, 2015, 12:09:45 PM
        There is this study in PLOS1 that finds LCHF diets superior to low fat for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817)

        A nice interview with the author here:

        http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/ (http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/)

        Be sure to click on the "About the Authors" tab.  Try not to laugh.
        Im not sure what that should look like, so Im not sure why you find it amusing?
        Whats the problem with it?

        The study was supported by the Atkins people.  That's supposed to be funny.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
        There is this study in PLOS1 that finds LCHF diets superior to low fat for reducing weight and improving cardiovascular health:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139817)

        A nice interview with the author here:

        http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/ (http://smashthefat.podbean.com/e/comparing-low-carbohydrate-and-low-fat-diets-with-dr-jonathan-sackner-bernstein/)

        Be sure to click on the "About the Authors" tab.  Try not to laugh.
        Im not sure what that should look like, so Im not sure why you find it amusing?
        Whats the problem with it?

        The first author is a consultant to Atkins Nutritionals.  The second author is a lawyer.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on December 05, 2015, 03:26:32 PM
        I noticed the first author but they did declare that in the conflict section. I know it doesnt make it automtically a good study but what else can they do really? We rely on industry to provide a lot of our studies as far as Im aware? It would make me look very closely at the details though if I were competant to do so.
        Having a lawyer on it seemed weird but I didnt know if that was normal or not.
        Interesting. Thanks. This kind of stuff helps me along.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 04:13:32 PM
        Apparently it's only a problem if you disagree with the results.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 04:29:50 PM
        Apparently it's only a problem if you disagree with the results.

        Apparently, it's only not funny, if you agree with results.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 06:02:23 PM
        I wonder if you would be equally amused by studies funded by the sugar industry?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 06:15:27 PM
        I wonder if you would be equally amused by studies funded by the sugar industry?

        If the first author was a paid consultant, the second author a lawyer, and none of the authors had any apparent training in advanced statistics, yup, that would be funny.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 08:04:13 PM
        I wonder if you would be equally amused by studies funded by the sugar industry?

        If the first author was a paid consultant, the second author a lawyer, and none of the authors had any apparent training in advanced statistics, yup, that would be funny.

        So how do you know all this about the authors? Or are you just making assumptions based on limited evidence, again?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
        I wonder if you would be equally amused by studies funded by the sugar industry?

        If the first author was a paid consultant, the second author a lawyer, and none of the authors had any apparent training in advanced statistics, yup, that would be funny.

        So how do you know all this about the authors?

        I can read.  What's your excuse?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 08:21:25 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 08:29:37 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 08:47:09 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?

        Are you assuming that anyone affiliated with a law school is a lawyer?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on December 05, 2015, 08:56:18 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?

        Are you assuming that anyone affiliated with a law school is a lawyer?
        Yes because it would make more sense to assume that he's a statistician







        Or a janitor
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 05, 2015, 08:56:55 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?

        In the interview, Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein states that he has only a moderate amount of statistics knowledge.  That's why he also said that he hired a professional academic statistics expert, and everything is easily accessible  on line for those that would question the methods.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 08:59:43 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?

        Are you assuming that anyone affiliated with a law school is a lawyer?
        Yes because it would make more sense to assume that he's a statistician

        Or a janitor

        So the answer is yes, you're just making incorrect assumptions again based on limited information.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 09:12:51 PM
        I'm asking where you're reading about the qualifications of the authors.

        I said there was no evidence that any of them has advanced training in statistics.  Two are cardiologists and the third is a lawyer.  Are you aware of any evidence that any of them has advanced statistical training?

        Are you assuming that anyone affiliated with a law school is a lawyer?

        As far as I can tell, he's a law student.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 11:31:34 PM
        There you go again.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 11:40:33 PM
        There you go again.

        Why is this an important line of questioning?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2015, 11:43:37 PM
        It's not. I thought you might have had some source about who was doing the study and was hoping for more information.but absent that I'm just annoyed that it's more assumptions without basis presented as fact. I'll drop it
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 05, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
        It's not. I thought you might have had some source about who was doing the study and was hoping for more information.but absent that I'm just annoyed that it's more assumptions without basis presented as fact. I'll drop it

        We know who did the study: a paid consultant to Atkins Nutritionals, a law student, and a clinical cardiologist.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 06, 2015, 12:55:14 AM
        It's not. I thought you might have had some source about who was doing the study and was hoping for more information.but absent that I'm just annoyed that it's more assumptions without basis presented as fact. I'll drop it

        We know who did the study: a paid consultant to Atkins Nutritionals, a law student, and a clinical cardiologist.

        If it's not that important, why did you bring it up and why keep it going? And how do you know he's a law student?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 06, 2015, 01:08:28 AM
        David Kanter is definitely a student of law.  After getting his BS he was awarded a juris doctor in 1967.  Mustn't be that good as he is still practicing for nearly five decades.  Maybe he'll get it right sometime soon.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 06, 2015, 01:15:49 AM
        It's not. I thought you might have had some source about who was doing the study and was hoping for more information.but absent that I'm just annoyed that it's more assumptions without basis presented as fact. I'll drop it

        We know who did the study: a paid consultant to Atkins Nutritionals, a law student, and a clinical cardiologist.

        If it's not that important, why did you bring it up and why keep it going?

        I just said it was funny.  I'm not keeping it going; you keep asking me about it. 

        Quote
        And how do you know he's a law student?

        See.  There you go again.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 06, 2015, 11:48:05 AM
        It's not. I thought you might have had some source about who was doing the study and was hoping for more information.but absent that I'm just annoyed that it's more assumptions without basis presented as fact. I'll drop it

        We know who did the study: a paid consultant to Atkins Nutritionals, a law student, and a clinical cardiologist.

        If it's not that important, why did you bring it up and why keep it going? And how do you know he's a law student?

        How do you know the sun will go up tomorrow?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 06, 2015, 11:50:26 AM
        Sunrise is nearly as predictable as some of the biased, unsupported, unfounded and baseless assumptions made here
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 06, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
        How would you predict its predictability?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 27, 2015, 05:53:18 PM
        Kiwi scientist Alan Cooper has just published some interesting work with regard to tooth decay and diet.  Not surprisingly, pre-agricultural societies had great teeth and that changed with the change to a carbohydrate based diet.  I like this bit in the article.

        Quote
        Cooper suggests that one way to help return your microbiome to a healthier, more balanced state might be to cut out all of those processed carbs and start eating like our ancestors.

        http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/24/172688806/ancient-chompers-were-healthier-than-ours
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 09, 2016, 12:05:02 PM
        Just a single study (on mice) but I found it interesting; sugar and it's relationship to breast cancer.


        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104080034.htm
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Anders on February 09, 2016, 12:30:42 PM
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2VhwVLkQjY
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 15, 2016, 01:14:43 PM
        Those pesky Australian researchers

        http://www.echo.net.au/2016/02/dietary-control-of-diabetes-could-save-millions-csiro/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 25, 2016, 10:52:02 PM

        Well this is interesting. The new head of the FDA is a co-author of a paper with one of the top LCHF doctors. (Westman)

        http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/107/1/10.full
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 26, 2016, 03:36:19 AM

        Well this is interesting. The new head of the FDA is a co-author of a paper with one of the top LCHF doctors. (Westman)

        http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/107/1/10.full

        Yes, very interesting.  Good article.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 26, 2016, 12:33:39 PM
        Mark Hyman and David Ludwig are making the podcast interview rounds with their new books.  Heavy hitters on the eat fat without fear side of things.  Mark Hyman has really changed his views on saturated fat.

        I dragged out an old Chris Kresser episode with Dr. Alessio Fasano.  It was very educational.

        These researcher/practitioners are a lot more instructive than reading sniping from SBM.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 27, 2016, 12:43:45 PM
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract

        Get's boring after a while.  One would think the power of evidence would change some minds... maybe not, though.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 27, 2016, 02:31:44 PM
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract)

        Get's boring after a while.  One would think the power of evidence would change some minds... maybe not, though.

        This study is worthless.  Your confirmation bias is off the scale.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 27, 2016, 03:40:47 PM
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract)

        Get's boring after a while.  One would think the power of evidence would change some minds... maybe not, though.

        This study is worthless...

        It's a wonder that any study that disagrees with your predetermined position get published. They all seem worthless.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 27, 2016, 04:14:35 PM
        http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/02/10/ajcn.115.122317.abstract)

        Get's boring after a while.  One would think the power of evidence would change some minds... maybe not, though.

        This study is worthless...

        It's a wonder that any study that disagrees with your predetermined position get published. They all seem worthless.

        That's just plain bullshit.  And it is pitiful that you and LM can't see for yourselves that this study could not possibly find any relationship between dietary cholesterol and any study outcomes.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 27, 2016, 04:21:04 PM
        You should have been on the peer review committee.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 27, 2016, 04:46:54 PM
        You should have been on the peer review committee.

        I would have recommended that the paper be published.  The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study.  Unfortunately, some readers don't.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 27, 2016, 05:02:08 PM
        You should have been on the peer review committee.

        I would have recommended that the paper be published.  The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study.  Unfortunately, some readers don't.

        You would have recommended a study that is worthless be published?

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 27, 2016, 05:11:43 PM
        You should have been on the peer review committee.

        I would have recommended that the paper be published.  The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study.  Unfortunately, some readers don't.

        You would have recommended a study that is worthless be published?

        By "worthless," I meant that the study had little hope of finding an association between dietary cholesterol and the study outcomes.  But it is important to publish null findings to avoid publication bias.  It's one thing that epidemiology gets right, unlike, say, experimental psychology (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114255).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 07, 2016, 12:00:43 PM
        Everything here to make some roll their eyes in this interview.  Mainstream conventional medicine goes Bulletproof; seems Mark and Dave are great pals.  Dr Hyman seems to have made a rather large change in his dietary recommendations to his patients (and himself) with regards to fat.

        https://www.bulletproofexec.com/mark-hyman-meat-is-the-new-ketchup-288/

        A great conversation and a good advert for Hyman's new book. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on March 07, 2016, 04:33:50 PM

        How come nobody posted this story?

        http://news.usc.edu/92558/processed-meat-may-increase-the-risk-of-breast-cancer-for-latinas-usc-study-finds/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 07, 2016, 08:23:15 PM

        How come nobody posted this story?

        http://news.usc.edu/92558/processed-meat-may-increase-the-risk-of-breast-cancer-for-latinas-usc-study-finds/

        It sounds very complex.  And just what constitutes a 'Latina'?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: SkeptiQueer on March 08, 2016, 12:05:45 AM



        How come nobody posted this story?

        http://news.usc.edu/92558/processed-meat-may-increase-the-risk-of-breast-cancer-for-latinas-usc-study-finds/

        It sounds very complex.  And just what constitutes a 'Latina'?

        Typically, a woman of Latin-American descent. Latina is a subset of Hispanic, but Hispanic would also refer to Iberian (Portuguese, Spanish national) and some of their other colonies outside Latin America.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 08, 2016, 12:34:18 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on March 08, 2016, 07:04:58 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 09, 2016, 12:01:22 AM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on March 09, 2016, 12:50:06 AM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.


        It is well known that a vegan's aura interacts with the t distribution, skewing the resulting p-values.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: SkeptiQueer on March 09, 2016, 04:31:05 AM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Have you examined the dietary habits of he authors of the pro-LCHF studies in this thread?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 09, 2016, 12:28:55 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Have you examined the dietary habits of he authors of the pro-LCHF studies in this thread?

        I have.  Mark Hyman, and others, have changed from vegetarians to omnivores.  The health benefits of a high fat diet are just too large to ignore.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on March 09, 2016, 12:37:15 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Have you examined the dietary habits of he authors of the pro-LCHF studies in this thread?

        I have.  Mark Hyman, and others, have changed from vegetarians to omnivores.  The health benefits of a high fat diet are just too large to ignore.
        So....their science ISNT biased because they follow the diet they are recommending? But hers is because she is making a claim about processed meat (not even close to a vegan stance)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Anders on March 09, 2016, 02:37:36 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Have you examined the dietary habits of he authors of the pro-LCHF studies in this thread?

        I have.  Mark Hyman, and others, have changed from vegetarians to omnivores.  The health benefits of a high fat diet are just too large to ignore.

        You do realize that there are high-fat vegetarian options, right?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 09, 2016, 03:48:31 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.

        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        Have you examined the dietary habits of he authors of the pro-LCHF studies in this thread?

        I have.  Mark Hyman, and others, have changed from vegetarians to omnivores.  The health benefits of a high fat diet are just too large to ignore.

        You do realize that there are high-fat vegetarian options, right?

        One misses out on the fat from dairy, eggs, fish, liver and muscle meat.  One might be drawn to vegetable oils; PUFA's are high in omega six and have been shown to be deleterious to health. 

        http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707

        Quote
        substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.

        That leaves one with nuts, avocados, olive and coconut oil for healthy fats.  No Omega 3's and less nutrients generally.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on March 09, 2016, 04:06:55 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.
        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        And the pro-LCHF folks you mention are meat eaters, so they must be every bit as biased as she is, right?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 10, 2016, 12:54:23 PM
        So Latinas might be differentiated by their native American genetic influence.  Or are these Latinas only singled out because they are from the USA?  The line about the colorectal cancer increase and processed meat study makes me wonder about about bias.
        Oh the irony.
        The lead author, Mariana Stern, is a vegan.
        And the pro-LCHF folks you mention are meat eaters, so they must be every bit as biased as she is, right?

        Most researchers, as are most people, are omnivorous. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: SkeptiQueer on March 10, 2016, 02:58:36 PM
        Can you go into more detail about why it's a problem for a researcher to be a vegan if they find a meat/cancer link, but not for an LCHFer to do research expounding the benefits of LCHFing?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 10, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
        Can you go into more detail about why it's a problem for a researcher to be a vegan if they find a meat/cancer link, but not for an LCHFer to do research expounding the benefits of LCHFing?

        Most of the researchers doing the LCHF trials are not LCHF proponents. In some cases they assumed they'd find evidence that LCHF was less effective or caused heart problems, in other cases they're doing trials comparing various diets for their own reasons.

        When a LCHF proponents do publish research, any links they might have to Atkins Foundation are immediately raised as evidence of partiality.

        The Atkins Foundation does fund research, but their only limit on the researchers is that the diets they refer to as LCHF are meet established criteria for LCHF diets. But that doesn't stop critics (including posters in these forums) from claiming some kind of bias.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 11, 2016, 12:42:05 AM
        Ta. Well said, as I have come to expect.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 13, 2016, 04:27:42 AM
        A very nice interview with Dr Michael Mosely on reversing type II diabetes.  It can be done. This is not woo.

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thiswayup/audio/201792935/a-diet-for-diabetes
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 07, 2016, 11:15:26 AM
        A long read, and not for the feint of heart, but well worth it

        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin



        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 07, 2016, 02:37:26 PM
        A long read, and not for the feint of heart, but well worth it

        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin



        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Ta.  I like this:
        Quote
        At best, we can conclude that the official guidelines did not achieve their objective; at worst, they led to a decades-long health catastrophe.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 07, 2016, 03:31:13 PM
        Ian Leslie is a real sceptic,  This article should be required reading for all.

        Great journalism.  Thanks again for the link.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 12, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
        http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

        And more



        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 13, 2016, 09:55:38 PM
        Like the Sydney Heart Study

        From Dr Briffa's look at this report on the study:

        Quote
        The results of this study were reported in 1978. The men who cut back on saturated fat and boosted their omega-6 intake were found to be at increased risk of death. Effects of the diet on risk of death from cardiovascular disease (including heart disease) were not reported. In this week’s review, the researchers go back to this data to extract this information.

        Their analysis confirms the original report of increased risk of death in men on the omega-6-rich diet. Risk of death was elevated by 62 per cent.

        However, new findings previously unearthed (or undeclared) were that the men eating the ‘heart-healthy’ diet were at increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and heart disease (increases of 70 and 74 per cent respectively).

        So, the very diet designed to reduce the risk of heart disease and fatal heart attack was found to have the opposite effect: It killed men, and specifically from heart disease.

        http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

        A diet high in polyunsaturated fats might lower one's total cholesterol but, especially in men over 65, it increases mortality.  The Hunt study is the only one  have seen that looks at women's total cholesterol and it looks like the greater the number, the lower the risk of death.  Looks like a few people in the intervention group kind of lost out.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on April 13, 2016, 10:22:55 PM
        http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 (http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246)

        To put this study into context, one should read Shilpa N Bhupathiraju's comment (http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246/rapid-responses), which begins part-way down the page.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on April 13, 2016, 10:36:08 PM
        In the event that estockly and lonely moa won't click a link that might cast doubt on their precious fetish for saturated fat, here's the main text of that comment:
        Quote
        Ramsden and colleagues conclusions on replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid are not supported by the data. Contrary to their claims, strong and consistent evidence from both randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies indicate that replacing saturated fat with healthy fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fats) has favorable effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD).

        There were major problems with both the design and interpretation of the data from the MCE. The most severe of these are the duration of the trial and the very high rates of dropout. Only ~25% of the study participants received the study diets for more than a year with an average exposure of ~3 years. The short-term duration of the intervention and unusually high rates of non-compliance called the validity of the study into question.

        Second, their data on the degree of atherosclerotic progression confirmed through autopsy was on a very small number (n=149). It is highly unlikely for a 1-year intervention to alter plaque that has been built up for decades. In fact, well-known dietary intervention studies such as the Los Angeles Veterans Administration trial1 and the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2 lasted more than 5 years and found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats reduced both serum cholesterol and CHD incidence.

        Third, the authors found that the excess mortality with the serum cholesterol lowering intervention (“cholesterol paradox”) was primarily confined to patients 65 years and older. Analyses in this sub-sample are plagued by the same issues that we observe with the “obesity paradox3”, where weight loss is often associated with increased mortality in older individuals or hospitalized patients. Also, among those aged ≥65 years, the hazard ratio for death was similar in the intervention group and the control group suggesting that the intervention, per se, had no effect on death.

        Fourth, the intervention used in the MCE does not in any way reflect the average American diet. In fact, the level of linoleic acid (13.2%, range: 11.3%-16.5%) in the intervention group is well above the levels consumed by the US population (average 7%).4 It is also important to note that major food sources of linoleic acid such as soybean oil, canola oil, and walnuts also contain substantial amounts of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid.

        Fifth, the authors’ meta-analyses looked at CHD mortality, which is not a primary endpoint in many of the trials. The meta-analysis also omitted the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2, an important study with similar levels of linoleic acid intake as the MCE that showed a reduction in both serum cholesterol and cardiovascular events. In fact, a previous meta-analysis, which included the MCE, found significant benefits of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats on both serum cholesterol and incidence of major cardiovascular events5. The statistical power for analyzing CHD mortality was greatly reduced compared to that for incident CVD events.

        Finally, the authors suggest several biological “hypotheses”, including changes to lipoprotein particle oxidation that may have contributed to increased CHD risk in the intervention group. However, this is merely speculative and evidence from randomized clinical trials do not support the role of linoleic acid in increased inflammation.6

        In sum, this report is highly misleading and should not alter current dietary recommendations that emphasize healthy sources of fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and plant-based monounsaturated fat) as a replacement for saturated fat in the context of healthy eating patterns.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 14, 2016, 12:06:22 PM

        Quote
        Ramsden and colleagues conclusions on replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid are not supported by the data. Contrary to their claims, strong and consistent evidence from both randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies indicate that replacing saturated fat with healthy fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fats) has favorable effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD).

        That, of course, is at issue. Is there good evidence that replacing placing saturated fats with those fats is beneficial. This study was considered evidence to support that, but it turns out that's a result of using incomplete and cherry-picked data.

        Since it didn't support the pre-drawn conclusion, the assumption is there were problems with the study or its design.

        Quote
        There were major problems with both the design and interpretation of the data from the MCE. The most severe of these are the duration of the trial and the very high rates of dropout. Only ~25% of the study participants received the study diets for more than a year with an average exposure of ~3 years. The short-term duration of the intervention and unusually high rates of non-compliance called the validity of the study into question.

        With such a large study, a high dropout rate is not unexpected. Three years is a pretty good for any study on nutrition.



        Quote
        Second, their data on the degree of atherosclerotic progression confirmed through autopsy was on a very small number (n=149). It is highly unlikely for a 1-year intervention to alter plaque that has been built up for decades. In fact, well-known dietary intervention studies such as the Los Angeles Veterans Administration trial1 and the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2 lasted more than 5 years and found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats reduced both serum cholesterol and CHD incidence.

        OK, Here he jumps from evidence of changes in plaque to mortality. Two different issues. Changes in plaque was only once of the main outcomes and only a portion of the autopsies were from subjects who participated for less than one year.


        Quote
        Third, the authors found that the excess mortality with the serum cholesterol lowering intervention (“cholesterol paradox”) was primarily confined to patients 65 years and older. Analyses in this sub-sample are plagued by the same issues that we observe with the “obesity paradox3”, where weight loss is often associated with increased mortality in older individuals or hospitalized patients. Also, among those aged ≥65 years, the hazard ratio for death was similar in the intervention group and the control group suggesting that the intervention, per se, had no effect on death.

        Here, without evidence, he's claiming that since his study observed a different paradox, that this study must be victim to the same error.


        Quote
        Fourth, the intervention used in the MCE does not in any way reflect the average American diet. In fact, the level of linoleic acid (13.2%, range: 11.3%-16.5%) in the intervention group is well above the levels consumed by the US population (average 7%).4 It is also important to note that major food sources of linoleic acid such as soybean oil, canola oil, and walnuts also contain substantial amounts of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid.

        It's an intervention, so of course it's going to be different that the average American diet.

        Quote
        Fifth, the authors’ meta-analyses looked at CHD mortality, which is not a primary endpoint in many of the trials. The meta-analysis also omitted the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2, an important study with similar levels of linoleic acid intake as the MCE that showed a reduction in both serum cholesterol and cardiovascular events. In fact, a previous meta-analysis, which included the MCE, found significant benefits of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats on both serum cholesterol and incidence of major cardiovascular events5. The statistical power for analyzing CHD mortality was greatly reduced compared to that for incident CVD events.

        Once again, the assumption is that pre-drawn conclusions must be correct, even if they used the incomplete data from the same study that the commenter just criticized for poor design.


        Quote
        Finally, the authors suggest several biological “hypotheses”, including changes to lipoprotein particle oxidation that may have contributed to increased CHD risk in the intervention group. However, this is merely speculative and evidence from randomized clinical trials do not support the role of linoleic acid in increased inflammation.6

        Right, the authors "suggest" a plausible mechanism. Of course it's speculation.

        Quote
        In sum, this report is highly misleading and should not alter current dietary recommendations that emphasize healthy sources of fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and plant-based monounsaturated fat) as a replacement for saturated fat in the context of healthy eating patterns.

        Yes, we must never alter current dietary recommendations even when it's discovered that the evidence used to support those recommendations is suspect and actually contradicts their use.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on April 14, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
        2604 posts and you still haven't figured out how quote tags work? (Not a big deal, perhaps, but it sort of amounts to you putting words in my mouth.)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 14, 2016, 05:41:13 PM
        2604 posts and you still haven't figured out how quote tags work? (Not a big deal, perhaps, but it sort of amounts to you putting words in my mouth.)

        Fixed.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on April 15, 2016, 04:41:32 PM
        I actually just came over here to see if Lonly Moa was still getting shit about his dietary leanings.   I have no idea what the science says on any of this, any more than it's complicated, and we really just don't know.

        I mostly cut all grains and sugars out of my diet, but otherwise didn't change anything.  I have had continuing gut and bowel problems over the last 15 years, and I finally just did what my dad did about the time I was born and cut all non-veggie carbs out of my diet.  Okay, occasionally I eat a square of dark chocolate or a few bites of ice cream.  My gut and butt problems went away.  I don't even fart any more.  And I lost 15 pounds without even thinking about it (I wasn't that big in the first place, and no, it's not water weight, it's actual weight).  Since then, I've been listening to and reading a lot of material and science on LCHF.  Most of it is beyond my understanding, and obviously 'the experts' can't even come to similar conclusions.  So I'm just gonna keep doing what makes me feel better.  And I'm not the only one who feels better on this type of diet.  The human digestive system is obviously extremely complex, and differs wildly from person to person.  If someone is having a hard time with (mild, chronic) health issues, or weight, I always recommend they start by adjusting their diet and see what works for them (and seeing a real doctor, of course).  HF diets work extremely well for some people, and not for others.  There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS (sample size good enough)of people on Reddit who have been doing HFLC diets and had great success with them, in losing weight and improving overall health.  I don't think the government of our country should be pushing a specific set of dietary guidelines, but there should be better education around understanding how your diet may effect your health, and how a diet that works for others may or may not work for you.  Trying to claim one diet is good or bad for all the people seems....pointless.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 15, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
        I actually just came over here to see if Lonly Moa was still getting shit about his dietary leanings.   I have no idea what the science says on any of this, any more than it's complicated, and we really just don't know.

        I mostly cut all grains and sugars out of my diet, but otherwise didn't change anything.  I have had continuing gut and bowel problems over the last 15 years, and I finally just did what my dad did about the time I was born and cut all non-veggie carbs out of my diet.  Okay, occasionally I eat a square of dark chocolate or a few bites of ice cream.  My gut and butt problems went away.  I don't even fart any more.  And I lost 15 pounds without even thinking about it (I wasn't that big in the first place, and no, it's not water weight, it's actual weight).  Since then, I've been listening to and reading a lot of material and science on LCHF.  Most of it is beyond my understanding, and obviously 'the experts' can't even come to similar conclusions.  So I'm just gonna keep doing what makes me feel better.  And I'm not the only one who feels better on this type of diet.  The human digestive system is obviously extremely complex, and differs wildly from person to person.  If someone is having a hard time with (mild, chronic) health issues, or weight, I always recommend they start by adjusting their diet and see what works for them (and seeing a real doctor, of course).  HF diets work extremely well for some people, and not for others.  There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS (sample size good enough)of people on Reddit who have been doing HFLC diets and had great success with them, in losing weight and improving overall health.  I don't think the government of our country should be pushing a specific set of dietary guidelines, but there should be better education around understanding how your diet may effect your health, and how a diet that works for others may or may not work for you.  Trying to claim one diet is good or bad for all the people seems....pointless.

        Welcome to the party!

        Just to emphasize one point. We do not know what the ideal diet for humans is. Nor do we know what the ideal weight loss diet for overweight and obese humans would be.

        But we do know that the diet specified in the current (and previous) US dietary guidelines is not it, and, for weight loss, we also know a calorie-restricted low fat diet is not it.

        The ideal human diet is probably much closer to the Paleo diet. The ideal weight loss diet is probably much closer to the LCHF/Ketogenic diet.

        The problem is, that thanks to the entrenched opinions in the field, we (mainstream medical and nutritional science) have given up looking for the ideal diet for humans. In some cases there is an assumption that it's the dietary guidelines, in other cases, for various reasons, people give up before trying.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on April 15, 2016, 04:57:58 PM
        In my humble and entirely uneducated opinion, I agree that the current dietary guidelines, and the idea of putting refined sugar (HFCs, whatever, same thing) and flour in goddamn near everything just to avoid fat is probably one of the worst things we've done to the health of our population.  But that's just like, my opinion, man.

        Glad to see others fighting the good fight for me.  I'm gonna go read some books on psychology.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 15, 2016, 05:30:44 PM
        Thank you Karyn and I am over the moon that you have regained your health.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 17, 2016, 07:02:52 PM
        http://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/are-all-calories-equal

        More LCHF blasphemy and heresy

        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 06, 2016, 03:12:54 PM
        One of this season's low carb lambs.  Thank you.

         
        (http://i.imgur.com/cJohdrn.jpg)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 21, 2016, 04:19:53 PM
        Science in Action!  Drs Ludwig and Eades confront Kevin Hall's ketogenic metabolic study.  Interesting to read the study being taken apart by experts with an opposing view, and actually show how the opposing view was not so opposing.  Hall's study has not yet been published so the periscope version is all I cound get.

        https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/defense-of-the-insulin-carbohydrate-model-redux-a-response-to-kevin-hall-37ea64907257#.m9tamcceg

        https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2016/05/06/contradictions-and-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUyjMjuLl0
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 22, 2016, 02:38:17 PM
        Taubes and "Why We Get Fat" nd the "Biggest Loser".  A new trial with David Ludwig.



        http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-taubes-why-we-get-fat-20160511-story.html


        The "Biggest Loser" study, published in 'Obesity', is very interesting.  The average weight regain after 6 years was enormous.  The average metabolic decrease (average of -500kcal/day) was gobsmacking.  Looks like the participants were taken for a ride.  But then again, even bariatric surgery patients have a 60% rate of weight regain to and above baseline. 

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

        Best idea IMHO, eat an easy to follow a tasty and satisfying high fat diet that excludes highly processed carbs like grains and sugar (and vegetable oil).  No hunger, no visceral obesity and no treadmill time.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 23, 2016, 05:46:38 PM
        Jimmy Moore has compiled a great stack of lectures from the SA LCHF symposium.  Worth a look.  If you're interested you'll have the link bookmarked.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 24, 2016, 02:20:50 AM
        And did you all get one of these in your morning paper?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/eat-fat-to-get-thin-30-years-of-flawed-dietary-advice-is-disastr/

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 24, 2016, 04:03:26 PM
        And did you all get one of these in your morning paper?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/eat-fat-to-get-thin-30-years-of-flawed-dietary-advice-is-disastr/

        I've been looking for a version of the report these articles are based on. As much as I agree with everything they say, I'm a little concerned about the sources.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on May 24, 2016, 05:02:46 PM
        And did you all get one of these in your morning paper?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/eat-fat-to-get-thin-30-years-of-flawed-dietary-advice-is-disastr/

        I've been looking for a version of the report these articles are based on. As much as I agree with everything they say, I'm a little concerned about the sources.

        I was looking for that same thing....  Just came back here to see if anyone had a link.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 24, 2016, 06:59:25 PM
        Dr Aseem Malhotra is the lecturer in todays SA LCHF series.  He was introduced as one fo the 10 brightest young thinkers in Britain.... for what that's worth. He is a very experienced surgical cardiologist.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 25, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
        And did you all get one of these in your morning paper?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/eat-fat-to-get-thin-30-years-of-flawed-dietary-advice-is-disastr/

        I've been looking for a version of the report these articles are based on. As much as I agree with everything they say, I'm a little concerned about the sources.



        I was looking for that same thing....  Just came back here to see if anyone had a link.
        Quote
        https://phcuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Eat-Fat-Cut-The-Carbs-and-Avoid-Snacking-To-Reverse-Obesity-and-Type-2-Diabetes-National-Obesity-Forum-Public-Health-Collaboration.pdf

        My reservations were based on PHC.

        https://phcuk.org/about/

         Their director is that guy we've talked about who overate to obesity and then lost the weight again, and did a few other very n=1 experiments, like overeating on a LCHF diet and tracking his weight.

        I like the guy and he has a good message, I'm just surprised this work is being presented as a major scientific report in the media.

        It's a good, accurate and well researched paper, and I agree with pretty much everything in it.

        But I'd say it's more geared toward informing the public than presenting scientific information.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on May 25, 2016, 12:00:08 PM
        My main concern was that I knew the phc was built mainly to come up with studies and research to promote the LCHF way of life.  I have no problem with their existence, I just also know that they have a one sided agenda, and wanted to check how much of that bias made it's way into their study designs.  Really more of a curiosity.  I don't know shit about nutrition science, except what I've read in a book, which can also skew the science in it's own way.  It's entirely a new topic to me, so I'm still poking my own skepticism to make sure I'm not wildly off the mark on this one.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on May 25, 2016, 12:54:24 PM
        My main concern was that I knew the phc was built mainly to come up with studies and research to promote the LCHF way of life.  I have no problem with their existence, I just also know that they have a one sided agenda, and wanted to check how much of that bias made it's way into their study designs.  Really more of a curiosity.  I don't know shit about nutrition science, except what I've read in a book, which can also skew the science in it's own way.  It's entirely a new topic to me, so I'm still poking my own skepticism to make sure I'm not wildly off the mark on this one.
        I like that approach.
        I think its worth saying that one can be an outlier for whom the general guidelines dont fit, without those guidelines being generally untrue.
        I also dont know dick about nutrition science so I just try to keep an eye on my general body fat levels/fitness and my blood results/medical exams each year to see if I need to start steering away from certain things.
        The level of discourse just goes way beyond my ability to confidently make decisions based on it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 25, 2016, 02:22:06 PM
        I miss Feltham's "Smash the Fat" podcast. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 27, 2016, 03:16:09 PM
        I stumbled on this chart... I love charts.  Not surprised at where France sits, I hang my head in shame for Kiwis, though.


        http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5232209feab8ea3a18966709-960/screen%20shot%202013-09-12%20at%204.09.32%20pm-1.png?_ga=1.4795188.606432227.1464376818
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 27, 2016, 08:22:16 PM
        I stumbled on this chart... I love charts.  Not surprised art where France sits, I hang my head in shame for Kiwis, though.


        http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5232209feab8ea3a18966709-960/screen%20shot%202013-09-12%20at%204.09.32%20pm-1.png?_ga=1.4795188.606432227.1464376818

        USA! We're number 1. yay?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on May 27, 2016, 08:44:08 PM
        Was a soda just classed as any carbonated drink? Because it seems to me that they arent all equal. Not that I see anyone in Ireland or the UK drinking any I might consider not that bad sugar wise.
        I sometimes go a week or maybe two where I drink loads of coke, then I feel ill everytime I see it for at least a couple of months. Plastic bottles make me feel ill to look at or think about regardless.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on June 29, 2016, 02:54:20 PM
        Was a soda just classed as any carbonated drink? Because it seems to me that they arent all equal. Not that I see anyone in Ireland or the UK drinking any I might consider not that bad sugar wise.
        I sometimes go a week or maybe two where I drink loads of coke, then I feel ill everytime I see it for at least a couple of months. Plastic bottles make me feel ill to look at or think about regardless.

        I'm guessing soda == any carbonated beverage that is basically just water, sugar (or substitute) and flavor.  That's how I classify them, and I just don't, unless it's a ginger ale going in a whiskey ginger.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on June 29, 2016, 02:59:42 PM
        Gingerale is something of a treat for me! It makes a good spacer if I want to have a break between whiskeys too.
        Do you guys get ginger beer there? It goes deliciously with dark rum!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 29, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
        I'm at this moment listening to a lecture by Dr. Aseem Maholtra, British cardiologist.  Fizzy drinks, ya just don't want to go there. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on June 29, 2016, 03:18:26 PM
        Gingerale is something of a treat for me! It makes a good spacer if I want to have a break between whiskeys too.
        Do you guys get ginger beer there? It goes deliciously with dark rum!

        Dark Rum + Ginger Beer + Limes = Dark and Stormy.  Super tasty.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on June 29, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
        Man. I just ran for 30minutes and all I thought about was drinking jameson and ginger ale.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 29, 2016, 04:26:54 PM
        Man. I just ran for 30minutes and all I thought about was drinking jameson and ginger ale.
        So much for all those calories you burned running!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on June 29, 2016, 04:37:49 PM
        Man. I just ran for 30minutes and all I thought about was drinking jameson and ginger ale.
        So much for all those calories you burned running!
        Lol! Well I just did the math and I can have two drinks and still break even!
        I dont run for calorie control anyway though. Things seem to even out across the board and keep me at the percentage body fat that I want.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 29, 2016, 04:40:17 PM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on June 29, 2016, 05:24:56 PM
        Oh nooo! Id have gained a whole 10 calories!!!
        Edit- Actually....no. Im still good. I was just counting the core session. There was 10min of warm up/warm down I hadnt counted that gets me there.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on June 29, 2016, 05:29:17 PM
        Oh nooo! Id have gained a whole 10 calories!!!
        Edit- Actually....no. Im still good. I was just counting the core session. There was 10min of warm up/warm down I hadnt counted that gets me there.
        (http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Monitor-Throw-Maurice-Moss-The-IT-Crowd.gif)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 29, 2016, 05:31:26 PM
        Oh nooo! Id have gained a whole 10 calories!!!
        Edit- Actually....no. Im still good. I was just counting the core session. There was 10min of warm up/warm down I hadnt counted that gets me there.

        As long as the exercise doesn't make you hungry too, you should be fine, then!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on June 29, 2016, 05:50:31 PM
        Oh nooo! Id have gained a whole 10 calories!!!
        Edit- Actually....no. Im still good. I was just counting the core session. There was 10min of warm up/warm down I hadnt counted that gets me there.

        As long as the exercise doesn't make you hungry too, you should be fine, then!
        Yeah. Its weird. When I stop exercising for a while, my body pretty much just refuses food and I struggle to finish a single meal. But when Im training, following my whims hasnt posed much of a problem.
        The last three years Ive done bodybuilder style cuts once per year and it all seems to be running well.
        The cake I just baked and ate definitely put me over what I burned while running though!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 29, 2016, 11:49:52 PM
        Well ES, it's a great thing to lose one's desire for sweet, isn't it. 

        Kind of free's one to forget about calories, workouts and the next sweet treat... and concentrate on meat and veggies.  The exercise just comes naturally. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 30, 2016, 12:12:38 AM
        Yup


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 30, 2016, 01:18:19 AM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on June 30, 2016, 10:46:02 AM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?

        All of them.  Good god, that sounds like a lot of fun.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 30, 2016, 11:21:32 AM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?

        You may drink as many beers as you wish. IF you're trying to lose weight or improve your healthy, though, that may be counter-productive.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 30, 2016, 11:52:54 AM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?

        You may drink as many beers as you wish. IF you're trying to lose weight or improve your healthy, though, that may be counter-productive.

        Can't argue with you about the health part, but as far as losing weight goes, you're right: I could drink all the beers I wish.  My pre-beer energy deficit for the day was around –2500 kcal, which would require about 17 bottles of beer to offset.  I only got through 2.5 beers before falling asleep.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 30, 2016, 11:59:15 AM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?

        All of them.  Good god, that sounds like a lot of fun.

        It was tough but fun.  I encountered a group of seven bighorn sheep on the first summit and an animal of a different kind, the legendary hiker Seuk Doo Kim (http://thesheetnews.com/2014/09/25/from-korea-to-mammoth/), on the second.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 30, 2016, 12:09:02 PM
        Check your calculations. How many calories would you have burned not running. Subtract that from what you did but while running, and compare that to the calories in your sugary drink!

        Hey, ES.  I just did two laps up to the summits of Mt Harwood and Mt Baldy via Register Ridge on two eggs, a slice of w/w toast, and a Clif Bar.  7100 feet gross elevation gain.  How many beers can I drink tonight?

        You may drink as many beers as you wish. IF you're trying to lose weight or improve your healthy, though, that may be counter-productive.

        Can't argue with you about the health part, but as far as losing weight goes, you're right: I could drink all the beers I wish.  My pre-beer energy deficit for the day was around –2500 kcal, which would require about 17 bottles of beer to offset.  I only got through 2.5 beers before falling asleep.

        Counter productive in that your 2500 calorie deficit dropped almost 400 calories.

        Beer is not an essential nutrient, doesn't contain a lot of nutrients, doesn't help that much with rehydration (due to the alcohol) and doesn't replenish electrolytes.

        If you're consuming the beer around the same time you're consuming lots of sugar (sucrose or HFCS), it may cause issues for you liver.

        But if it helps motivate you to keep fit (as a reward?), enjoy.

        https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/beer
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 30, 2016, 12:42:35 PM

        Beer is not an essential nutrient, doesn't contain a lot of nutrients, doesn't help that much with rehydration (due to the alcohol) and doesn't replenish electrolytes.

        Coincidentally, none of the reasons I drink it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 08, 2016, 03:43:14 PM
        The last of the Capetown lecture series was just published on Jimmy Moore's podcast.  Dr Tim Noakes was great looking at how medical science works, or doesn't, the power of anecdotes and the venality of one's colleagues.  If you haven't listened to an of these, ES, this is the one... but you most likely have.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on July 08, 2016, 03:55:33 PM
        Yup. And that one was one of the best


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 08, 2016, 04:01:32 PM
        He's a hero.  I loved "Waterlogged" and I am impressed that he said in public, "I have been wrong" and apologised.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on July 12, 2016, 10:01:49 AM
        I'll just leave this here.

        Quote
        "If you’ve been reading the news over the past few weeks, you’ve probably heard Kim Kardashian is well on her way to dropping 60 pounds of baby weight through the Atkin’s diet."
        http://www.self.com/trending/2016/07/heres-what-kim-kardashian-ate-to-lose-60-pounds-after-having-a-baby/#.V4PNkm1dSK0.facebook
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 12, 2016, 03:43:27 PM
        I'll just leave this here.

        Quote
        "If you’ve been reading the news over the past few weeks, you’ve probably heard Kim Kardashian is well on her way to dropping 60 pounds of baby weight through the Atkin’s diet."
        http://www.self.com/trending/2016/07/heres-what-kim-kardashian-ate-to-lose-60-pounds-after-having-a-baby/#.V4PNkm1dSK0.facebook

        Vinnie Tortorich?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on July 12, 2016, 05:38:12 PM
        I have been reading the news over the past few weeks, it just turns out that the things I read about don't include which celebrities are losing how much weight through what fad diets.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on July 12, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
        I have been reading the news over the past few weeks, it just turns out that the things I read about don't include which celebrities are losing how much weight through what fad diets.

        How are you ever supposed to figure out how to lose weight with that sort of attitude?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 21, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
        Gravity expert Joan Vernikos is on Stem Talks this week.  A bit of talking about ketogenic diets for astronauts and general health and longevity.  Interesting that she thinks that it would be key to health in space.  Lots about the human body and it's need for gravity and our relationship with gravity on Earth.

        A much better and more interesting (intriguing, really) interview than I expected. The connection to astronauts should be enough to even attract the Rogues.

        I heard a lot of new information.

        https://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-16/

        I'm sure there will be sceptical naysayers; already SQ has dissed this amazing podcast, without, of course, actually listening to any of the interviews.               
        Quote
        ...some fringe of science that lacks good evidence...
        ...my ass.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 29, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
        A very nice episode of the "Food Programme" on fats. 

        Not surprisingly to some, dripping, lard and olive oil are fared far better (and were tastier) choices than soy, corn and safflower oil in the laboratory. 

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ltb5d
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 26, 2016, 03:04:19 PM
        Child abuse, laziness, or just following bad advice from people that should know better. 

        https://medlineplus.gov/news/fullstory_160378.html?utm_content=bufferde1be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 26, 2016, 07:59:05 PM
        This is a great lecture.  If one doesn't think that diet matters in avoiding commonly fatal conditions, one might take pause after listening.  I might join the Diet Doctor for the free month to see some of the lectures.

        Dr. Naiman also brought up the fact that taller humans have significantly shorter lifespans than shorter ones.  Dr google confirms this prolifically (with NIH studies).  Pleased to be 175cm and shrinking... well not excited about shrinking, really.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 27, 2016, 01:29:17 PM
        No one here thinks diet doesn't matter in avoiding dangerous conditions, so I'm not sure who you're referring to with that comment.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 27, 2016, 01:38:16 PM
        No one here thinks diet doesn't matter in avoiding dangerous conditions, so I'm not sure who you're referring to with that comment.

        I'd say there are plenty of people here still think "all things in moderation" is their guiding mantra; that eating several meals a day and basing one's diet on highly processed carbohydrates is non-deleterious.  Few, I would think, are aware of their own insulin sensitivity.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 27, 2016, 01:49:23 PM
        That's not what you said in your post, though. You talked about people who "don't think diet matters in avoiding commonly fatal conditions", which doesn't apply to anyone here and is thus a strawman.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on August 27, 2016, 02:04:46 PM
        I would actually be quite surprised if most folks here werent getting at least annual check ups and blood work where appropriate.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 27, 2016, 03:31:18 PM
        I would actually be quite surprised if most folks here werent getting at least annual check ups and blood work where appropriate.

        I hope so, but based on posts I'm not sure if it is most.

        The bigger question is not whether they are getting the appropriate test results but whether they are responding with the appropriate dietary changes.

        A friend just got bad cholesterol results, with high LDH LDL and low HDL and concluded it was due to the butter he eats.

        EDIT: typo
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 27, 2016, 04:21:15 PM
        People being skeptical of your faddish understanding of human nutrition is not evidence that they don't do basic health monitoring and maintenance.

        Just like being skeptical of your particular diet recommendations doesn't mean they think diet has no effect on health, which is the leap lonely moa was implying.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 27, 2016, 06:02:04 PM
        People being skeptical of your faddish understanding of human nutrition is not evidence that they don't do basic health monitoring and maintenance.

        Just like being skeptical of your particular diet recommendations doesn't mean they think diet has no effect on health, which is the leap lonely moa was implying.

        I thought he was implying using drugs (statins)  or surgery (bariatric) as the default treatments. Based on what I know of Diet Doctor, that's more reasonable.

        I'm not sure what dietary solutions to these various life threatening and life shortening diseases, other than drastically reducing fast, simple and/or refined carbs, and replacing them with healthy fats have been found to help. That particular diet recommendation has been found effective in just about every clinical trial.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 27, 2016, 08:17:41 PM
        Eating meat, vegetables and fruit isn't a fad; it's the human diet for hundreds of thousands of years.  Eating wheat, sugar and vegetable seed oils is a fad.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 28, 2016, 11:00:47 AM
        As I've pointed out to you before (or maybe to estockly), the fact that something has been the case for hundreds of thousands of years does not mean it's healthier than something new. Sure, it may in fact be so, but you can't simply point to the amount of time as evidence for that. The median lifespan has been around 40 years for hundreds of thousands of years, after all.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2016, 11:36:27 AM
        The opposite of the naturalistic fallacy is also true. Because something is new doesn't mean it's healthier than something used for hundreds of thousands of years. The life span argument is irrelevant. There are far to many variables, including being able to cure infectious disease and infant and child mortality.

        Plus the fact that we didn't introduce the diet high in simple and fast carbs until relatively recently and that correlates well with the rise in CHD also supports the argument


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 28, 2016, 12:06:14 PM
        I know, but I'm not committing any fallacy when I simply point out that the naturalistic fallacy is fallacious.

        In fact I explicitly said that the previous diet may be healthier, it's just that this isn't connected to how long we happened to have it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2016, 12:28:01 PM
        I know, but I'm not committing any fallacy when I simply point out that the naturalistic fallacy is fallacious.

        In fact I explicitly said that the previous diet may be healthier, it's just that this isn't connected to how long we happened to have it.

        But there is evidence that a species that evolved eating a particular diet for that long (actually much longer) is healthier on that diet than they would be on a drastically different diet. Zoos go to great effort to determine what animals ate throughout most their evolution (as opposed to their current diet in a world impacted by humanity) and replicate the evolved diet.  (They don't feed bears garbage in zoos or leave deer and elk entrails lying around for birds of pray, but that's what many eat in the wild now.)

        Humans are just another species of animal whose diet has been impacted by humanity, and there is no good scientific reason to assume to going back to the evolutionary diet would not be healthier than the typical western diets.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on August 28, 2016, 12:34:45 PM
        Zoos also give acupuncture.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: SkeptiQueer on August 28, 2016, 10:59:05 PM


        I know, but I'm not committing any fallacy when I simply point out that the naturalistic fallacy is fallacious.

        In fact I explicitly said that the previous diet may be healthier, it's just that this isn't connected to how long we happened to have it.

        But there is evidence that a species that evolved eating a particular diet for that long (actually much longer) is healthier on that diet than they would be on a drastically different diet. Zoos go to great effort to determine what animals ate throughout most their evolution (as opposed to their current diet in a world impacted by humanity) and replicate the evolved diet.  (They don't feed bears garbage in zoos or leave deer and elk entrails lying around for birds of pray, but that's what many eat in the wild now.)

        Humans are just another species of animal whose diet has been impacted by humanity, and there is no good scientific reason to assume to going back to the evolutionary diet would not be healthier than the typical western diets.

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle. I am correct in assuming you don't hunt your own game by pursuit and gather wild forage, correct?

        There's no reason to *assume* that a new diet wouldn't be healthier than both a typical western diet and the evolutionary diet for the typical western lifestyle.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on August 28, 2016, 11:30:06 PM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 29, 2016, 05:16:21 AM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 07:41:13 AM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Did you mean to actually say anything there?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 29, 2016, 02:12:29 PM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Did you mean to actually say anything there?

        No.  A slip of the fingers. 

        But living longer than pour paleolithic ancestors is an argument that JT knows has no standing.  Aside from having brilliant dentition, our ancestors that survived the rigours of childhood, childbirth, murder and tribal warfare, had a good chance of living to 60+.  That has been recorded in both the fossil record and seen by anthropologists that studied hunter gatherers before modern influence. Healthy agrarian and hunter gatherer populations show serious health declines when those modern influences happen.  This is well documented and easy to find all the references one would care to see in Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories".
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 03:20:14 PM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Did you mean to actually say anything there?

        No.  A slip of the fingers. 

        But living longer than pour paleolithic ancestors is an argument that JT knows has no standing.  Aside from having brilliant dentition, our ancestors that survived the rigours of childhood, childbirth, murder and tribal warfare, had a good chance of living to 60+.  That has been recorded in both the fossil record and seen by anthropologists that studied hunter gatherers before modern influence. Healthy agrarian and hunter gatherer populations show serious health declines when those modern influences happen.  This is well documented and easy to find all the references one would care to see in Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

        Not to mention treatments for various once-fatal diseases, especially infectious diseases.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 03:26:21 PM
        I don't get what you think you're contradicting there, lonely moa. I for one would like to live longer than age 60.

        (And early death is not something you can just disregard. It's true that mean and median lifespans can both be lowered significantly by infant and child mortality, so that they don't give a good indication of how long an older person should expect to live, but those numbers still tell us useful information about the health of a population, however the deaths are distributed. We want longer adult lives *and* less chance of dying before adulthood than our ancestors had.) 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on August 29, 2016, 05:16:53 PM

        There's also no good reason to *assume* it would be healthier to go back to evolutionary diets in lieu of a different diet, given that we do not continue the evolutionary lifestyle.

        And, also, that we would like to live longer than did our paleolithic ancestors.
        Did you mean to actually say anything there?

        No.  A slip of the fingers. 

        But living longer than pour paleolithic ancestors is an argument that JT knows has no standing.  Aside from having brilliant dentition, our ancestors that survived the rigours of childhood, childbirth, murder and tribal warfare, had a good chance of living to 60+.  That has been recorded in both the fossil record and seen by anthropologists that studied hunter gatherers before modern influence. Healthy agrarian and hunter gatherer populations show serious health declines when those modern influences happen.  This is well documented and easy to find all the references one would care to see in Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

        You should look up those references yourself, because what you'll find is that conditional on living to age 15, the life expectancy of paleolith people was 50-something.  I don't know what you consider a "good chance" to live to 60+, but the chance was less than 50% (even among survivors to age 15), and that's not good enough for me.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 05:47:24 PM
        Compared to today in the US (well, 2011 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_11.pdf)), when at birth one has an 88.75% chance of living to 60 and, if one first survives until 15, an 89.5% chance.

        And no, I'm not saying the increase is due to our agricultural diet, and I don't think anyone else is saying that either. Lifespan was brought up in relation to how different the modern lifestyle is from the one our ancestors evolved in. As I've mentioned before, either here or in one of the many other threads you two have taken over with your pro-meat anti-carb dead horse, one thing this means is that most potential late-life consequences of the diet you advocate would be absent from the archaeological record because too few people lived that long.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 05:59:41 PM
        I don't get what you think you're contradicting there, lonely moa. I for one would like to live longer than age 60.

        (And early death is not something you can just disregard. It's true that mean and median lifespans can both be lowered significantly by infant and child mortality, so that they don't give a good indication of how long an older person should expect to live, but those numbers still tell us useful information about the health of a population, however the deaths are distributed. We want longer adult lives *and* less chance of dying before adulthood than our ancestors had.)

        There are many causes of early death during the stone age that had strong effects on the average life span, that have been reduced or eliminated today.

        From basic things like elimination of predation; treatment of injuries (broken bones; penetrating trauma; etc.); infant and childhood mortality (probably the most significant of factors that lowered ALE); treatment of infectious disease (probably second most significant factor).

        None of these has anything to do with nutrition. There is absolutely no evidence that the USDA recommended diet is more healthful or expands the lifespan compared to the paleo diet, or the relatively higher fat lower carb diet that preceded it. If anything the opposite is true.

        Human health in general declined with the advent of agriculture and the introduction of grains to the diet. (well documented).

        Human health is again declining within the last 50 years in areas (the US and the Western Industrialized world) with the increased consumption of sugars and highly refined carbs and the reduction of fat in the diet. The result has been epidemic levels of overweight and obese individuals of all ages (from newborns to 60+) and that is having an impact on life expectancy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 06:15:42 PM
        There is absolutely no evidence that the USDA recommended diet is more healthful or expands the lifespan compared to the paleo diet, or the relatively higher fat lower carb diet that preceded it. If anything the opposite is true.
        And no, I'm not saying the increase is due to our agricultural diet, and I don't think anyone else is saying that either.
        As I just fucking said, I'm not saying the modern diet is the cause of the increase in lifespan.

        Quote
        Human health is again declining within the last 50 years in areas (the US and the Western Industrialized world) with the increased consumption of sugars and highly refined carbs and the reduction of fat in the diet. The result has been epidemic levels of overweight and obese individuals of all ages (from newborns to 60+) and that is having an impact on life expectancy.
        Are their industrialized countries where life expectancy is decreasing?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 06:33:34 PM
        There is absolutely no evidence that the USDA recommended diet is more healthful or expands the lifespan compared to the paleo diet, or the relatively higher fat lower carb diet that preceded it. If anything the opposite is true.
        And no, I'm not saying the increase is due to our agricultural diet, and I don't think anyone else is saying that either.
        I'm not saying the modern diet is the cause of the increase in lifespan.

        Right. The agricultural diet began 10 to 12,000 years ago. That's not the modern, western diet described by the USDA dietary guidelines.

        But, the point is that we're talking about making a dietary change, and you and others keep bringing up lifespan as an argument against the "evolutionary diet." And that's irrelevant.
         
        Quote
        Human health is again declining within the last 50 years in areas (the US and the Western Industrialized world) with the increased consumption of sugars and highly refined carbs and the reduction of fat in the diet. The result has been epidemic levels of overweight and obese individuals of all ages (from newborns to 60+) and that is having an impact on life expectancy.
        Quote
        Are their industrialized countries where life expectancy is decreasing?
        Yes. I believe the epidemics of obesity and overweight people is having a negative effect on life expectancy in the US. The rest of the industrial world isn't far behind.

        It's clear that overweight individuals have a lower life expectancy than normal weight, and obese even lower.

        With 50% of the population obese and 75% overweight (including the obese) it should be no surprise that average life expectancy is starting to show signs of a decline.

        This is all part of the spectacular failure of mainstream science and medicine in dealing with nutrition.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 06:42:02 PM
        it should be no surprise that average life expectancy is starting to show signs of a decline.
        Except, no it's not?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 07:01:52 PM
        it should be no surprise that average life expectancy is starting to show signs of a decline.
        Except, no it's not?

        It is starting to show signs of a decline.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-expectancy-for-white-women-falls-slightly-in-u-s/


        Not really that surprising give that obesity will cut an individual's live expectancy by about 8 years, and we have an epidemic of obesity.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
        it should be no surprise that average life expectancy is starting to show signs of a decline.
        Except, no it's not?

        You may find this interesting. Compare these two lists:

        Collection Name
        Adult Obesity in the United States: The State of Obesity
        http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

        life-expectancy-by-gender

        http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Male%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

        Notice who strongly the shortest lifespans correlate with the highest rates of obesity?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 08:01:29 PM
        I didn't ask for correlations with obesity, because that's not the claim you made.

        You said declining health in the past 50 years has shown itself in life expectancy, and the evidence you provided for that claim was one data point for one demographic subgroup where average age at death was a tenth of a year lower than it had been the previous year. (A data point which, according to the article you linked, correlates with "increases in opioid abuse, suicide, chronic liver disease, which is really related to alcohol abuse".)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 08:26:22 PM
        I didn't ask for correlations with obesity, because that's not the claim you made.

        You said declining health in the past 50 years has shown itself in life expectancy, and the evidence you provided for that claim was one data point for one demographic subgroup where average age at death was a tenth of a year lower than it had been the previous year. (A data point which, according to the article you linked, correlates with "increases in opioid abuse, suicide, chronic liver disease, which is really related to alcohol abuse".)

        Excuse me? Where did I say that?  You're creating a very different straw man that's easier to argue with.

        What I said is that life expectancy is just starting to show signs of a decline. As for the "data points" in the article, those are not data points from the study, which did not draw a link to any cause. Those are conclusions by the article writer. As for chronic liver disease, the rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease have increased at the same rate as the increase in the number of overweight and obesity. Liver diseases is not only related to alcohol abuse.

        Due to the way life-expectancy figures are calculated it's very likely that any change that has manifested today won't show up in the data until larger numbers of baby-boomers start actually dying at a younger age, relative to the current life expectancy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 10:00:23 PM
        You said declining health in the past 50 years has shown itself in life expectancy
        Excuse me? Where did I say that?  You're creating a very different straw man that's easier to argue with.

        What I said is that life expectancy is just starting to show signs of a decline.
        Are you saying "declining health has shown itself in life expectancy" and "life expectancy is starting to show signs of decline" are somehow contradictory?

        Also, if health has been declining for 50 years, why do we have to wait another few decades for boomers to start dying before that will show up in the data? Health is declining but people aren't dying any younger yet?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 11:32:27 PM
        You said declining health in the past 50 years has shown itself in life expectancy
        Excuse me? Where did I say that?  You're creating a very different straw man that's easier to argue with.

        What I said is that life expectancy is just starting to show signs of a decline.
        Are you saying "declining health has shown itself in life expectancy" and "life expectancy is starting to show signs of decline" are somehow contradictory?

        Yes.

        Quote
        Also, if health has been declining for 50 years, why do we have to wait another few decades for boomers to start dying before that will show up in the data? Health is declining but people aren't dying any younger yet?

        Who said health has been declining for fifty years? 

        A large segment of the population has been adding weight and developing bad health at a steadily increasing rate for about 40 years.

        For that group their health has been declining. And in the last 20 years there's a new epidemic of infant and childhood obesity

        At the same time same time we've made good progress in treatments of a number of diseases which has improved health for many


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on August 29, 2016, 11:32:54 PM
        it should be no surprise that average life expectancy is starting to show signs of a decline.
        Except, no it's not?

        It is starting to show signs of a decline.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-expectancy-for-white-women-falls-slightly-in-u-s/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-expectancy-for-white-women-falls-slightly-in-u-s/)

        Not really that surprising give that obesity will cut an individual's live expectancy by about 8 years, and we have an epidemic of obesity.

        You might try actually reading the article:

        Quote
        Though the report did not look at the reasons for the decline in life expectancy in white women, analysts say the answer most likely lies in several concerning health trends that have emerged in recent years.
        "In this group, we're seeing increases in opioid abuse, chronic liver disease, which is really related to alcohol abuse, so this could be due to that," Guillot said.

        The last time life expectancy dropped for white women was in 2008, which was considered a statistical blip, Arias said. The same might be true for the decrease seen in the most recent analysis, but it will take some time to know for sure.

        "We'll have to wait a little bit longer to know whether this is indicative of something serious or if this is just a blip..."

        There's no hint anywhere in the article that anyone thinks this was due to obesity or diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2016, 11:44:46 PM
        As I said the study did not point to a specific cause and life expectancy estimates usually don't. But here's the thing. With all the medical progress we've made since the 70s in treating cancer and geriatric care why have live expectancy rates stopped increasing?  Why have they started dropping.

        Are you saying it's not obesity?


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 29, 2016, 11:50:26 PM
        Who said health has been declining for fifty years?
        Human health is again declining within the last 50 years
        You did.

        As I said the study did not point to a specific cause and life expectancy estimates usually don't. But here's the thing. With all the medical progress we've made since the 70s in treating cancer and geriatric care why have live expectancy rates stopped increasing?  Why have they started dropping.

        Are you saying it's not obesity?
        "They" haven't started dropping. They increased or remained constant for all demographic groups except non-Hispanic white women from 2013 to 2014.

        You're saying it is obesity, but haven't actually offered any direct evidence for that claim.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on August 29, 2016, 11:54:12 PM
        As I said the study did not point to a specific cause and life expectancy estimates usually don't. But here's the thing. With all the medical progress we've made since the 70s in treating cancer and geriatric care why have live expectancy rates stopped increasing?  Why have they started dropping.

        Are you saying it's not obesity?


        There's really no evidence that life expectancy has started dropping.  And as the article says, if this 5-week decline in life expectancy is real, the best guesses are that it is the result of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicide.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 30, 2016, 12:04:22 AM
        Deaths from opioid overdoses have tripled since 2001, and now account for a much higher fraction of total deaths than the relative change in white women's life expectancy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2016, 12:14:17 PM
        What are we arguing about here?

        My claims are:

        That there is a wide spread obesity epidemic in the US.

        That obesity decreases the life expectancy for those who suffer from it.

        When a large proportion of the population suffers from a disease that shortens their life expectancy, that will have an effect on the average life expectancy of the entire population.

        Despite tremendous gains in treatments for cancer and other terminal illnesses the steady increases in life expectancy has declined and for some groups life expectancy has decreased slightly.

        That many baby boomers, who are the first generation who suffer from obesity at epidemic levels are now reaching the age where we will start to see actual lives shortened by obesity.

        Even if the big increase in mortality has been from causes not directly related to obesity, those who's lives have already been shortened because of obesity will have an effect on the average.

        Which part(s) of that are you  disagreeing with?

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 30, 2016, 12:38:43 PM
        As I mentioned before, I took issue with your claim that the decline in health due to obesity was showing itself already as drops in the life expectancy figures. You pointed to one demographic subgroup that had dropped by 0.1 years (while every other subgroup remained the same or increased, which is a hallmark of cherrypicking the data that you want).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 30, 2016, 01:57:38 PM
        As I said the study did not point to a specific cause and life expectancy estimates usually don't. But here's the thing. With all the medical progress we've made since the 70s in treating cancer and geriatric care why have live expectancy rates stopped increasing?  Why have they started dropping.

        Are you saying it's not obesity?


        There's really no evidence that life expectancy has started dropping.  And as the article says, if this 5-week decline in life expectancy is real, the best guesses are that it is the result of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicide.

        There is a lot of evidence that the overall health of the population in the US especially is dropping.  Obesity related diseases and their complications are about to break the bank.  One might stave off the reaper longer than one's grand parents but who wants to be drooling into one's lap without feet, sight or memory?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2016, 02:13:06 PM
        As I mentioned before, I took issue with your claim that the decline in health due to obesity was showing itself already as drops in the life expectancy figures. You pointed to one demographic subgroup that had dropped by 0.1 years (while every other subgroup remained the same or increased, which is a hallmark of cherrypicking the data that you want).

        It sounds like you're arguing that obesity is not having an effect on life expectancy.

        Is that the case?

        You still haven't said which of the claims I made in my previous post you dispute.

        The increases in life expectancy have stalled in the US, not just in that subgroup but in most.
        Life expectancy in states correlates very closely with the obesity rates.
        Obesity lowers life expectancy from between 8 and 14 years.
        There is an obesity epidemic.
        There is an obesity epidemic among those of the age to have their lives ended early now.


        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 30, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
        I disagree with the first, at least to the extent you implied, and I disagree that the correlation of the second implies the type of causation you're trying to demonstrate.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on August 30, 2016, 03:35:10 PM
        Also, I'm not sure where you're getting 14 years. This article certainly doesn't seem to support that claim:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
        I disagree with the first, at least to the extent you implied, and I disagree that the correlation of the second implies the type of causation you're trying to demonstrate.

        I should have been more clear. Obesity has an impact on the individual's life expectancy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2016, 05:05:30 PM
        Also, I'm not sure where you're getting 14 years. This article certainly doesn't seem to support that claim:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/

        NIH study finds extreme obesity may shorten life expectancy up to 14 years | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
        https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-extreme-obesity-may-shorten-life-expectancy-14-years

        The figures from the article you linked to are a bit out of date. (But a good article for discussing the issue none the less). What I'm arguing is perfectly consistent with your article.

        Obese baby-boomers are now entering the U-shaped curve area for age/obesity and mortality.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2016, 04:32:02 PM
        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr043743#t=article

        This is one of the articles I was referring to
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 06, 2016, 09:48:32 AM
        I didn't read this thread yet, but I wanted to post this here before I lose it from my copy/paste buffer from the MS thread.  Sorry if this has already been covered.

        estockly, without actually quoting you or scrolling back, I think you said that it takes 3-5 days to go into ketosis and about a month for the sugar cravings to go away.

        It seems quite difficult while you still have sugar cravings to go on a <20g carb diet.  This weekend, I tried it for the heck of it.  On day 1, I succeeded.  I felt less sleepy and less hungry.  On day 2, I failed.  At that point, I thought I would just alternate days, but I failed on day 3, too.

        I understand that I didn't even approach ketosis, but let's assume I had the willpower to go for 10 days at <20g of carbs per day and then I go to Krispy Kreme and eat 6 donuts.  Am I back to square one?  Do I need three to five more days now to re-enter ketosis and my month to get rid of sugar cravings restarts?

        If so, it seems like an almost impossible task to get past that first month.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2016, 10:54:02 AM
        Go to Amazon and order Dr. Eric Westman's booklet. It costs like $5. It's the same info he provides his patients at his weight loss clinic at Duke University. It includes all the foods you can eat and what you should limit and what to avoid. There's a little more to it than <20g per day of carbs.  Following those recommendations you should be able to get through the induction phase.

        When you go on LC your body takes two full days to start Keto-adaptation and 1 to 3 days longer longer to become fully keno adapted.

        One reason it gets easier is you begin to notice results sooner.

        As for going back into ketosis after a cheat, I've never seen a definitive answer. I've heard both. Your body takes time to re-adapt or you go right back into ketosis. I can't say based on my own experience because I've never done that.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2016, 10:56:45 AM
        Also, the cravings start to go away pretty quickly. For me the second week was the hardest and every day got progressively easier.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2016, 11:13:56 AM
        One last thing, if you do try again I suggest taking some baseline measurements.  Not just weight, but body measurements. Chest, waist, butt, thighs, upper arms, neck. All the places where subcutaneous fat gets stored.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 06, 2016, 01:49:00 PM
        One last thing, if you do try again I suggest taking some baseline measurements.  Not just weight, but body measurements. Chest, waist, butt, thighs, upper arms, neck. All the places where subcutaneous fat gets stored.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        I recently read that if one's ratio of total height to waist circumference should be less than .5.  Above that, one is likely to be insulin resistant, the first step to T2D.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 06, 2016, 01:54:54 PM
        I'm a type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump, so I'm going to have a chat with my endocrinologist about this.  I'm kind of tired of being overweight,  sleepy, and hungry all the time.  Here's an interesting article about the subject that contains opposing points of view for whether a type 1 diabetic should attempt a LCHF diet.  The primary drawback pointed out by the opposition is that it is hard to predict blood sugar levels on a LCHF diet.  Well, it is hard for me to predict them on a HCHF diet, too, so I see no harm in trying it.  I'll see what the doc says at my next appointment.

        https://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/attachments/DV58-2_Debate.pdf

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 06, 2016, 02:06:18 PM
        I'm a type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump, so I'm going to have a chat with my endocrinologist about this.  I'm kind of tired of being overweight,  sleepy, and hungry all the time.  Here's an interesting article about the subject that contains opposing points of view for whether a type 1 diabetic should attempt a LCHF diet.  The primary drawback pointed out by the opposition is that it is hard to predict blood sugar levels on a LCHF diet.  Well, it is hard for me to predict them on a HCHF diet, too, so I see no harm in trying it.  I'll see what the doc says at my next appointment.

        https://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/attachments/DV58-2_Debate.pdf

        Intetesting article.  You might look up Dr Richard Bernstein.  He is an engineer turned physician (at the age of 50).  He has been T1D since youth and is the guy that pushed hard enough to get diabetics to be allowed to do home testing.  Surprising to think when glucose monitors are ubiquitous.  He still runs a clinic, I think and is very much into low carb diets for the condition.  Seems to be a bunch of you tube stuff as well.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2016, 03:24:33 PM
        I'm a type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump, so I'm going to have a chat with my endocrinologist about this.  I'm kind of tired of being overweight,  sleepy, and hungry all the time.  Here's an interesting article about the subject that contains opposing points of view for whether a type 1 diabetic should attempt a LCHF diet.  The primary drawback pointed out by the opposition is that it is hard to predict blood sugar levels on a LCHF diet.  Well, it is hard for me to predict them on a HCHF diet, too, so I see no harm in trying it.  I'll see what the doc says at my next appointment.

        https://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/attachments/DV58-2_Debate.pdf

        You may want to discuss this paper with your Dr.

        Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base - Nutrition

        http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext


        TID is a challenge. The key is to avoid overmedicating when on a LCHF diet as it is the medication that can lower BG to dangerous levels. One thing is that once your body is fat adapted, you'll be able to do quite well on lower BG levels, and your pump may need adjustment. You should definitely work with a physician. If your GP or Endocrinologist won't work with you on trying this, I'd suggest finding ones who will.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 06, 2016, 03:30:23 PM
        The latest Joe Rogan interview (with Chris Kresser) is just great.  Not LCHF, really, but a great conversation.  As usual, one needs to fast forward about 6 minutes of ads at the beginning.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 10, 2016, 11:20:11 PM
        Stephan Guyenet's talk at the 2016 AHS is very interesting.  Calories in=calories out.  Boring but true.  He made no attempt at explaining how one keeps to such a weight loss programme, though.  Hunger suppression via a LCHF diet just isn't in his repertoire... or any other plan for that matter.

        It's the After the Bell segment in the last issue of Latest in Paleo.  Easier to listen to than to watch, IMO.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xh8jb2euQ0
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 13, 2016, 12:47:45 PM
        I have an appointment next Friday with my endocrinologist and a nutritionist to get advice on how to try a LCHF diet as a type 1 diabetic.  I'm slowly eating all the carbs in the house, and I will replace them with meat, fish, cheese, lettuce, etc when I go shopping again.  I'll see how long I can go before I just have to have that Twinkie.

        One of the challenges I'll face is if I give myself a little too much insulin, I'll have to eat carbs to raise my blood sugar.  I'm going to have to be very careful about this.  If I keep having lows every 4 days or so, then I'll never stay in ketosis.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 13, 2016, 01:20:22 PM
        I have an appointment next Friday with my endocrinologist and a nutritionist to get advice on how to try a LCHF diet as a type 1 diabetic.  I'm slowly eating all the carbs in the house, and I will replace them with meat, fish, cheese, lettuce, etc when I go shopping again.  I'll see how long I can go before I just have to have that Twinkie.

        One of the challenges I'll face is if I give myself a little too much insulin, I'll have to eat carbs to raise my blood sugar.  I'm going to have to be very careful about this.  If I keep having lows every 4 days or so, then I'll never stay in ketosis.

        At first, artificial sweeteners can be a crutch to help get over your sugar addiction/habit/cravings/sweettooth. Don't use too much sweeteners (some can be yucky in more than small amounts).

        There's sugar free jellos and sugar free chocolates from Trader Joes and Russel Stover and other brands.

        But, once you have gone into ketosis, and are comfortable with the diet, I recommend going 30 days without anything sweet. No sugar or honey, of course, but also no fruits at all; no sweet tasting veggies and no artificial sweeteners. It's 30 days, not a life sentence. After the 30 days is up you can add a little sweet back, and you may find you don't need or want as much and that all of your food tastes better. You'll be able to enjoy foods you used to find too bitter or sour.

        If you're on Facebook, Dr. Westman (an author on that article I posted) has a Low Carb Support group for patients at his clinic at Duke University. A good number of his patients are TI and TII diabetics, and you can get good answers to diet and food questions there. (Not medical advice, but good diet advice).

        HTH
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on September 13, 2016, 03:16:49 PM
        I've found that trying to eat low carb sweets with artificial sugars just makes me more likely to cheat with things full of refined wheat and sugar.  I don't even have that much of a sweet tooth to begin with. For some, it helps with cravings, for most it does not.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 13, 2016, 03:41:02 PM
        I plan to limit my artificial sweetener to 2 diet sodas a day.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 13, 2016, 03:42:59 PM
        If you're on Facebook, Dr. Westman (an author on that article I posted) has a Low Carb Support group for patients at his clinic at Duke University. A good number of his patients are TI and TII diabetics, and you can get good answers to diet and food questions there. (Not medical advice, but good diet advice).

        I'll look that up.  Luckily, I don't know enough about the argument you and jt512 are having, so I won't care about all the truths or lies on that page.  I'll just ask the T1 diabetics questions about how they deal with issues if I have any.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 13, 2016, 08:05:56 PM
        I've found that trying to eat low carb sweets with artificial sugars just makes me more likely to cheat with things full of refined wheat and sugar.  I don't even have that much of a sweet tooth to begin with. For some, it helps with cravings, for most it does not.

        I totally agree with that. (We had a whole long, bitter thread devoted to artificial sweeteners not long ago)

        But, when shifting from a high carb high sugar diet to a LCHF diet, the transition can be difficult and AS can help. But once you're fat adapted and in Ketosis, I, personally, recommend going 30 days with no sweet flavors at all, to break the habit/addiction or whatever you want to call it. You'll find you don't need any sweets at all and you won't want more than a tiny fraction of what you had been eating.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 14, 2016, 02:39:31 AM
        There's articles in blogs and the NY  Times and then there's this:

        http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255#.V9gVu7DcurE.twitter
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 15, 2016, 09:59:39 AM
        For a VLCHF diet, if something has 14g of carbs but 6g of dietary fiber, does it only count as 8g of carbs?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 15, 2016, 11:05:38 AM
        For a VLCHF diet, if something has 14g of carbs but 6g of dietary fiber, does it only count as 8g of carbs?

        On Atkins, yes. You deduct the grams from fiber and sugar alcohols (which are artificial sweeteners) from total carbs to calculate net carbs.

        On Dr. Westman's LCHF Ketogenic diet you don't, just us total carbs. The stricter plan is what Westman uses at his clinic, and is probably better for diabetics. Fiber and sugar alcohol can increase BG in some people more than in others or faster. Probably depends on gut biome. With total carbs your blood glucose will be more stable.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 15, 2016, 11:12:26 AM
        Let's say I figure out that my BG does go up in that scenario.  I have an insulin pump and can easily deal with that.  Is it really the amount of carbs that make this diet work, or is it the amount of insulin?  Being able to exactly track the amount of insulin I use could be very helpful here.  I've had several tests over the years that show that my body produces exactly zero insulin.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 15, 2016, 01:51:34 PM
        Let's say I figure out that my BG does go up in that scenario.  I have an insulin pump and can easily deal with that.  Is it really the amount of carbs that make this diet work, or is it the amount of insulin?  Being able to exactly track the amount of insulin I use could be very helpful here.  I've had several tests over the years that show that my body produces exactly zero insulin.

        For non-diabetics, what makes the diet work is moderate blood glucose; moderate insulin; moderate ketone production (nutritional ketosis).

        For diabetics consistently moderate blood glucose should lead to less requirement for insulin and moderate ketone production (nutritional ketosis, well short of ketoacidosis).

        Do you test for ketones?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 15, 2016, 02:51:33 PM
        Not yet.  I haven't started the diet yet.  I have an appointment next Friday with my endocrinologist and nutritionist.  I'm asking questions here so I know enough to have an intelligent conversation with them, and to evaluate whether they actually know what they are talking about or not.  This health care is through the VA in the USA, so the staff could be anywhere from incompetent to amazing.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 26, 2016, 04:06:32 PM
        Both my endocrinologist and my dietician say that I can't go on a ketogenic diet as a Type 1 diabetic.  The risk of ketoacidosis is too high.  As a type 1 diabetic, I'm supposed to be testing my ketones whenever my sugar goes high because of said risk.  That was news to me, so she's sending me those pee sticks that detect ketones.

        I have a more detailed meeting with my nutritionist on Wednesday to see what she has to say about eating in a way that doesn't make me hungry all the time, but does not put me in ketosis.

        I still bought a lot of goo LC foods this weekend.  My favorite so far is broccoli with melted cheese.  I can't wait to get home and have more.  Cheese sticks wrapped in salami are also delicious.  I'm looking forward to eating a cheeseburger with romaine lettuce instead of a bun.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on September 26, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
        Sorry for not scrolling back through the thread, but why are you so keen to get on the diet?
        The idea of being less hungry or just because it looks tasty or something else?
        Its good that you are taking your medical advisors seriously.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 26, 2016, 04:29:44 PM
        My current lifestyle is to eat simple carbs, which makes me hungry and sleepy, so I literally eat all day.  I want an eating lifestyle that doesn't make me hungry all the time.  I thought the LCHF diet looked promising at least for a while because I can eat as much as I want, and if it does control appetite, I could probably stick to it for at least a while.  I'm a little worried that whatever other diet my nutritionist gives me will be like torture all the time because all I will be able to think about all day is my next allowed meal.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on September 26, 2016, 04:50:52 PM
        Both my endocrinologist and my dietician say that I can't go on a ketogenic diet as a Type 1 diabetic.  The risk of ketoacidosis is too high.  As a type 1 diabetic, I'm supposed to be testing my ketones whenever my sugar goes high because of said risk.  That was news to me, so she's sending me those pee sticks that detect ketones.

        In the end, I really don't know much about this but I've seen enough to know that this is a common misconception.  Here's an article that tells you why.  Perhaps the two that actually know what they are talking about can give you better details.  There are a lot of Type 1 diabetics on HFLC (check out the /r/keto on reddit), including my dad, who was prediabetic in the late 70's, and has been controlling his diabetes with a HFLC diet since then.

        http://ketopia.com/ketosis-fear-uncertainty-and-doubt/

        edit:  Oh, sorry, I got type 1 and type 2 mixed up.  I think this article confirms what your doctors are saying.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on September 26, 2016, 04:56:48 PM
        There are some actual studies linked there but I find the huge amount of references to actual books to be a bit less encouraging. Bearing in mind of course the built in bias of the actual sites name.
        I dont know much either and Im not saying you are wrong, but Id be reluctant see anyone discard their doctors advice on that.
        Im sure there are other, more convincing sources (and Im not qualified to evaluate the actual quoted studies) so Im only stating my impression of that particular link.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Karyn on September 26, 2016, 05:04:09 PM
        There are some actual studies linked there but I find the huge amount of references to actual books to be a bit less encouraging. Bearing in mind of course the built in bias of the actual sites name.
        I dont know much either and Im not saying you are wrong, but Id be reluctant see anyone discard their doctors advice on that.
        Im sure there are other, more convincing sources (and Im not qualified to evaluate the actual quoted studies) so Im only stating my impression of that particular link.

        HB, you may have missed the edit where I said that article actually confirms what his doctors are saying about, specifically, type 1 diabetes.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 26, 2016, 05:24:46 PM
        There are some actual studies linked there but I find the huge amount of references to actual books to be a bit less encouraging. Bearing in mind of course the built in bias of the actual sites name.
        I dont know much either and Im not saying you are wrong, but Id be reluctant see anyone discard their doctors advice on that.
        Im sure there are other, more convincing sources (and Im not qualified to evaluate the actual quoted studies) so Im only stating my impression of that particular link.

        HB, you may have missed the edit where I said that article actually confirms what his doctors are saying about, specifically, type 1 diabetes.

        Yeah, its a stupid naming convention.  In my software programming job, they wouldn't let me name something generic like "Type 1".  It should be named something that implies that it is the type where I don't make insulin vs the type where I'm just resistant to the insulin I do make.  Maybe "Insulinless Diabetes".  I'm a naming pro.  True story.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2016, 05:33:48 PM
        There are some actual studies linked there but I find the huge amount of references to actual books to be a bit less encouraging. Bearing in mind of course the built in bias of the actual sites name.
        I dont know much either and Im not saying you are wrong, but Id be reluctant see anyone discard their doctors advice on that.
        Im sure there are other, more convincing sources (and Im not qualified to evaluate the actual quoted studies) so Im only stating my impression of that particular link.

        HB, you may have missed the edit where I said that article actually confirms what his doctors are saying about, specifically, type 1 diabetes.

        Yeah, its a stupid naming convention.  In my software programming job, they wouldn't let me name something generic like "Type 1".  It should be named something that implies that it is the type where I don't make insulin vs the type where I'm just resistant to the insulin I do make.  Maybe "Insulinless Diabetes".  I'm a naming pro.  True story.

        The naming convention didn't start out that way.  There was Diabetes. Then there was an extremely rare condition that they used to call Adult Onset Diabetes. But that was confusing because some AODs were what  we now call call Type 1 (damage to the pancreas, preventing insulin secretion) and some were what we now call Type 2 (pancreas produces insulin but the body does not respond).

        Maybe not the best.

        FWIW, there are a number of doctors who support and encourage Type I diabetics to go on LCHF diets, but they do need to carefully monitor their serum ketones. If you don't have a doctor who will support you in this, then you should find one who will, and if you can't then maybe it's not for you. :(
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on September 26, 2016, 05:34:25 PM
        There are some actual studies linked there but I find the huge amount of references to actual books to be a bit less encouraging. Bearing in mind of course the built in bias of the actual sites name.
        I dont know much either and Im not saying you are wrong, but Id be reluctant see anyone discard their doctors advice on that.
        Im sure there are other, more convincing sources (and Im not qualified to evaluate the actual quoted studies) so Im only stating my impression of that particular link.

        HB, you may have missed the edit where I said that article actually confirms what his doctors are saying about, specifically, type 1 diabetes.
        Ah! We must have cross posted. I didnt read for content, I was purely looking at links as a first pass.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 28, 2016, 08:12:33 PM
        http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=2564564#.V-vnUiD_03o.facebook

        Quote
        Beginning in the 1970s, the US government and major professional nutrition organizations recommended that individuals in the United States eat a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet, launching arguably the largest public health experiment in history. Throughout the ensuing 40 years, the prevalence of obesity and diabetes increased several-fold, even as the proportion of fat in the US diet decreased by 25%. Recognizing new evidence that consumption of processed carbohydrates—white bread, white rice, chips, crackers, cookies, and sugary drinks—but not total fat has contributed importantly to these epidemics, the 2015 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans essentially eliminated the upper limit on dietary fat intake.2 However, a comprehensive examination of this massive public health failure has not been conducted. Consequently, significant harms persist, with the low-fat diet remaining entrenched in public consciousness and food policy. In addition, critical scientific questions have been muddled
        .


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 29, 2016, 09:51:29 AM
        I spoke with my nutritionist yesterday, and she recommend I stop eating 15 snacks per day and eat 3 meals and two snacks.  The three meals would consist of an average of 50 carbs each, and I don't remember how many carbs can be in the first snack.  The second snack would be zero carbs.  I'm supposed to have the following servings throughout the day:  6 starches, 2 fruits, 2 veggies, 1 dairy (a greek yogurt which I love), and 12 oz of protein.

        My usual diet is more like 15 starches, 1 fruit, 1 veggie, and 12 oz of protein, so if I can stick to it, I think I will be better for me.

        She said that the trick is to realize that it is the serotonin release I get from eating crap that makes me want more food, not actually being hungry.  She says to find something else that will meet the serotonin craving instead of food, because just ignoring it probably won't work.  I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I guess I'll try it.  Today is Day One, but it started out like crap at 2:30am went my sugar went low and I crammed my face with Fruity Pebbles, a popsicle, and some grape juice.  So Day One officially started at 8am when I woke up.  So say we all.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 29, 2016, 12:49:11 PM


        She said that the trick is to realize that it is the serotonin release I get from eating crap that makes me want more food, not actually being hungry. 

        Not scientific and not supported by evidence. But then nutritionists aren't scientists and the field is not evidence based.
        Quote
        She says to find something else that will meet the serotonin craving instead of food, because just ignoring it probably won't work.


        Again, not scientific and not supported by evidence.

        Quote
        I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I guess I'll try it. 

        Yoga? Astrology? Heroin?


        Quote
        Today is Day One, but it started out like crap at 2:30am went my sugar went low and I crammed my face with Fruity Pebbles, a popsicle, and some grape juice.  So Day One officially started at 8am when I woke up.  So say we all.


        Seems like complex carbs at night (starchy veggies) which take longer to raise glucose, but keep raising glucose for a longer period, might help avoid LBG during the night.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 29, 2016, 05:33:56 PM


        She said that the trick is to realize that it is the serotonin release I get from eating crap that makes me want more food, not actually being hungry. 

        Not scientific and not supported by evidence. But then nutritionists aren't scientists and the field is not evidence based.
        Quote
        She says to find something else that will meet the serotonin craving instead of food, because just ignoring it probably won't work.


        Again, not scientific and not supported by evidence.

        Quote
        I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I guess I'll try it. 

        Yoga? Astrology? Heroin?


        Quote
        Today is Day One, but it started out like crap at 2:30am went my sugar went low and I crammed my face with Fruity Pebbles, a popsicle, and some grape juice.  So Day One officially started at 8am when I woke up.  So say we all.


        Seems like complex carbs at night (starchy veggies) which take longer to raise glucose, but keep raising glucose for a longer period, might help avoid LBG during the night.

        Well, her point about me not actually being hungry but wanting food anyway is accurate, though her reason may not be confirmed.  I know that I want to eat all the time, but I sure shouldn't be hungry based on what I eat.

        Your recommendation about complex carbs at night is good, but the issue wasn't what I ate the night before, it was how much insulin I gave myself to correct for a high blood glucose.  Too much, apparently.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 29, 2016, 07:28:39 PM


        She said that the trick is to realize that it is the serotonin release I get from eating crap that makes me want more food, not actually being hungry. 

        Not scientific and not supported by evidence. But then nutritionists aren't scientists and the field is not evidence based.
        Quote
        She says to find something else that will meet the serotonin craving instead of food, because just ignoring it probably won't work.


        Again, not scientific and not supported by evidence.

        Quote
        I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I guess I'll try it. 

        Yoga? Astrology? Heroin?


        Quote
        Today is Day One, but it started out like crap at 2:30am went my sugar went low and I crammed my face with Fruity Pebbles, a popsicle, and some grape juice.  So Day One officially started at 8am when I woke up.  So say we all.


        Seems like complex carbs at night (starchy veggies) which take longer to raise glucose, but keep raising glucose for a longer period, might help avoid LBG during the night.

        Well, her point about me not actually being hungry but wanting food anyway is accurate, though her reason may not be confirmed.  I know that I want to eat all the time, but I sure shouldn't be hungry based on what I eat.

        Your recommendation about complex carbs at night is good, but the issue wasn't what I ate the night before, it was how much insulin I gave myself to correct for a high blood glucose.  Too much, apparently.

        The LCHF theory suggests that the reason our bodies are hungry when we have so much stored energy is because we're eating so much sugar and other simple carbs.

        Yes, your management of blood sugar with insulin is what led to the drop in blood sugar. The LCHF theory suggests that if you keep glucose intake moderate you can avoid the kinds of large swings in blood glucose that require larger doses of insulin.

        With help from an expert with experience working with T1 diabetics on LCHF diets you could learn to keep blood sugar levels moderate, and steady and use much less insulin.  (What's scary for many diabetics and professionals, is once you have experience on the LCHF diet you'll realize that blood sugar below 80 is perfectly fine. (For you now that would probably be a signal to have a couple snickers bars?)

        Had you eaten a complex carb before bedtime, your blood sugar would not have dropped as far, as more would have gradually entered your bloodstream. Had you learned to manage your blood sugar on a LCHF diet you wouldn't have used as much insulin to lower your blood sugar.

        Before there was insulin injections LCHF diet was the only treatment that would keep T1 diabetics alive. And LCHF diets were integrated in treatment long after insulin injections were introduced.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 30, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
        All of that may be true, but here's how I understand the situation with Type 1 diabetics.  Diabetic Ketoacidosis can put me in a coma and is Bad with a capital B.  It happens when a person goes a little beyond ketosis.  Ketosis is when the body produces ketones, which the brain can use for energy, but if the body produces too many ketones, a person can go into ketoacidosis because of <insert science talk here>.

        For a type 1 diabetic who doesn't make any insulin, this is a real risk even without being in ketosis.  It doesn't take long going without any insulin for the body to ramp up its ketone production because it is being starved for glucose.  If I'm already in ketosis and my pump runs out of insulin while I'm at the beach or something, it is a very short trip to ketoacidosis for me.  That's a bit more risk than I'm willing to take on.  There are a hundred ways I could accidentally go without insulin for too long, and I need that extra layer of protection that not being in ketosis all the time gives me.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 30, 2016, 10:13:19 AM
        Also, you are right about the Snickers bar.  If my glucose dips down to 79, I can feel it.  If it goes all the way to 70, I'm grabbing a Snickers.  If it goes past 70, I'm grabbing a box of Snickers and to hell with the high glucose I will get afterwards.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 30, 2016, 01:33:18 PM
        I just saw this on fox news:  http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/09/25/why-outdated-information-is-to-blame-for-weight-gain.html

        Basically, it says no to worry about calories.  Rather, eat less simple carbs and sugars, and eat in meals instead of multiple snacks.  That's what my nutritionist said, too.  I am realizing yesterday and today that it is very hard for me to stop eating multiple small portions and group them into fewer big portions.  I will work on that harder this weekend, but that's when it is the most difficult because I'm home near all the food.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2016, 01:54:16 PM
        Since you're interested, here's some food for thought.

        LCHF TID

        Type 1 Diabetes – Low Carb RN (CDE)
        https://lowcarbrn.wordpress.com/diabetes/type-1-diabetes/

        LCHF for type 1 diabetes
        https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/lchf-for-type-1-diabetes/

        Type 1 diabetes Archives - Diet Doctor
        https://www.dietdoctor.com/category/health-problems/diabetes/type-1-diabetes

        Type 1 Diabetes and LCHF – A Great Combination - Diet Doctor
        https://www.dietdoctor.com/type-1-diabetes-and-lchf-a-great-combination

        One Year on an LCHF Diet with Type 1 Diabetes - Diet Doctor
        https://www.dietdoctor.com/one-year-lchf-diet-type-1-diabetes

        LCHF success stories from type 1's | Diabetes Forum • The Global Diabetes Community
        http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/lchf-success-stories-from-type-1s.64155/

        Low-carbohydrate diet proven to be very effective in type 1 diabetics (just as you’d expect) | Dr Briffa's Blog - A Good Look at Good Health
        http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/22/low-carbohydrate-diet-proven-to-be-very-effective-in-type-1-diabetics-just-as-youd-expect/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 30, 2016, 04:09:54 PM
        Wow, I'm not THAT interested.  Can you pick one that best addresses the risk of ketoacidosis and I'll read that.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2016, 04:24:38 PM
        The first


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on September 30, 2016, 05:08:35 PM
        The first

        First of all, I appreciate all this info.  I am learning tons.  I read the entire first article you linked.  I don't have a problem with anything it says.  It just fails to mention what happens if you are not a perfect diabetic and accidentally miss a dose of insulin.  Nutritional Ketosis is great and all, but it is definitely closer to Ketoacidosis than a traditional diet.  I really don't want to fall asleep one night not realizing that my pump is out of insulin and wake up in the hospital.  Those anecdotes in the articles are almost certainly from people who are very careful about that sort of thing.  It would be great to see a study that shows the safety of an LCHF diet across a bunch of people, and that explains why my fear is unjustified.  Until some studies like that are published, I have to go with what my doctor says rather than with the anecdotes, even if they are from doctors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2016, 06:00:34 PM
        Wow, I'm not THAT interested.  Can you pick one that best addresses the risk of ketoacidosis and I'll read that.

        Hmm... I don't have Diabetes (I or II) and I read all of those and a few others that weren't as good or repetitive. Why am I THAT interested?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
        The first

        First of all, I appreciate all this info.  I am learning tons.  I read the entire first article you linked.  I don't have a problem with anything it says.  It just fails to mention what happens if you are not a perfect diabetic and accidentally miss a dose of insulin.  Nutritional Ketosis is great and all, but it is definitely closer to Ketoacidosis than a traditional diet.  I really don't want to fall asleep one night not realizing that my pump is out of insulin and wake up in the hospital.  Those anecdotes in the articles are almost certainly from people who are very careful about that sort of thing.  It would be great to see a study that shows the safety of an LCHF diet across a bunch of people, and that explains why my fear is unjustified.  Until some studies like that are published, I have to go with what my doctor says rather than with the anecdotes, even if they are from doctors.

        That's actually a complex question. The difference between nutritional ketosis and ketoacidosis is the amount of ketone bodies in the blood. The range for typical Nutritional Ketosis is from 0 to Below 0.6 mmol/L. I have never tested about 0.3.

        The level for ketoacidosis is above 1.5 mmol/L (although others say anything above 1 is risky and 1.3 is the threshold). 

        But, there isn't a straight line between the two. It would be impossible for a non-diabetic to LC his way from nutritional ketosis to ketoacidosis. A T1-D could go to nutritional ketosis; but they would have to make medication and dietary changes to go from there to ketoacidosis, as I understand it. Although it's portrayed as a linear process, it's not. The only thing "linear" is the measurement of the ketone concentrations in blood.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on October 01, 2016, 01:55:12 PM
        Wow, I'm not THAT interested.  Can you pick one that best addresses the risk of ketoacidosis and I'll read that.

        Hmm... I don't have Diabetes (I or II) and I read all of those and a few others that weren't as good or repetitive. Why am I THAT interested?
        Reading a bunch of articles that you found on your own and found interesting is very different from being directed to a bunch all at one with no indication of precisely what sort of information each might have. It's the same reason people who read a lot for pleasure might skip or procrastinate assigned reading in school.

        At minimum, you could have indicated which articles are explicitly based on large-scale studies with accessible findings.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 01, 2016, 04:02:26 PM
        Wow, I'm not THAT interested.  Can you pick one that best addresses the risk of ketoacidosis and I'll read that.

        Hmm... I don't have Diabetes (I or II) and I read all of those and a few others that weren't as good or repetitive. Why am I THAT interested?
        Reading a bunch of articles that you found on your own and found interesting is very different from being directed to a bunch all at one with no indication of precisely what sort of information each might have. It's the same reason people who read a lot for pleasure might skip or procrastinate assigned reading in school.

        At minimum, you could have indicated which articles are explicitly based on large-scale studies with accessible findings.

        Those were all very general articles that describe who LCHF doctors and medical professionals and patients handle TID with low carb diets. We weren't discussing a specific claim, I was providing background information since you seemed interested. (Earlier in the thread I linked to a peer reviewed article that made the case for LCHF in treatment in TI and TII diabetes).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on October 03, 2016, 09:37:02 AM
        Wow, I'm not THAT interested.  Can you pick one that best addresses the risk of ketoacidosis and I'll read that.

        Hmm... I don't have Diabetes (I or II) and I read all of those and a few others that weren't as good or repetitive. Why am I THAT interested?

        I don't know.  Different people find different things interesting.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 11, 2016, 01:33:52 AM
        Chris Kresser postd a look at some new research on mice and humans regarding NAS and intestinal biota.  The results showed increased impaired glucose intolerance in both mice and humans.  Good if one wants to become a type two diabetic.

        Plenty of links to the studies in the article.

        https://chriskresser.com/how-artificial-sweeteners-wreak-havoc-on-your-gut/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=share&utm_term=sweetners-wreck-havoc&utm_content=&utm_campaign=blog
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on November 16, 2016, 11:49:42 AM
        Cancer and diet

        http://m.carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/515.long

        (Oh, and fuck cancer)


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 16, 2016, 12:42:47 PM
        They all sem to have been on J Moore's broadcast of the Metabolic Therapeutic lectures.  Some are a bit scholastic for my listening, but interesting.  Cancer, epilepy and diabetes.  And some serious scientific disagreement in the Q & A's.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 16, 2016, 02:00:35 PM
        Somehow this interview with Mark Sisson escaped me.  It's a great explanation of how to build aerobic fitness (and how not to); a shortcut to his book "Primal Endurance".  Its a great book for those ageing athletes like myself to stave off sarcopenia and osteoporosis as well as maintaining strength and and fitness. 

        http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/06/06/podcast-207-primal-endurance-how-to-become-a-fat-burning-beast/

        No need to spend time in the "pain cave".
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 22, 2016, 07:05:38 PM
        A case study of advanced T2D being reversed (and subsequent withdrawal of medications). With such a large portion of the population being diabetic or pre-diabetic, these studies should be taken more seriously. 

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523335/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2016, 06:05:24 PM
        http://people.com/bodies/kristina-guice-weight-loss/

        Not just an anecdote, I've known this young lady since she was born. She and my daughters have been friends their entire lives.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Anders on December 02, 2016, 06:14:24 PM
        http://people.com/bodies/kristina-guice-weight-loss/

        Not just an anecdote, I've known this young lady since she was born. She and my daughters have been friends their entire lives.

        How exactly does that not make this an anecdote?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2016, 06:41:06 PM
        http://people.com/bodies/kristina-guice-weight-loss/

        Not just an anecdote, I've known this young lady since she was born. She and my daughters have been friends their entire lives.

        How exactly does that not make this an anecdote?

        "Not just an anecdote" means it is an anecdote, but there is something else about it. In this case the something else is I have a personal connection to this young lady.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2016, 06:55:48 PM
        I'll just drop this here. As you may recall BMJ published a peer-reviewed article detailing the failure of the dietary guidelines to be drafted without using the best science available, or even following their own standards, and revealed conflicts of interest among some of those working on the guidelines.

        The CSPI found a fairly minor mistake in the paper and demanded the BMJ retract the paper. The author and the BMJ issued a correction for the error, but the push for a retraction continued.

        The BMJ asked two independent experts to look at the case and make a determination.

        The result is no retraction. Vindication. (There are links in the footnotes of this article if you want to follow the story from the beginning).

        http://www.bmj.com/company/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/the-bmj-US-dietary-correction.pdf (http://www.bmj.com/company/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/the-bmj-US-dietary-correction.pdf)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 02, 2016, 07:00:54 PM
        Very cool, ta.  Bloody vegans.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 06, 2016, 02:50:00 PM
        I recently re-read the epilogue of "Catching Fire".  Wrangham really hits the recent cause of surging obesity on the head.  One short chapter captures it well.  Evolutionary clues tells the story.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 08, 2016, 03:46:30 PM
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
         (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm)

        Life expectancy is indeed declining.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 08, 2016, 05:14:09 PM
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
         (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm)

        Life expectancy is indeed declining.

        (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/251-300/db267_fig1.gif)

        We can't conclude that "life expectancy is declining" from data showing a decline for a single year, and a tiny, 0.1 year, decline at that.  Additionally, the decline seems to be entirely among those under age 65, suggesting that the decline that year was not due to an increase in chronic lifestyle diseases.  Indeed, if you look at the webpage, you'll see that an increase in cardiovascular deaths was more than offset (by a factor of 2) by a decline in cancer deaths.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 08, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
         (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm)

        Life expectancy is indeed declining.

        (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/251-300/db267_fig1.gif)

        We can't conclude that "life expectancy is declining" from data showing a decline for a single year, and a tiny, 0.1 year, decline at that.
        [qu
        OK, for the first time since they have been tracking it, life expectancy declined from one year to the next.

        Quote
        Additionally, the decline seems to be entirely among those under age 65, suggesting that the decline that year was not due to an increase in chronic lifestyle diseases.

        That doesn't follow. If chronic-lifestyle diseases includes obesity, then it's not unusual that it would claim more victims under 65. Especially considering that the leading cause of death is heart disease and that is the major risk factor for obesity.

        Quote
        Indeed, if you look at the webpage, you'll see that an increase in cardiovascular deaths was more than offset (by a factor of 2) by a decline in cancer deaths.

        Which points more to obesity as a culprit.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: SkeptiQueer on December 08, 2016, 06:00:20 PM
        Global temperatures can do down for a year. That does not fit prove climate change models.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 08, 2016, 09:44:09 PM
        We should ask an actuary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on December 14, 2016, 06:16:09 PM
        Hey, if any of you skeptics happen to have a LCHF fanatic dieter on your holiday shopping list, might I suggest:

        "The Case Against Sugar" by Gary Taubes

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 14, 2016, 11:03:15 PM
        Hey, if any of you skeptics happen to have a LCHF fanatic dieter on your holiday shopping list, might I suggest:

        "The Case Against Sugar" by Gary Taubes

        I can't believe this has slipped under my radar! 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on December 17, 2016, 04:42:48 PM
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
         (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm)

        Life expectancy is indeed declining.
        (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/251-300/db267_fig1.gif)
        We can't conclude that "life expectancy is declining" from data showing a decline for a single year, and a tiny, 0.1 year, decline at that.  Additionally, the decline seems to be entirely among those under age 65, suggesting that the decline that year was not due to an increase in chronic lifestyle diseases.  Indeed, if you look at the webpage, you'll see that an increase in cardiovascular deaths was more than offset (by a factor of 2) by a decline in cancer deaths.


        From statistician Andrew Gelman's blog (http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/17/calm-american-life-expectancy-isnt-falling/): "Calm down. American life expectancy isn't falling.... The drop in US life expectancy last year was the smallest among six drops between 1960 and 2015...half the size of the next smallest drop." 

        The change was 1.5%, but the standard deviation in year-to-year change is 4%.  In other words, the "drop" is statistical noise.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on December 19, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
        That doesn't follow. If chronic-lifestyle diseases includes obesity, then it's not unusual that it would claim more victims under 65. Especially considering that the leading cause of death is heart disease and that is the major risk factor for obesity.
        So an increase in heart disease, 80% of whose victims are over 65, is supposed to explain why life expectancy at birth went down but life expectancy at 65 didn't?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 24, 2016, 05:24:49 PM
        Merry Xmas All. I think I'll have to be applying the 80/20 rule after opening my presents.  There may not be any wheat in those chocolate chip biscuits.... but.  And she got me a big jar of dark chocolate peanut butter.  Oh no!  It is too good.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 03, 2017, 09:19:13 PM
        I heard a physician (on the Jimmy Moore show) say that one of the hundred controls (n=100, AHA diet) in her research obesity/T2D project(two years) called her up and wanted to be moved to the intervention arm as her friends in that arm had lost heaps of weight and stopped taking their meds. 

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 12, 2017, 01:59:50 PM
        How a Western diet leads to overeating and obesity: Peripheral endocannabinoid signaling identified as a pharmaceutical target for overeating associated with diet-induced obesity --

        ScienceDaily
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170111184359.htm

        Quote
        More than two in three adults in the United States are considered overweight or obese, with substantial biomedical and clinical evidence suggesting that chronic overconsumption of a 'western diet' -- foods consisting high levels of sugars and fats -- is a major cause of this epidemic. New research now shows that chronic consumption of a western diet leads to overeating and obesity due to elevations in 'peripheral endocannabinoid signaling.'
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 12, 2017, 04:11:29 PM
        Thanks.  I just re-listend to an older interview with Alan Cooper (director of the Australian centre for ancient DNA) and he waxed potently against the grain based agricultural revolution... worst mistake ever, he says.

        www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/20148635/alan-cooper-exploring-human-history
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on January 12, 2017, 05:47:55 PM
        How a Western diet leads to overeating and obesity: Peripheral endocannabinoid signaling identified as a pharmaceutical target for overeating associated with diet-induced obesity --

        ScienceDaily
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170111184359.htm

        Quote
        More than two in three adults in the United States are considered overweight or obese, with substantial biomedical and clinical evidence suggesting that chronic overconsumption of a 'western diet' -- foods consisting high levels of sugars and fats -- is a major cause of this epidemic. New research now shows that chronic consumption of a western diet leads to overeating and obesity due to elevations in 'peripheral endocannabinoid signaling.'

        Now that was good reading.  I can't wait until they develop the medication they describe in the article.  I just don't want to stop eating my western diet because I get so much pleasure from eating.  If I could take a pill that has no other effect than making me get less pleasure from eating, I'd drop weight for sure.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 13, 2017, 01:02:26 AM
        How a Western diet leads to overeating and obesity: Peripheral endocannabinoid signaling identified as a pharmaceutical target for overeating associated with diet-induced obesity --

        ScienceDaily
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170111184359.htm

        Quote
        More than two in three adults in the United States are considered overweight or obese, with substantial biomedical and clinical evidence suggesting that chronic overconsumption of a 'western diet' -- foods consisting high levels of sugars and fats -- is a major cause of this epidemic. New research now shows that chronic consumption of a western diet leads to overeating and obesity due to elevations in 'peripheral endocannabinoid signaling.'

        Not sure how I have managed a BMI of 21 and bodyfat of 10% for all of my life, but judicious and mindful eating must have played a part.  Now at nearly 65, intermittent fasting does the job... just skip breakfast, keep carbs below 100gm/day and I can pig out as much as I like on really great tasting food.  Oh, an active lifestyle doesn't hurt.

        Now that was good reading.  I can't wait until they develop the medication they describe in the article.  I just don't want to stop eating my western diet because I get so much pleasure from eating.  If I could take a pill that has no other effect than making me get less pleasure from eating, I'd drop weight for sure.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 13, 2017, 06:46:09 PM
        https://nyti.ms/2ir52pI

        Big Sugar’s Secret Ally? Nutritionists


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 14, 2017, 12:37:57 AM
        Hey, if any of you skeptics happen to have a LCHF fanatic dieter on your holiday shopping list, might I suggest:

        "The Case Against Sugar" by Gary Taubes

        I am bouncing between "TCAS" and "Sapiens".  Taubes is a brilliant writer.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 24, 2017, 11:59:06 AM
        An interesting new study on the "Paleo Diet".  I liked this line in the discussion:

        Quote
        The subjects on the Paleo-type diet did complain that the volume of food that they had to eat was excessive and without our encouragement would likely have lost more weight.



        It wasn't a low carb diet, but the intervention group didn't eat wheat flour, but had their carbs from vegetables.  Makes me continue to think that if I was diabetic, I'd seek out professional advice that encouraged this sort of change in diet.  I mean, how many intervention studies does one need to be convinced that diet matters and that a lower carb, higher fat diet of food that was recently alive and minimally processed contributes to better health.


        http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v69/n8/full/ejcn201539a.html
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 24, 2017, 01:18:32 PM
        An interesting new study on the "Paleo Diet".  I liked this line in the discussion:

        Quote
        The subjects on the Paleo-type diet did complain that the volume of food that they had to eat was excessive and without our encouragement would likely have lost more weight.



        It wasn't a low carb diet, but the intervention group didn't eat wheat flour, but had their carbs from vegetables.  Makes me continue to think that if I was diabetic, I'd seek out professional advice that encouraged this sort of change in diet.  I mean, how many intervention studies does one need to be convinced that diet matters and that a lower carb, higher fat diet of food that was recently alive and minimally processed contributes to better health.


        http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v69/n8/full/ejcn201539a.html


        Quote
        We adjusted caloric intake so as to minimize any weight loss.

        It's no wonder those eating the "paleo diet" complained they were being overfed. One of the commonalities between LCHF and Paleo is that you eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full. Eating past satiety makes this study of something other than the paleo diet. What's the point of that?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 24, 2017, 01:59:34 PM
        An interesting new study on the "Paleo Diet".  I liked this line in the discussion:

        Quote
        The subjects on the Paleo-type diet did complain that the volume of food that they had to eat was excessive and without our encouragement would likely have lost more weight.



        It wasn't a low carb diet, but the intervention group didn't eat wheat flour, but had their carbs from vegetables.  Makes me continue to think that if I was diabetic, I'd seek out professional advice that encouraged this sort of change in diet.  I mean, how many intervention studies does one need to be convinced that diet matters and that a lower carb, higher fat diet of food that was recently alive and minimally processed contributes to better health.


        http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v69/n8/full/ejcn201539a.html


        Quote
        We adjusted caloric intake so as to minimize any weight loss.

        It's no wonder those eating the "paleo diet" complained they were being overfed. One of the commonalities between LCHF and Paleo is that you eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full. Eating past satiety makes this study of something other than the paleo diet. What's the point of that?

        That's a bit rude. 

        The trick is, two meals a day for me.  Plus bulletproof coffee and pudding after tea.  I sem to be able to hang onto my 65kgs that way and still have a very active lifestyle.  I made "paleo" pizza last week, cauliflower, almond flour and egg crust.  I was surprised that it was totally eatable with my fingers.  A little higher calorie (much higher fat) than a normal crust, but that was swamped by the bacon and cheese anyway.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 28, 2017, 12:29:18 PM
        A friend of my wife (friend since Uni) visited recently.  She suffers from irritable bowel syndrome; has for years.  Some time ago, her consultant gastroenterologist told her there wasn't anything he could do for her, but knowing she was an intelligent practicing scientist, he wrote a note on a piece of paper and handed it to her and said this might help. 

        She said he had written "FODMAP".  My wife's friend has treated herself and never looked back. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 29, 2017, 12:11:38 PM
        An interesting meta analysis revealing the increased risk of cancer mortality with people with elevated serum glucose.  Another good reason to not have diabetes.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320469/pdf/12885_2014_Article_5167.pdf
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2017, 01:33:29 PM
        Oh, sugar.

        (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/soda_sugar_comparisons.png)
         xkcd  (https://xkcd.com/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on February 01, 2017, 01:49:16 PM
        See, I drink diet soda so that I can eat all that stuff on the right without feeling guilty!   :dance:
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2017, 03:37:17 PM
        See, I drink diet soda so that I can eat all that stuff on the right without feeling guilty!   :dance:

        well...

        (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cadbury_eggs.png)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 02, 2017, 12:17:05 AM
        Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on February 02, 2017, 10:19:13 AM
        Science is imperfect, and scientists are as well. Pioneers such as John Ioannidis, Brian Nosek, Vinayak Prasad, Adam Cifu, and Chris Chambers are making a good faith effort to identify flaws in the scientific process and address them. Journalists have an important role to play here as well, by helping to identify problems and raising awareness about how to fix them. Taubes also views science as flawed, but primarily where it disagrees with his personal beliefs. Rather than contribute to the solution, Taubes adds to the problem by promoting an unscientific thought process that systematically excludes opposing evidence.

        To answer the question posed in the title, refined sugar is bad, although not the singular cause of all humankind’s ills. A core principle of journalism is the accurate, objective, and complete transmission of pertinent facts to the reader. The Case Against Sugar is a journey through sugar history and science that is heavily distorted through the lens of Taubes’s personal beliefs. By this metric, it is not journalism, but advocacy. To a general audience that has little basis for evaluating its claims, the book will be misleading. Yet for readers who are willing to take The Case Against Sugar with a case full of salt, it does contain some interesting history.

        http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-review-of-the-case-against-sugar/

        Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2017, 10:43:49 AM
        Quote
        Science is imperfect, and scientists are as well. Pioneers such as John Ioannidis, Brian Nosek, Vinayak Prasad, Adam Cifu, and Chris Chambers are making a good faith effort to identify flaws in the scientific process and address them. Journalists have an important role to play here as well, by helping to identify problems and raising awareness about how to fix them. Taubes also views science as flawed, but primarily where it disagrees with his personal beliefs. Rather than contribute to the solution, Taubes adds to the problem by promoting an unscientific thought process that systematically excludes opposing evidence.

        To answer the question posed in the title, refined sugar is bad, although not the singular cause of all humankind’s ills. A core principle of journalism is the accurate, objective, and complete transmission of pertinent facts to the reader. The Case Against Sugar is a journey through sugar history and science that is heavily distorted through the lens of Taubes’s personal beliefs. By this metric, it is not journalism, but advocacy. To a general audience that has little basis for evaluating its claims, the book will be misleading. Yet for readers who are willing to take The Case Against Sugar with a case full of salt, it does contain some interesting history.

        http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-review-of-the-case-against-sugar/


        I saw this. First, Guyenet has had a thing for Taubes for a few years, ever since Taubes spoke after him at a conference, and pretty much obliterated him.

        Second, did you read this? From top to bottom it's filled with mischaracterizations and exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

        My favorite is when he claims Taubes should have disclosed his own conflict of interest in the book. What is the undisclosed conflict? According to Guyenet: Writing the book.

        What a tool.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 02, 2017, 12:23:35 PM
        You sort of have to actually read the book, rather than just a review from a hostile reviewer.  Guyenet is (was) credible obesity researcher, but his views on what causes obesity are different from Taubes' and he really seems to have a personal antagonism to Taubes.

        I think GT builds a good case that sugar itself is the prime suspect in the steep rise in "Western" diseases.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 14, 2017, 12:41:57 AM
        Great interview with Nina Teicholz here:

        https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/2017/02/the-big-fat-surprise-why-butter-meat-and-cheese-belong-in-a-healthy-diet/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Crash on February 15, 2017, 03:06:47 PM
        Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.

         Harriet Hall does a pretty good take down of Gary Taubes at Science Based Medicine.
        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/
          Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics.  Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss.  Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic.  Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.
          I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
          I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 15, 2017, 04:20:01 PM
          Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics. 

        That is flat out false. Tubes studied physics and knows full well the laws of thermodynamics and the complexities of human metabolism.

        Quote
        Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss. 

        There is a significant amount of studies to support that including some very recent ones. There is little or no science to support exercise having more than a negligible effect on weight loss.

        Quote
        Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic. 

        Maybe a little research would help.

        Quote
        Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   

        You're forgetting calories stored.


        Quote
        We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.

        No where does he suggest that or anything that remotely violates the laws of physics.


        Quote
          I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
         

        That's just the tip of the iceberg.

        Quote
        I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

        The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Johnny Slick on February 15, 2017, 05:22:27 PM
        Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.

         Harriet Hall does a pretty good take down of Gary Taubes at Science Based Medicine.
        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/
          Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics.  Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss.  Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic.  Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.
          I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
          I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.
        So to ignore the LCHF fanatics here, there are a couple of issues here I think (and I am both far from an expert and also not a particularly thin person here - although I am a person who has gone from being straight-up faaaat to only kind of fat - so take this with a grain of... salt?):

        1. Whatever "too much sugar" is, we are kind of inundated with sugar compared to historical human consumption. Sugar as we know it - a thing you can add to pastries, etc., and which is available in large quantities - wasn't really available to the public at large until the 1800s.

        2. It's *definitely* true that exercise can cause weight loss just as much as consuming fewer calories can. I mean, that's, like, not even hard to understand; like you said, it's basic thermodynamics. That being said... your body consumes a pretty large number of calories per day just operating and by you performing normal amounts of exercise every day. If you could get into a situation where you burn an additional 1000-1500 kCals a day, yes, you could absolutely eat a lot of food and still be thin. My brother and his partner will often do vacation-y things that involve biking like 100 miles in a day and then eating a whole crap ton of pizza and beer. That said, it is *really* hard to burn that much on a daily basis, and in fact it is really, really common for athletes who get injured or just stop doing athletics at a high level to suddenly gain a lot of weight because it's so, so much easier to consume calories than it is to burn them.

        Conversely, it's a lot, lot easier to eat less - although I agree that it feels horrible when you do - than it is to exercise more, especially if you already have a body that has had lots of food and not a lot of exercise in it. If you're morbidly obese, just walking a couple miles a day can use up pretty much all of your energy (source: this applied to me at one point in time) and the thing is, you won't actually be able to burn all that many calories that way. On top of that, that extra fat that you're carrying might be causing a heart condition that prevents you from exercising as much as a pro athlete does, even if you did have the time to do so, which many of us don't, so for many people who are trying to lose fat, making up the intake/output deficit only by exercising more might just kill them.

        3. I will say that in fairness to the LCHF crowd it is not easy to eat a lot of calories when you're also avoiding carbohydrates. Speaking as a diabetic, I can tell you that the Venn diagram between foods that are high in "empty" calories and foods that have a high carbohydrate content looks like, um, two circles that are really close together. Pasta (especially pasta with marinara sauce), bread, cake, candy, fruit juice, potato chips, pizza, pancakes with syrup, breakfast cereal, jelly (as in a PB&J sandwich), hash browns, Coke, Pepsi... It is downright hard to find food that you can consume 3,000 calories of a day that isn't mostly carbs and won't make you sick doing so.

        So just eliminating high-carb foods from your diet or at least controlling them will, right there, usually cause you to cut way back on your calorie consumption. It's also really hard because carbs are kind of addictive.

        Yeah, the direct claims that the fact of the low carbs and high fat creates magical ketosis monsters that eat away all those calories is pretty well bullshit, I agree, but as a dieting strategy it's actually not a terrible one: normally, cutting back from 2500-3000 kCals a day to 1500 or whatever will just make you hungry and miserable whereas doing an Atkins-type diet will make you a bit less so, and even if it still makes you feel like crap for a while, you also quickly learn that, unlike binging on sweets or pizza, binging on bacon and sausages just makes you feel sick and, by and large, worse than you felt before. So there is that!

        4. I do think that there's something to be said, too, about the people who push the paleo diets, not because they're actually "naturally better" or whatever BS they push. I also don't want to sit here and tell you that just because food is refined and processed now, that makes it bad. In fact, by a lot of metrics that makes it really, really good: for the vast majority of human existence, food was in such short supply that some kind of high-calorie substance like fruit juice would be considered, in most epochs, a kind of amazing food: here is something that, if you drink a couple liters of it a day, has so many macronutrients in it that you can practically live on it and nothing else. Hell, not only did bread just plain not exist for most of humanity, it's probably the creation/discovery of bread and bread-like products like beer that kicked off civilization. The problem is, we don't live in a calorie-restricted world anymore and so the fact that, for example, plain, non-juiced-up fruits have their carb calories locked up inside of a lot of fiber that our body doesn't process makes them "better" for us than juice precisely *because* the macronutrients are harder to come by.

        5. That being said, fad diets pop in and out all the time and the reason they do linger is that, well, changing your eating habits, watching what you eat, giving yourself weird restrictions... all that stuff actually does work. It, like, stops working the second you stop doing all of that stuff (and that applies to LCHF / paleo as much as anything else, maybe moreso because if you go without cake for 5 years and then suddenly get into cake, man are you going to want cake) and that more than anything else is why these fad diets generally do not work. But there's nothing that says you can't use one of these diets to kick-start a move into a more healthy lifestyle.

        6. Okay, so all of this being said, here is my personal philosophy about this kind of thing: being height-weight proportionate should not be the end goal here. Weighing X amount should not be the end goal either. If you're goal-oriented, go ahead and do that, but for many of us, myself included, looking at a scale several times a week just leads to feeling worse about ourselves about something that is not and should not be all that important anyway. This is especially tough because, let's face it, thin people are more attractive than fat people are, and I am not saying this to say that thin people should feel guilty about this. I'm just saying, society tells us that we are not worth as much if we aren't in that proper zone, and I'm sorry but it's just not the case. Even if you are overweight and will never be HWP, you can get yourself more fit than you currently are, and there are lots and lots of benefits to doing so.

        To take myself as an example: I'll just say this straight out: I've got some weight that I could stand to lose. I've lost a bit in the past 2 months, but there's still lots more to go should I care to do so (I also have a bit of a body dysmorphia issue where I kind of can't help but think of myself as fatter than I actually am, but a. that's on me, not what I'm talking about, and b. it *is* one of those things that fat and "recovering fat" people have to worry about). I also bike probably 30-40 miles a week (less in the winter, although I try to keep up as much as I can) and hope to move out to a place this summer that affords me the opportunity to push that up to 60-70M. So here's the thing: I can do stuff that I want to do that I just could not do when I weighed more than 300 pounds. If I want to take a stroll (or more often, go for a ride) around the city, it's not going to destroy me for the rest of the day. When I go on trips, I don't feel completely dead after walking through museums several days in a row. I do a thing that is sort of similar to acting every week and I know that I can be physical in there without turning into a sweaty mess or having to sit out half of it because I'm winded or something. If I go out to meet up with friends and something happens that makes me have to walk an extra mile or whatever, I'm not automatically tired and irritable. All this stuff used to happen to me but it doesn't anymore, and a big result of this is that I get to have *so* much more fun now than I used to in the early 2000s.

        And *that* I feel ought to be the end goal of getting fit. Get fit enough to... be fit. Yes, I know that it's circular but that's just the thing: as you get into better shape you're going to find yourself wanting to do more things that, before, you just didn't feel up to doing. At least that's what happened for me. In the process, if you move from being, for example, morbidly obese to just plain obese, it's going to open up all kinds of exciting doors. Or even if you only ever go from, say, 320 to 300, you are statistically a *lot* better off with even that 20 pounds off your body. And sure, nobody will ever know that you are secretly thinner than you would otherwise be if you weren't working at it, but fitness is about *you*. In that respect, IMO physical activity is, like, orders of magnitude more important than watching what you eat, even if the end result is that you're not actually losing weight in the process.

        So what I guess I'm saying is... if LCHF or paleo is what motivates you to get out there and improve your fitness, get started on it. Like I said, these methods *do* work, and just because the science indicates that fad diets are not sustainable does not mean that *you* can't find a way to sustain your new, more active lifestyle. If a more measured, science-based approach is what you prefer, use that. What I think we should not do is sit on the sidelines and declaim these things and do this as an excuse not to try to get better. I feel like we as skeptics tend to do this a lot, especially when we're presented with bullshitty-sounding things (and I am not saying for one second that LCHF and paleo don't have massive quantities of bullshit associated with them). We need to push past this and do stuff other than just talk about it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 15, 2017, 05:24:05 PM

        Quote
        I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

        The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.

        Actually, there have been millions, if not billions of healthy humans that have eaten diets that were nearly devoid of carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are not actually a necessary component of a healthy diet.   LCHF diets are certainly not a fad diet if one considers what humans have eaten since the year dot.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 15, 2017, 06:15:16 PM

        Quote
        I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

        The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.

        Actually, there have been millions, if not billions of healthy humans that have eaten diets that were nearly devoid of carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are not actually a necessary component of a healthy diet.   LCHF diets are certainly not a fad diet if one considers what humans have eaten since the year dot.

        Of course, but it wasn't until about 150 years ago that LCHF was promoted as a weight loss diet.

         Very few people eating a the kind of healthy diet you're describing would ever see the need or desire for a weight loss diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 15, 2017, 06:28:53 PM
        So to ignore the LCHF fanatics here, there are a couple of issues here I think (and I am both far from an expert and also not a particularly thin person here - although I am a person who has gone from being straight-up faaaat to only kind of fat - so take this with a grain of... salt?):

        You have to ignore a lot of science too.

        Quote
        1. Whatever "too much sugar" is, we are kind of inundated with sugar compared to historical human consumption. Sugar as we know it - a thing you can add to pastries, etc., and which is available in large quantities - wasn't really available to the public at large until the 1800s.

        Yes, along with other simple and fast carbs.

        Quote
        2. It's *definitely* true that exercise can cause weight loss just as much as consuming fewer calories can. I mean, that's, like, not even hard to understand; like you said, it's basic thermodynamics.

        So, in science you would want to test that in actual human subjects, rather than just assume it's true because: Thermodynamics.

        And it has been tested, and tested repeatedly. And what they have found was that a weight loss diet and exercise can lead to weight loss. A weight loss diet with no exercise can lead to about the same amount of weight loss. Exercise without a weight loss diet does not lead to weight loss.






        Quote
        your body consumes a pretty large number of calories per day just operating and by you performing normal amounts of exercise every day. If you could get into a situation where you burn an additional 1000-1500 kCals a day, yes, you could absolutely eat a lot of food and still be thin. My brother and his partner will often do vacation-y things that involve biking like 100 miles in a day and then eating a whole crap ton of pizza and beer. That said, it is *really* hard to burn that much on a daily basis, and in fact it is really, really common for athletes who get injured or just stop doing athletics at a high level to suddenly gain a lot of weight because it's so, so much easier to consume calories than it is to burn them.

        That's one way of looking at it. Here's another. Insulin regulates fat storage. If you're eating a diet that results in chronically high insulin levels, some of the calories you're consuming will be stored as fat. In order to maintain your energy levels your body will want (hunger) more calories.


        Quote
        Conversely, it's a lot, lot easier to eat less - although I agree that it feels horrible when you do - than it is to exercise more, especially if you already have a body that has had lots of food and not a lot of exercise in it. If you're morbidly obese, just walking a couple miles a day can use up pretty much all of your energy (source: this applied to me at one point in time) and the thing is, you won't actually be able to burn all that many calories that way. On top of that, that extra fat that you're carrying might be causing a heart condition that prevents you from exercising as much as a pro athlete does, even if you did have the time to do so, which many of us don't, so for many people who are trying to lose fat, making up the intake/output deficit only by exercising more might just kill them.

        It's easier for some to eat less than others. Plus, if you're addicted to sugar, you'll have the same kinds of cravings that smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts battle with.

        On a LCHF diet, you don't have that the chronically high insulin level, so your not automatically storing fat. Instead you're releasing more fat from stores all the time.

        Quote
        3. I will say that in fairness to the LCHF crowd it is not easy to eat a lot of calories when you're also avoiding carbohydrates. Speaking as a diabetic, I can tell you that the Venn diagram between foods that are high in "empty" calories and foods that have a high carbohydrate content looks like, um, two circles that are really close together. Pasta (especially pasta with marinara sauce), bread, cake, candy, fruit juice, potato chips, pizza, pancakes with syrup, breakfast cereal, jelly (as in a PB&J sandwich), hash browns, Coke, Pepsi... It is downright hard to find food that you can consume 3,000 calories of a day that isn't mostly carbs and won't make you sick doing so.

        It's not just that. On a LCHF diet you are less hungry. I've posted links to dozens of studies where the LCHF wings were allowed to eat ad lib; as much as they want. And they still ate fewer calories and lost more weight than the calorie restricted dieters.

        Quote
        Yeah, the direct claims that the fact of the low carbs and high fat creates magical ketosis monsters that eat away all those calories is pretty well bullshit, I agree, but as a dieting strategy it's actually not a terrible one: normally, cutting back from 2500-3000 kCals a day to 1500 or whatever will just make you hungry and miserable whereas doing an Atkins-type diet will make you a bit less so, and even if it still makes you feel like crap for a while, you also quickly learn that, unlike binging on sweets or pizza, binging on bacon and sausages just makes you feel sick and, by and large, worse than you felt before. So there is that!

        What's bullshit is your characterization of the claims made by LCHF dieters and the studies that show they are as effective if not more effective and healthy than any other diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 15, 2017, 09:06:40 PM
        Eat fewer calories and your body will do what it can to keep them on board and not use them for energy, e.g. it makes you less active.  And the less one eats, the less one wants to "move".  Nice negatively re-enforcing loop.

        If one's personal trainer on "The Biggest Loser", forces the issue, one will lose weight but when the show is over EVERY one one the participants regains all their weight, and more.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on February 15, 2017, 09:13:30 PM
        I think you're talking past each other a bit, because "planned exercise regimens are hard to comply with and trying to implement them rarely results in long-term weight loss" doesn't actually refute "exercise can cause weight loss".
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: DG on February 15, 2017, 10:05:41 PM
        Eat fewer calories and your body will do what it can to keep them on board and not use them for energy, e.g. it makes you less active.  And the less one eats, the less one wants to "move".  Nice negatively re-enforcing loop.

        If one's personal trainer on "The Biggest Loser", forces the issue, one will lose weight but when the show is over EVERY one one the participants regains all their weight, and more.

        This is, umm, demonstrably untrue.

        Firstly, I know a bloke who won TBL here in Australia over 10 years ago. The last 2 years he has appeared as a model in the Fireman's calendar. The runs marathons with his brother, plays football and AFL...

        Secondly, through this bloke I have met quite a few former participants and, while it is true that a number of participants have returned to their former weight(and or more), many have transformed their lives and have kept much of the weight off.

        It is worth nothing that many of the participants literally starve in the week before final weigh-in and spend hours in the sauna to get the lowest possible weight - I think you would agree that's not part of the diet, so it's inevitable that they regain weight from that level.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 15, 2017, 11:33:55 PM
        Strava guessed I just used 660 calories in the last hour and a half trail ride.  That's half my breakfast. 

        I can see from those approximate figures how hard it is to lose weight with exercise.

        There's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: DG on February 16, 2017, 12:05:50 AM
        Strava guessed I just used 660 calories in the last hour and a half trail ride.  That's half my breakfast. 

        I can see from those approximate figures how hard it is to lose weight with exercise.

        There's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

        That's not quite the same thing as you were suggesting. As a fatty, a reformed fatter fatty and someone who is rapidly regaining the 66lbs  (30kgs) they worked hard to lose - I certainly agree that it's hard to keep it off. I also have no trouble accepting that it's plausible that my resting metabolism has slowed significantly (and probably my metabolism when exercising).

        I was simply suggesting that "...when the show is over EVERY one one the participants regains all their weight, and more." was not true. Even on the link you showed, only 4 of 14 had gotten back to their original weight. So the other 12 gained some benefit - being less obese not than they were before starting on the show.

        I certainly agree that it's difficult to exercise your way slim - the hard work is done with the fork.

        But that's not the same as "Eat fewer calories and your body will do what it can to keep them on board and not use them for energy, e.g. it makes you less active". I mean, there may well be a point where this becomes true.

        Personally, even in periods of moderate to high activity, my metabolism appears to be such that it likes to store fat whether I am exercising or not - almost as if one's body becomes more efficient both in activity and at rest to make do with the 'apparent' reduction in resources. Now, eating substantially the same diet I was eating when maintaining a weight 15kg lighter that my present weight, I am gaining weight.

        I can certainly empathize with the constant hunger - it's a constant battle, every time you walk past a cafe, walk past a supermarket, sit at your computer, have a coffee, look out the window, get offered dessert... I'd compare it to quitting smoking, with the disadvantage that the cravings last for years.

        I do find that the cravings are directly proportional to (a) my general happiness and (b) my activity. On the day of activity, the hunger is suppressed. The day after it is usually increased.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on February 16, 2017, 12:14:45 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on February 16, 2017, 03:33:34 PM
        Yeah, it's a completely true and often largely vacuous statement, kind of like, "You can save money by spending less than you make."

        People on one side seem fond of pointing this out as though it's new and revelatory information. People on the other side then sometimes respond by denying the statement itself, rather than simply denying its usefulness.

        (In the present discussion that takes forms like denying that exercise can cause weight loss, when what you actually mean is that it's difficult in practice to exercise more while eating the same diet long enough to permanently lose weight.)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 16, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
        Yeah, it's a completely true and often largely vacuous statement, kind of like, "You can save money by spending less than you make."

        People on one side seem fond of pointing this out as though it's new and revelatory information. People on the other side then sometimes respond by denying the statement itself, rather than simply denying its usefulness.

        (In the present discussion that takes forms like denying that exercise can cause weight loss, when what you actually mean is that it's difficult in practice to exercise more while eating the same diet long enough to permanently lose weight.)

        Not really. What we dispute is whether it's useful or relevant diet and weight loss advice. So yes that is denying its usefulness.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: DG on February 16, 2017, 05:46:09 PM
        Yeah, it's a completely true and often largely vacuous statement, kind of like, "You can save money by spending less than you make."

        People on one side seem fond of pointing this out as though it's new and revelatory information. People on the other side then sometimes respond by denying the statement itself, rather than simply denying its usefulness.

        (In the present discussion that takes forms like denying that exercise can cause weight loss, when what you actually mean is that it's difficult in practice to exercise more while eating the same diet long enough to permanently lose weight.)

        Not really. What we dispute is whether it's useful or relevant diet and weight loss advice. So yes that is denying its usefulness.

        That's not the way it appears to others. It appears to be a strong assertion that "exercise alone cannot induce weight loss" - rather than "It would be bloody difficult to achieve sustainable weight loss without also taking steps to ensure a viable diet". It does down to the particular diet preferences - "Eat less calories" is in the same category if it ignores the reasons that the person is eating lost of calories, or if it ignores the practical realities of that person's day to day life, their personal dietary needs and preferences and so on.

        To those of us who are enthusiastic about losing weight, far too often here and elsewhere, the solution is "just do this" - as if that's easy. It's like telling a smoker "just quit". It's dismissive,  insensitive and unlikely to be effective.

        It doesn't account for "I smoke because I am stressed about X", or "I eat because I get bored at work", "I smoke when my friends are smoking", "I eat when I feel like no one cares about me". Often the reaction is "I don't have a problem with it", "It's easy"., "Studies show that you'll eat less/feel full"* - when those things are highly subjective and may not reflect the actual lived experience of others.

        The "Useful and relevant" test is ambiguous. Telling someone that exercise wont help you lose weight may well dissuade someone from obtaining the other health benefits of exercise. The practical reality for that individual may be that walking 30 minutes a day is practical, possible and sustainable in a way that "measuring your portions" or "Stop eating when you feel full" is not. In such a case advocating a particular diet is neither useful or relevant, but advocating that walk is both useful and relevant.

        I really appreciated Lonely Moas' acknowledgement of how hard it is to lose weight by exercise. Because it is hard, but for some of us that's more realistic and viable than other options that are advocated. 

        *when those studies show that you MAY eat less. because not all of the participants ate less.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 16, 2017, 10:28:10 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.

        No.  You've given exactly one example: a drug.  In fact, there is very little variation from person to person in proportion of dietary calories that are excreted, and the calorie contents of foods reported in nutrition tables and nutrition labels—called physiologic energy—are net of the excreted calories anyway.  So the equation, calories in = calories burned + calories stored, is extremely accurate, given that the "calories in" value is physiologic energy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 16, 2017, 10:45:26 PM
        Yeah, it's a completely true and often largely vacuous statement, kind of like, "You can save money by spending less than you make."

        People on one side seem fond of pointing this out as though it's new and revelatory information. People on the other side then sometimes respond by denying the statement itself, rather than simply denying its usefulness.

        (In the present discussion that takes forms like denying that exercise can cause weight loss, when what you actually mean is that it's difficult in practice to exercise more while eating the same diet long enough to permanently lose weight.)

        Not really. What we dispute is whether it's useful or relevant diet and weight loss advice. So yes that is denying its usefulness.
        That's not the way it appears to others. It appears to be a strong assertion that "exercise alone cannot induce weight loss"

        Why do you put this in quotes? It's not something I or anyone else here said.

        The words I use are my words and I stand by them. I don't stand by these other words that no one has posted.

        Quote me and I'll respond and defend what I wrote (or not, if I realize it was wrong or misleading or overstated or whatever).

         
        Quote
        To those of us who are enthusiastic about losing weight, far too often here and elsewhere, the solution is "just do this" - as if that's easy.


        Not here. I don't think anyone has said it's easy. I've been there and done that, and I can tell you it's not easy. It's doable, but no, it's not easy. I don't think I've ever given the impression it is easy.

        The strategy is very simple, but doing is not easy.

        The strategy: Eliminate all fast and simple carbs and starches from your diet, including sugars, flours, grains, starchy veggies, etc.

        Limit total carb consumption to no more than 20g per day, most coming from veggies.

        Eat plenty of fat, especially butter, coconut oil, olive oil and omega three fats. (avoid transfats)

        Keep protein moderate. (Easily done, just eat food, don't do high protein supplements).

        What makes it easier than other diets: You don't go hungry. You eat as much as you want. If you're hungry eat, if you're still hungry keep eating. When you feel full, stop. (at first, because old habits are hard to break, it's OK to binge on bacon, for example.)

        The foods are really good. Bacon; burgers (no bun); steaks; pork; salads; stir-fry veggies; many varieties of cheese; bacon and eggs for breakfast; avocado; etc., etc.

        What makes it hard:

        Addiction: When you start you realize you're addicted to some foods. Mostly sweets.

        Atkins Flu: For the first few days, as your body adapts from burning mostly glucose to burning glucose; ketones and fat, you may feel miserable.

        Food choices: We (the US) have been ultra-high carb (50% of calories or more) for so long now, that it's hard to find food that you can eat. (It's best to prepare your own.)

        Social: Because fat phobia is ingrained in our culture, you become somewhat of a pariah eating all that fat; your family and friends, even complete strangers, will think they know better than you and try to sabotage your diet by word and deed.

        Unless you're lucky enough to find a good doctor (as I was) medical professionals will give you bad dietary advice. Even (especially) nutrition professionals will give you bad advice ("eat more carbs").

        Quote
        It doesn't account for "I smoke because I am stressed about X", or "I eat because I get bored at work", "I smoke when my friends are smoking", "I eat when I feel like no one cares about me".

        BTW, those are very typical addiction responses. Replace smoke and eat with drink or shoot up, and it's exactly the same. (If it's sugar that people are addicted to, then a sugar free diet would be the solution.)

        Quote
        Often the reaction is "I don't have a problem with it", "It's easy"., "Studies show that you'll eat less/feel full"* - when those things are highly subjective and may not reflect the actual lived experience of others. <snip> *when those studies show that you MAY eat less. because not all of the participants ate less.


        Of those non-quotes, the closest to anything I've said is "studies show that you'll eat less and feel full."

        And that's a very reasonable and typical way of discussing studies, by the way. It's very rare that any study finds 100% of subjects being cured or significantly helped by treatment. These studies are no different. Yes some people do not respond well to LCHF diets. (Maybe because they are not easy due to those factors I mentioned above and others.)

        But severe calorie restriction is not easy either. Nor is any weight loss plan. But of all the weight loss plans you can choose from, LCHF diets have been found in study after study to have better compliance; more subjects stay on the diet and the diet is healthier and more effective for up to six months. Early success is also a good predictor  of how long someone will stay with a diet.

        But if you're hesitant to follow diet or any other health recommendation that has been found more effective or help more subjects than any other in numerous clinical trials, because it's not 100% effective you're just shooting yourself in the foot. (Not following any plan is much less effective).


        Quote
        The "Useful and relevant" test is ambiguous. Telling someone that exercise wont help you lose weight may well dissuade someone from obtaining the other health benefits of exercise.

        Flip that around. Is it good to tell people a falsehood? Should you tell people that exercise is required for weight loss or helps a lot or is all you need to do? Is that ethical? Because it's certainly false.

        Quote
        The practical reality for that individual may be that walking 30 minutes a day is practical, possible and sustainable in a way that "measuring your portions" or "Stop eating when you feel full" is not. In such a case advocating a particular diet is neither useful or relevant, but advocating that walk is both useful and relevant.

        I love exercise, I get plenty. It's important for health and fitness. It has nothing to do with weightloss for people in studies or in the real world.

        But if you tell people who want to lose weight and are seeking advice on losing weight that they should exercise to lose weight, when that has been found to not help, is simply unethical.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 16, 2017, 11:27:40 PM
        But if you tell people who want to lose weight and are seeking advice on losing weight that they should exercise to lose weight, when that has been found to not help, is simply unethical.

        That's basically bat-shit crazy. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 17, 2017, 12:00:53 AM
        But if you tell people who want to lose weight and are seeking advice on losing weight that they should exercise to lose weight, when that has been found to not help, is simply unethical.

        That's basically bat-shit crazy.


        You know physics,  and all about the laws of thermodynamics, and know that exercise should help with weight loss.

        But, that's not what actual studies of actual humans shows.

        So, go ahead and tell people that they have to exercise to lose weight or that exercise helps a lot or that they're not losing weight because of they're not exercising enough, because physics.

        You won't be doing them any favors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lubbarin on February 17, 2017, 12:03:55 AM
        What happens to athletes while they're recovering from an injury?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Johnny Slick on February 17, 2017, 01:36:26 AM
        They often gain a *lot* of weight because they can't work out 8-10 hours a day anymore. That's really the thing, isn't it? Yeah, you can absolutely lose weight eating 3500 calories a day if you're also engaging in strenuous activity all day long. How many of us have the ability to do this, however? Basically it comes down to athletes and dilettantes. The rest of us, we have to watch what we eat just as much if not more (and in fairness, athletes have to watch what they eat as well; if you run around for 8 hours but try to live on a diet of Twinkies, even if it's enough Twinkies to provide you caloric equilibrium, you're just going to get tired and sick).

        I feel like the real issue with Atkins/paleo diets, or at least their proponents, is that they do this Alcoholics Anonymous style "no true Scotsman" culling of results when they make their claims. In a study that is on the up and up, a person who tries a diet for a week but quits it and doesn't lose any weight is counted as a failure of that diet. With *so* many of these LCHF proponents, those people don't count because they didn't try hard enough or something. Well, guess what? The ease of entry and of the ability to keep going at it are part of what makes diets effective. It is physically possible to lose weight by starving yourself, maybe taking a couple of vitamin pills a day to prevent bone and muscle decay, and then once you've achieved the right weight just going to a reasonable number of calories. It's hard to impossible to make this kind of diet stick, though, because it's hard as crap to do, starving yourself causes your body to store whatever calories it does take in as fat, and even when you're "done" you have to continue to starve yourself for a while as your body slowly adjusts back to normalcy. But sure, it works, and when starvation-diet proponents cherry pick their results the way LCHF proponents often do, it too can look more effective than it actually is.

        Atkins is more effective than starving yourself. I'm just not seeing evidence put out by unbiased researchers that indicates that it's more effective than good old fashioned calorie-counting.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 01:39:39 AM
        Yeah, you can absolutely lose weight eating 3500 calories a day if you're also engaging in strenuous activity all day long.

        Absolutely wrong.  Sorry, I don't have the details.  You'll have to ask estockly.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: PB67 on February 17, 2017, 06:44:19 AM
        But if you tell people who want to lose weight and are seeking advice on losing weight that they should exercise to lose weight, when that has been found to not help, is simply unethical.

        That's basically bat-shit crazy.


        You know physics,  and all about the laws of thermodynamics, and know that exercise should help with weight loss.

        But, that's not what actual studies of actual humans shows.

        So, go ahead and tell people that they have to exercise to lose weight or that exercise helps a lot or that they're not losing weight because of they're not exercising enough, because physics.

        You won't be doing them any favors.
        Except that you constantly distort what the studies actually say.

        Both exercise and diet work better (individually), than nothing at all.

        Diet alone works better than exercise alone.

        Exercise and diet, together, works better than diet alone.



        Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 17, 2017, 11:07:20 AM
        They often gain a *lot* of weight because they can't work out 8-10 hours a day anymore.

        Unless they eat less.

        Quote
        Yeah, you can absolutely lose weight eating 3500 calories a day if you're also engaging in strenuous activity all day long.

        Any studies showing people actually doing this?




        Quote
        I feel like the real issue with Atkins/paleo diets, or at least their proponents, is that they do this Alcoholics Anonymous style "no true Scotsman" culling of results when they make their claims.

        Your feeling is wrong.

        Quote
        In a study that is on the up and up, a person who tries a diet for a week but quits it and doesn't lose any weight is counted as a failure of that diet.

        No. That's not how study results work. It's the intent to treat, so the results of even those who drop out in the first week (due to Atkins Flu) can be higher in LCHF diet are counted in the final results.

        Quote
        With *so* many of these LCHF proponents, those people don't count because they didn't try hard enough or something.

        Seriously, none of the studies, all peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals, do what you're saying.

        Quote
        Well, guess what? The ease of entry and of the ability to keep going at it are part of what makes diets effective. It is physically possible to lose weight by starving yourself, maybe taking a couple of vitamin pills a day to prevent bone and muscle decay, and then once you've achieved the right weight just going to a reasonable number of calories. It's hard to impossible to make this kind of diet stick, though, because it's hard as crap to do, starving yourself causes your body to store whatever calories it does take in as fat, and even when you're "done" you have to continue to starve yourself for a while as your body slowly adjusts back to normalcy. But sure, it works, and when starvation-diet proponents cherry pick their results the way LCHF proponents often do, it too can look more effective than it actually is.

        I know this isn't the point you're making but, starvation diets don't work. The goal of a weightloss diet is not to lose weight, but to burn excess fat while preserving or building muscle. Starvation diets cause a higher percentage of lean tissue loss than all others. That's not just muscle but organs as well. They are not healthy.

        Quote
        Atkins is more effective than starving yourself. I'm just not seeing evidence put out by unbiased researchers that indicates that it's more effective than good old fashioned calorie-counting.


        Either you're not looking or you're deciding that any researcher who finds that LCHF diets are more effective must be biased.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 03:30:34 PM
        Yeah, you can absolutely lose weight eating 3500 calories a day if you're also engaging in strenuous activity all day long.

        Any studies showing people actually doing this?

        Any studies showing that parachutes decrease the risk of death from jumping out of an airplane?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 03:50:55 PM
        From the most-recent review I could find:

        "Our critical review of the literature, after eliminating studies that were ill-equipped to answer the question at hand, indicated that diet + exercise combined interventions were more effective than diet-only interventions in inducing WL [weight loss] at 6 months. Such interventions typically result in 8– 11% WL. Notably, however, moderate-intensity to high-intensity AE- [aerobic exercise] only interventions without prescribed diet, conducted at a frequency of at least three to five times per week, were also effective in giving rise to approximately 2–3% loss of the initial weight within 6 months. In addition, interventions that target low-intensity walking and habitual activity that typically targets increasing daily ‘step counts’ also appear to produce modest WLs of 1–1.5% of the initial weight at 3–6 months. Conversely, RT [resistance exercise] alone does not appear to be effective in inducing WL. In fact, modest weight gain was most commonly reported in these studies; however, it was typically associated with concurrent increases in the more metabolically active FFM (and associated improvements in % BF and other fitness parameters). To conclude, both diet + exercise combined interventions and moderate-intensity to high-intensity AE-only interventions can assist people with obesity to achieve the 3–5% WL recommended by the AHA/ACC/TOS Guidelines."

        Source:
        Obes Rev. 2016 Dec;17(12):1226-1244. doi: 10.1111/obr.12460. Epub 2016 Oct 14. Physical activity and obesity: what we know and what we need to know. Chin SH, Kahathuduwa CN, Binks M.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 17, 2017, 04:40:22 PM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 17, 2017, 05:12:27 PM
        From the most-recent review I could find:

        "Our critical review of the literature, after eliminating studies that were ill-equipped to answer the question at hand, indicated that diet + exercise combined interventions were more effective than diet-only interventions in inducing WL [weight loss] at 6 months. Such interventions typically result in 8– 11% WL. Notably, however, moderate-intensity to high-intensity AE- [aerobic exercise] only interventions without prescribed diet, conducted at a frequency of at least three to five times per week, were also effective in giving rise to approximately 2–3% loss of the initial weight within 6 months. In addition, interventions that target low-intensity walking and habitual activity that typically targets increasing daily ‘step counts’ also appear to produce modest WLs of 1–1.5% of the initial weight at 3–6 months. Conversely, RT [resistance exercise] alone does not appear to be effective in inducing WL. In fact, modest weight gain was most commonly reported in these studies; however, it was typically associated with concurrent increases in the more metabolically active FFM (and associated improvements in % BF and other fitness parameters). To conclude, both diet + exercise combined interventions and moderate-intensity to high-intensity AE-only interventions can assist people with obesity to achieve the 3–5% WL recommended by the AHA/ACC/TOS Guidelines."

        Source:
        Obes Rev. 2016 Dec;17(12):1226-1244. doi: 10.1111/obr.12460. Epub 2016 Oct 14. Physical activity and obesity: what we know and what we need to know. Chin SH, Kahathuduwa CN, Binks M.

        They say that diet and exercise result in a 8-11% weight loss. But I don't see where they say how much weight loss diet alone produces. (do you see that?)
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12460/full
         (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12460/full)
        Quote
        When published individually, most of the studies summarized in the systematic review and meta-analyses conducted by Wu et al. [8] failed to show significant differences in WL between diet-only interventions and diet + exercise interventions; however, for some, there were significant differences noted. Nevertheless, when the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL. This result was compatible with the results seen in the previously conducted meta-analyses

        Interesting, the individual studies in the meta analyses didn't show a difference, but when they are pooled they do.

        When you look at the analyses they cite, the differences are well within the +/- values, and the actual difference seems insignificant.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 05:30:44 PM

        Interesting, the individual studies in the meta analyses didn't show a difference, but when they are pooled they do.

        That's the primary purpose of meta-analysis.  The summary result has greater statistical power than the individual studies.

        Quote
        When you look at the analyses they cite, the differences are well within the +/- values, and the actual difference seems insignificant.

        When a study finds no significant effect, it does not necessarily (or even usually) mean that there is no effect.  It often merely indicates that the study was not large enough to statistically detect the effect.  It is a mistake, and a very common one, to conclude that there was no effect.  Often, a meta-analysis will reveal that the majority of non-significant studies had effects, albeit non-significant, in the same direction.  When, all the study results are pooled, the combined effect is often highly significant.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 17, 2017, 06:03:15 PM

        Interesting, the individual studies in the meta analyses didn't show a difference, but when they are pooled they do.

        That's the primary purpose of meta-analysis.  The summary result has greater statistical power than the individual studies.

        Quote
        When you look at the analyses they cite, the differences are well within the +/- values, and the actual difference seems insignificant.

        When a study finds no significant effect, it does not necessarily (or even usually) mean that there is no effect.  It often merely indicates that the study was not large enough to statistically detect the effect.  It is a mistake, and a very common one, to conclude that there was no effect.  Often, a meta-analysis will reveal that the majority of non-significant studies had effects, albeit non-significant, in the same direction.  When, all the study results are pooled, the combined effect is often highly significant.

        OK, and Ok.

        So how much better was diet and exercise than diet alone?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 06:18:17 PM

        Interesting, the individual studies in the meta analyses didn't show a difference, but when they are pooled they do.

        That's the primary purpose of meta-analysis.  The summary result has greater statistical power than the individual studies.

        Quote
        When you look at the analyses they cite, the differences are well within the +/- values, and the actual difference seems insignificant.

        When a study finds no significant effect, it does not necessarily (or even usually) mean that there is no effect.  It often merely indicates that the study was not large enough to statistically detect the effect.  It is a mistake, and a very common one, to conclude that there was no effect.  Often, a meta-analysis will reveal that the majority of non-significant studies had effects, albeit non-significant, in the same direction.  When, all the study results are pooled, the combined effect is often highly significant.

        OK, and Ok.

        So how much better was diet and exercise than diet alone?

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 17, 2017, 09:16:21 PM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.

        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 09:26:04 PM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.

        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?

        It answers your question exactly.  It says that subjects in diet + exercise interventions lost at least 3–5% more weight than subjects in diet-only interventions. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 17, 2017, 10:59:58 PM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.

        They'll be gorging on that delicious hospital food after orthopaedic surgery on their hips and knees.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 17, 2017, 11:54:10 PM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.

        They'll be gorging on that delicious hospital food after orthopaedic surgery on their hips and knees.

        But then they'll have bionic hips and knees.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 12:03:57 AM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.



        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?

        It answers your question exactly.  It says that subjects in diet + exercise interventions lost at least 3–5% more weight than subjects in diet-only interventions.

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined interventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13]. Furthermore, in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1.

        It flat out does not say that. The 3-5% number is the threshold for healthy weight loss that they're promoting, and all they are saying here is the combination of diet and exercise meets that threshold. That does not say "3-5% greater than diet alone." 

        But even if it does say what you imagine, that weight loss with diet and exercise is 3 to 5% greater than with diet alone.

        If you would lose 10 pounds in six months with diet alone, but with diet and exercise you would lose 5% more, then how much more would you lose?



        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 12:17:44 AM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.



        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?

        It answers your question exactly.  It says that subjects in diet + exercise interventions lost at least 3–5% more weight than subjects in diet-only interventions.

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined interventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13]. Furthermore, in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1.

        It flat out does not say that.

        Hang on. I see the ambiguity.  Let me reread the section.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 18, 2017, 12:43:26 AM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.

        They'll be gorging on that delicious hospital food after orthopaedic surgery on their hips and knees.

        But then they'll have bionic hips and knees.

        Getting an artificial knee killed my father. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 12:44:10 AM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.



        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?

        It answers your question exactly.  It says that subjects in diet + exercise interventions lost at least 3–5% more weight than subjects in diet-only interventions.

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined interventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13]. Furthermore, in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1.

        It flat out does not say that. The 3-5% number is the threshold for healthy weight loss that they're promoting, and all they are saying here is the combination of diet and exercise meets that threshold. That does not say "3-5% greater than diet alone."

        I agree with your interpretation of the last sentence I quoted.  But the first two sentences I quoted—

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined iinterventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13].

        —explicitly say that diet+exercise intervention resulted in greater weight loss than diet-only intervention.  The paper has a whole section, "Combined calorie restriction and physical activity interventions," comparing the effects of diet+exercise intervention with diet-only intervention, in which they quantify the additional weight loss attributable to exercise over diet-alone.  Some of these quantitative results are shown in Table 1.  Others are cited in the text of this section.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 12:44:51 AM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.

        They'll be gorging on that delicious hospital food after orthopaedic surgery on their hips and knees.

        But then they'll have bionic hips and knees.

        Getting an artificial knee killed my father.

        Sorry to hear that.  I did not mean to be offensive.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 18, 2017, 12:53:11 AM
        I see the obese out running HIIT programmes every day.

        Good for them.  If they keep it up, they won't be obese anymore.

        They'll be gorging on that delicious hospital food after orthopaedic surgery on their hips and knees.

        But then they'll have bionic hips and knees.

        Getting an artificial knee killed my father.

        Sorry to hear that.  I did not mean to be offensive.

        Thats OK, dude, none taken.  Just mentioning that fat old people are a bit fragile and exercise isn't much of a weight loss option for them.  But neither is dieting, really. 

        If I was fat and diabetic, I'd look up someone like Jason Fung and commit.  But then again, one of the reasons I'm not fat and diabetic is that I have already committed, sort of my whole life. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 12:56:31 AM

        "[W]hen the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL .... in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1."


        That does not answer the question. How much did the diet-only subjects lose? That only tells us diet and exercise.



        If your claim is that diet and exercise is superior to diet alone, shouldn't one provide both results for comparison? Shouldn't the term "superior" be quantified?

        It answers your question exactly.  It says that subjects in diet + exercise interventions lost at least 3–5% more weight than subjects in diet-only interventions.

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined interventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13]. Furthermore, in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1.

        It flat out does not say that. The 3-5% number is the threshold for healthy weight loss that they're promoting, and all they are saying here is the combination of diet and exercise meets that threshold. That does not say "3-5% greater than diet alone."

        I agree with your interpretation of the last sentence I quoted.  But the first two sentences I quoted—

        Quote
        Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined iinterventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13].

        —explicitly say that diet+exercise intervention resulted in greater weight loss than diet-only intervention.  The paper has a whole section, "Combined calorie restriction and physical activity interventions," comparing the effects of diet+exercise intervention with diet-only intervention, in which they quantify the additional weight loss attributable to exercise over diet-alone.  Some of these quantitative results are shown in Table 1.  Others are cited in the text of this section.
        How much better.

        Don't you think it odd that they didn't quantity how much better?

        When I say studies have found LCHF diets to be superior to others, you yourself have responded that there is a difference but it's minor.

        Don't these claims deserve the same scrutiny?




        Your mileage may vary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 12:58:01 AM

        Don't you think it odd that they didn't quantity how much better?


        They devote an entire section of the paper quantifying how much better.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 01:11:52 AM
        Not really. They mention a couple of other analyses but they don't quantify their pooled analysis. If I'm missing that feel free to quote it


        Your mileage may vary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 01:14:12 AM
        Not really. They mention a couple of other analyses but they don't quantify their pooled analysis. If I'm missing that feel free to quote it

        The paper is not a meta-analysis.  It's a systematic review.  Meta-analyses pool results; systematic reviews don't.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 01:40:14 AM
        Quote
        In conducting our review of the literature, we found that failing to adequately segregate active treatment from follow-up periods was a common contributor to misinterpretation of outcomes. This practice obscures the ability to look more exclusively at the unique contribution of exercise to WL during the ‘active’ phases of treatment. When this limitation of the body of evidence is attended to, a clearer picture of the value-added benefit of combining diet with physical activity in order to lose weight becomes apparent.

        This might be where the difference is. Apparently most of the studies final data includes the follow up results, after the active weight loss.

        By eliminated that data, they claim there is a superior effect.

        But, if that effect is gone at the follow up a few weeks later, I would argue that my claim is not refuted.

        These studies find that exercise and diet is no more effective than diet alone, if you look at follow up data on the subjects.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 18, 2017, 01:45:16 AM
        Not really. They mention a couple of other analyses but they don't quantify their pooled analysis. If I'm missing that feel free to quote it

        The paper is not a meta-analysis.  It's a systematic review.  Meta-analyses pool results; systematic reviews don't.

        I was referring to this, which is the full graph you quoted, which does not quantify the difference in the pool analyses.

        Quote
        Nevertheless, when the data were pooled in order to increase the power, diet + exercise interventions were seen to be superior to diet-only interventions in causing WL. This result was compatible with the results seen in the previously conducted meta-analyses [7, 11]. Thus, a simple review of literature or attention to single, recently publicized studies may be misleading those attempting to inform their patients or the public at large about the value of combining diet with exercise to achieve initial WLs. A popular lore often stated among many healthcare professionals is that exercise is only useful for maintaining weight lost. However, when one considers the literature that exclusively considers active treatment (as opposed to mixed-treatment maintenance studies), a different picture emerges. Specifically, in these meta-analyses, the pooled mean WL resulting from diet + exercise combined interventions was seen to be greater than the WL observed in diet-only interventions. Goodpaster et al. [9] also substantiated the earlier evidence. Other well-controlled studies have reported similar results [12, 13]. Furthermore, in almost all studies, the diet + exercise combined interventions resulted in at least a 3–5% or even greater WL as shown in Table 1.

        I don't follow what you're getting at.  The paper is a systematic review, but not a meta-analysis.  As such, the authors perform a systematic critical review of the literature, but do not combine the results of individual studies into a single pooled effect estimate. 

        The section of the paper I referenced quoted results from numerous papers, but stopped short of averaging them to form a single pooled effect estimate.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on February 18, 2017, 03:49:08 PM
        Is it just me, or is estockly moving the goalposts?

        Exercise alone can cause weight loss. That was the claim you questioned, and that was the claimssubsequently backed up with a citation.

        Sure, if you can only make one change, diet alone may be better than exercise alone (not least because many obese people are physically incapable of the types of exercise recommended). But the fact remains that exercise alone can cause weight loss.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 03:51:02 PM
        It seems that they  (either 'this paper or the ones they're citing) are not basing the analysis on the final outcome of the studies, but the results after 6 months and disregarding follow up data.

        This way if a study or a review of studies finds no added benefit, they use data from the first part of the study to show an effect.




        Your mileage may vary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 18, 2017, 04:18:26 PM
        Is it just me, or is estockly moving the goalposts?

        My position is that in actual practice exercise is not relevant to healthy weight loss. You may be right that I might have overstated that.

        I'm still not convinced that's not the case.

        I don't believe I've moved the goal posts.

        Quote
        Exercise alone can cause weight loss. That was the claim you questioned, and that was the claimssubsequently backed up with a citation.

        There are may be situations where exercise can cause weight loss, but the citation posted did not show significant lasting results with exercise alone. It did claim that exercise with diet was superior to diet alone and that exercise alone was effective, but to get there it was using incomplete data from studies that dropped the actual results from the full studies.

        My view is (and has been) that the advantage of exercise and diet over diet alone is not significant, for a number of reasons. Exercise makes one tired, so when you're not exercising you're burning fewer calories; exercise can increase the appetite, so if it's not combined with some form of dietary restrictions you may replace all the calories burned through exercise, and then some.

        Quote
        Sure, if you can only make one change, diet alone may be better than exercise alone (not least because many obese people are physically incapable of the types of exercise recommended). But the fact remains that exercise alone can cause weight loss.

        Not to the extent that it's significant, lasting or meaningful.

        Telling people seeking weight loss advice that they need to exercise to lose weight is misleading and unethical.

        You can tell them that exercise is importance for health and fitness, sure, but for lasting, meaningful, significant and healthy weight loss you need dietary changes. You don't need exercise.


        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on February 20, 2017, 03:13:35 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.

        No.  You've given exactly one example: a drug.  In fact, there is very little variation from person to person in proportion of dietary calories that are excreted, and the calorie contents of foods reported in nutrition tables and nutrition labels—called physiologic energy—are net of the excreted calories anyway.  So the equation, calories in = calories burned + calories stored, is extremely accurate, given that the "calories in" value is physiologic energy.

        That may be.  As a Type I Diabetic, I have a warped perception of this since I can control how much glucose my body absorbs in a very direct way* via insulin.  Carry on.

        *: I control it as my doctor directs unless I accidentally mess up, so don't think I'm running a high blood glucose to try to lose weight.  I'd just end up eating more, staying the same weight, and screwing up all my capillaries in the process.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on February 20, 2017, 04:50:49 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.

        No.  You've given exactly one example: a drug.  In fact, there is very little variation from person to person in proportion of dietary calories that are excreted, and the calorie contents of foods reported in nutrition tables and nutrition labels—called physiologic energy—are net of the excreted calories anyway.  So the equation, calories in = calories burned + calories stored, is extremely accurate, given that the "calories in" value is physiologic energy.

        That may be.  As a Type I Diabetic, I have a warped perception of this since I can control how much glucose my body absorbs in a very direct way* via insulin.  Carry on.

        *: I control it as my doctor directs unless I accidentally mess up, so don't think I'm running a high blood glucose to try to lose weight.  I'd just end up eating more, staying the same weight, and screwing up all my capillaries in the process.

        Yes.  Diabetes would be an exception.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on April 25, 2017, 08:34:36 AM
        Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/

        I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 25, 2017, 10:36:02 AM
        Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/

        I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.

        I will read this, but it's nothing new (although the article might be). Hall has been saying this for years (since "Good Calories Bad Calories."  Apparently Taubes was rude to her.

        Before reading the article, this is what she's said in the past:

        The hypothesis based on insulin's role as the body's of fat storage and energy portioning driven by blood glucose levels is an oversimplification. And then in the same article she'll revert to some form of the calories in/calories out hypothesis for regulation of fat storage, which is not only a greater oversimplification it's not accurate.

        Then she'll say that Taubes is proposing changing from an approach and way of thinking we adopted with incomplete science to a new approach and way of thinking with incomplete science.

        But that's not what Taubes is proposing, and ignores a major point. Not only is the mainstream position an incorrect way of thinking about nutrition that was not based on science, it is also an intervention that we have been doing to our population for 40 years without good science to support it. And not only hasn't been working (in preventing CVD and chronic disease) it has made things worse and caused a terrible side effect (the obesity epidemic).

        Taubes doesn't want to change one unscientific intervention with another. He wants us to end the current intervention. And start from scratch based on what we know now (many key parts of the dietary guidelines have already been debunked but are still promoted at every level) and pursue further research based on a null hypothesis.


        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 25, 2017, 04:21:58 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.

        No.  You've given exactly one example: a drug.  In fact, there is very little variation from person to person in proportion of dietary calories that are excreted, and the calorie contents of foods reported in nutrition tables and nutrition labels—called physiologic energy—are net of the excreted calories anyway.  So the equation, calories in = calories burned + calories stored, is extremely accurate, given that the "calories in" value is physiologic energy.

        That may be.  As a Type I Diabetic, I have a warped perception of this since I can control how much glucose my body absorbs in a very direct way* via insulin.  Carry on.

        *: I control it as my doctor directs unless I accidentally mess up, so don't think I'm running a high blood glucose to try to lose weight.  I'd just end up eating more, staying the same weight, and screwing up all my capillaries in the process.

        Yes.  Diabetes would be an exception.

        An exception to what, the laws of thermodynamics?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on April 25, 2017, 04:36:17 PM
        This post isn't meant to support or contradict LCHF diets.  I just want to point out a detail.

        Calories in equals calories out is a misleading statement.  Calories can be burned, stored, or excreted.  Drugs like Farxiga prevent glucose absorption by the kidneys, so a portion of the carbs you eat (calories in) just get peed out (calories out).

        Simplifying eating and exercise with the statement "calories in equals calories out" isn't really as meaningful as people imply.  People who say it usually mean that if you eat X calories, you have to burn X calories to avoid storing some, but in reality you can burn less than X calories and excrete the rest and still stay neutral.  Many things can effect how many calories our body excretes rather than stores.

        No.  You've given exactly one example: a drug.  In fact, there is very little variation from person to person in proportion of dietary calories that are excreted, and the calorie contents of foods reported in nutrition tables and nutrition labels—called physiologic energy—are net of the excreted calories anyway.  So the equation, calories in = calories burned + calories stored, is extremely accurate, given that the "calories in" value is physiologic energy.

        That may be.  As a Type I Diabetic, I have a warped perception of this since I can control how much glucose my body absorbs in a very direct way* via insulin.  Carry on.

        *: I control it as my doctor directs unless I accidentally mess up, so don't think I'm running a high blood glucose to try to lose weight.  I'd just end up eating more, staying the same weight, and screwing up all my capillaries in the process.

        Yes.  Diabetes would be an exception.

        An exception to what, the laws of thermodynamics?

        Calories in for a type 1 diabetic doesn't necessarily equate to calories processed like it does for everyone else.  Also, insulin response has no meaning because it is manually controlled.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Johnny Slick on April 25, 2017, 04:50:30 PM
        True, if your type 2 diabetes is out of control or you don't take insulin, you can pretty well eat all the sugar and you're not going to digest it. I mean, you're also going to deposit all of that into your blood, give yourself a stroke, and make your feet fall off, but yeah, one of the signs of diabetes in adults is rapid, uncontrolled weight loss...
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on April 25, 2017, 05:34:55 PM
        Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/)

        I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.

        All diseases have a single cause: sugar.  So it's now official: Taubes is diet crank.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on April 25, 2017, 05:36:18 PM
        True, if your type 2 diabetes is out of control or you don't take insulin, you can pretty well eat all the sugar and you're not going to digest it. I mean, you're also going to deposit all of that into your blood...

        If the sugar got into your blood, you had to absorb it, which implies that if it needed digestion, you digested it.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 25, 2017, 06:34:19 PM
        True, if your type 2 diabetes is out of control or you don't take insulin, you can pretty well eat all the sugar and you're not going to digest it. I mean, you're also going to deposit all of that into your blood, give yourself a stroke, and make your feet fall off, but yeah, one of the signs of diabetes in adults is rapid, uncontrolled weight loss...

        You are confusing type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. You're also confusing insulin resistance in lean tissue and insulin resistance in fat cells.

        If you are a type 1 diabetic your body doesn't produce insulin and, as insulin regulates fat storage, without it you do lose weight rapidly and then you die. (injectable insulin is a lifesaver.) Before insulin treatments were developed the best way to prolong the lives of diabetes patients was an extremely low carb ketogenic diet.

        For type 2 diabetes, rapid weight loss is not a symptom. In fact the opposite. It very strongly correlates with obesity.

        One of the hallmarks of T2D is insulin resistance in lean tissue. Which means when glucose is high your body produces insulin, but it's not absorbed fast enough into lean tissue, so you produce even more insulin. But your fat cells respond, storring more and more fat.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 25, 2017, 06:49:35 PM
        Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/)

        I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.

        All diseases have a single cause: sugar.  So it's now official: Taubes is diet crank.

        Maybe you should read Taubes to see what the argument he's actually making is.

        Quote
        In two earlier books, Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It, he marshaled masses of evidence to support his thesis that the calories in/calories out model is wrong, that carbohydrates are the cause of obesity and most of the “diseases of civilization,” and that simply restricting carbohydrates will result in weight loss regardless of the total number of calories ingested.

        There's a reason that phrase is in quotes. Taubes discusses a well recognized specific set of diseases that are rare or nearly non-existent outside of modern civilized societies, including obesity; metabolic syndrome; Type 2 Diabetes; CVD (at a relatively early age); and some forms of cancer.

        He makes the case that each of these diseases of civilization and be plausibly tied to sugar, either as a cause; contributing cause or aggravating factor.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on April 25, 2017, 06:53:34 PM
        Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/)

        I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.

        All diseases have a single cause: sugar.  So it's now official: Taubes is diet crank.

        Maybe you should read Taubes to see what the argument he's actually making is.

        Quote
        In two earlier books, Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It, he marshaled masses of evidence to support his thesis that the calories in/calories out model is wrong, that carbohydrates are the cause of obesity and most of the “diseases of civilization,” and that simply restricting carbohydrates will result in weight loss regardless of the total number of calories ingested.

        There's a reason that phrase is in quotes. Taubes discusses a well recognized specific set of diseases that are rare or nearly non-existent outside of modern civilized societies, including obesity; metabolic syndrome; Type 2 Diabetes; CVD (at a relatively early age); and some forms of cancer.

        He makes the case that each of these diseases of civilization and be plausibly tied to sugar, either as a cause; contributing cause or aggravating factor.

        "I know a panacea for the 'diseases of civilization'" is the standard claim of the diet crank.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 27, 2017, 11:56:54 PM
        Name that fallacy


        Your mileage may vary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on April 28, 2017, 12:14:46 AM
        Name that fallacy


        Your mileage may vary.

        Using Bayes' Theorem, estimate the probability that Tabues, having no training in medicine, biology, nutrition, or biochemistry, has found the cure for the "diseases of civilization" vs the probability that he is just the latest in a long string of cranks to falsely believe he has.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 07, 2017, 01:59:35 PM
        I recently had a round of blood tests; my C-reactive protein was less than 1 (the quack says it should be <5).   I wonder if that is due to nearly total avoidance of seed oils (canola, soy, sunflower, etc) and stick to butter, coconut and olive oil.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on May 07, 2017, 02:28:54 PM
        I recently had a round of blood tests; my C-reactive protein was less than 1 (the quack says it should be <5).   I wonder if that is due to nearly total avoidance of seed oils (canola, soy, sunflower, etc) and stick to butter, coconut and olive oil.

        It's not.

        1. Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun 1;181(11):846-56. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv021. Epub 2015 Apr 21.

        Polyunsaturated fatty acids and serum C-reactive protein: the Rotterdam study.
        Muka T, Kiefte-de Jong JC, Hofman A, Dehghan A, Rivadeneira F, Franco OH.

        We aimed to investigate whether dietary intake of total or individual (n-3, n-6, and n-3:n-6 ratio) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was prospectively associated with serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation. We analyzed 4,707 participants (1,943 men and 2,764 women) from the Rotterdam Study, a prospective follow-up study of subjects aged 55 years or older in the Netherlands. At baseline (1989-1993), dietary intake of PUFAs was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaire. CRP was measured at baseline and at the third study visit (1997-1999). Regression coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using linear generalized estimating equations. Dietary intake of butter and margarine explained most of the variance in PUFA intake. After adjustment for possible confounding factors, higher intake of total PUFAs was associated with lower CRP levels (fourth quartile vs. first quartile: β = -0.08, 95% confidence interval: -0.15, -0.01). Similarly, intake of n-6 PUFAs was inversely related to CRP (fourth quartile vs. first: β = -0.09, 95% confidence interval: -0.16, -0.01). No consistent trends were observed regarding n-3 PUFAs or n-3:n-6 PUFA ratio and CRP. These findings suggest that high intakes of total PUFAs are associated with lower levels of CRP, reflecting diminished chronic systemic inflammation, which in our study was mainly driven by n-6 PUFAs.


        2. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016 Jan;20(1):16-21. doi: 10.1007/s12603-015-0551-7.

        The Associations of C-Reactive Protein with Serum Levels of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Trans Fatty Acids Among Middle-Aged Men from Three Populations.

        El-Saed A(1), Masaki K, Okamura T, Evans RW, Nakamura Y, Willcox BJ, Lee S, Maegawa H, Seto TB, Choo J, Fujiyoshi A, Miura K, Kuller LH, Ueshima H, Sekikawa A; ERAJump Study Group.

         BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) and many fatty acids (FAs) have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Associations of serum CRP with FAs in different populations have not been established. METHODS: Participants were 926 men aged 40-49 (2002-2006) from a population-based sample; 310 Whites from Pennsylvania, U.S., 313 Japanese from Shiga, Japan, and 303 Japanese Americans from Hawaii, U.S. Serum CRP (mg/L) was measured using immunosorbent assay while serum FAs (%) were measured using capillary-gas-liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Whites had CRP (mg/L) levels higher than Japanese with Japanese Americans in-between (age-adjusted geometric mean "GM" 0.96, 0.38, 0.66, respectively). Whites had also higher levels of total n-6 FAs (%) and trans fatty acids (TFAs) but lower levels of marine-derived n-3 FAs compared to Japanese (41.78 vs. 35.05, 1.04 vs. 0.58, and 3.85 vs. 9.29, respectively). Japanese Americans had FAs levels in-between the other two populations. Whites had significant inverse trends between CRP and tertiles of total n-6 FAs (GM 1.20, 0.91 and 0.80; p=0.002) and marine-derived n-3 FAs (GM 1.22, 1.00 and 0.72; p<0.001) but a significant positive trend with TFAs (GM 0.80, 0.95 and 1.15; p=0.007). Japanese had a significant inverse trend between CRP and only total n-6 FAs (GM 0.50, 0.35 and 0.31; p<0.001). Japanese Americans had CRP associations with n-3 FAs, n-6 FAs, and TFAs similar to but weaker than Whites. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of consistent inverse association of CRP with total n-6 FAs, there are considerable variations across the three populations in the associations of CRP with different FAs.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 07, 2017, 06:15:55 PM
        Thanks.... maybe my arteries are just healthy.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 12, 2017, 11:40:04 PM
        This is a great interview with Jason Fung on fasting:

        https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/2017/06/the-complete-guide-to-fasting-how-to-heal-your-body-through-intermittent-alternate-day-and-extended-fasting/?_ga=2.54602216.2129253990.1497293320-1318669959.1496258503

        If I had diabetes, I'd be in his hospital tomorrow.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 14, 2017, 09:44:58 PM
        A lecture by Jason Fung, nephrologist:  http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/16257/1272-dr-jason-fung-2016-low-carb-usa/

        I'd like to see the slides, but the audio is fine anyway.  A great talk on fasting and why calories in calories out doesn't seem to work.

        He says he gets a lot of flak, that he is starving people, killing them... the riposte was something like, "If you haven't fasted a thousand obese patients, you don't know what you are talking about."

        He busts a few (dozen) myths about fasting and the explanation about how and why it is so effective for weight loss and diabetes is fascinating.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 15, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
        Have you checked out the STEM-Talk podcast?

        https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-39-suzana-herculano-provides-new-understanding/id1091402153?i=1000386221060&mt=2

        I'm listening to Taubs now.  Up next Peter Attia.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 15, 2017, 03:05:38 PM
        Have you checked out the STEM-Talk podcast?

        https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-39-suzana-herculano-provides-new-understanding/id1091402153?i=1000386221060&mt=2

        I'm listening to Taubs now.  Up next Peter Attia.

        I love stem talk.  I am downloading this now.  That is a good interview/conversation with Taubes, but they are low carb people at stem.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 15, 2017, 08:11:21 PM
        Have you checked out the STEM-Talk podcast?

        https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-39-suzana-herculano-provides-new-understanding/id1091402153?i=1000386221060&mt=2

        I'm listening to Taubs now.  Up next Peter Attia.

        Nice conversation.  I quite like Brazilians.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 21, 2017, 01:20:29 AM
        Speaking of great STEM talks, this week they have Allan Savory, one of my heroes.


        https://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-40/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 03, 2017, 05:38:42 AM
        ES, you might like this podcast:  http://www.nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/creating-change-public-health/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on July 14, 2017, 06:33:17 PM
        Set your DVRs!
        Tues. July 18

        Adam Ruins Everything
        "Adam Ruins Weight Loss" Adam Conover illustrates all the reasons low-fat diets make people fatter and why counting calories is a waste of time. (TV14) (N)  10 p.m. TRU
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 15, 2017, 01:47:18 AM
        Set your DVRs!
        Tues. July 18

        Adam Ruins Everything
        "Adam Ruins Weight Loss" Adam Conover illustrates all the reasons low-fat diets make people fatter and why counting calories is a waste of time. (TV14) (N)  10 p.m. TRU

        You tube links?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on July 15, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
        It's hard to have YouTube links for videos that don't exist yet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on July 20, 2017, 01:51:31 AM
        https://youtu.be/fglriTEmAJ4


        Your mileage may vary.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on July 20, 2017, 04:26:49 AM
         "The uploader has not made this available in your country"  :(
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 02, 2017, 08:01:44 PM
        Look here for the episode:

        http://www.trutv.com/full-episodes/adam-ruins-everything/2124080/index.html
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 04, 2017, 03:01:09 PM
        Nina's latest Op-Ed in the LA Times.  Interesting quick read. 




        http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-saturated-fat-wont-kill-you-20170723-story.html
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2017, 01:34:05 PM
        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext?elsca1=tlxpr

        Interesting study from the lancet.

        Quote
        Interpretation
        High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.


        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on August 30, 2017, 02:17:29 AM
        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext?elsca1=tlxpr

        Interesting study from the lancet.

        Quote
        Interpretation
        High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.



        Need one say more?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on September 18, 2017, 01:49:31 PM
        Interesting interview with a NUSI principal, James Mc Carter.  Keto to cure T2D.

        http://www.nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/how-reverse-insulin-resistant-type-two-diabetes-10/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on October 11, 2017, 01:49:40 PM

        World will have more obese children and adolescents than underweight by 2022 -- ScienceDaily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171010224434.htm)

        Quote
        The number of obese children and adolescents (aged 5 to 19 years) worldwide has risen tenfold in the past four decades, according to a new study led by Imperial College London and the World Health Organization (WHO). If current trends continue, more children and adolescents will be obese than moderately or severely underweight by 2022.

        Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128·9 million children, adolescents, and adults - The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32129-3/fulltext)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on November 05, 2017, 10:17:28 AM

        Carbohydrate-Restriction with High-Intensity Interval Training: An Optimal Combination for Treating Metabolic Diseases? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643422/)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on November 05, 2017, 12:15:45 PM
        Not the ususal suspects in the authors list.  Seems thee are a few clinics reversing T2D but it is a struggle and people have been thoroughly brainwashed about faulty) nutrition advice in the last few decades.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on December 29, 2017, 01:25:51 AM
        A good Taubes' article here:

        https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/minimal-carbs-lots-of-fat-incredible-results-but-no-science/article37402123/?utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 03, 2018, 01:54:00 PM
        At the risk of conspiritory accusations, this in PLOS 1: http//journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001578

        It aint just the calories...
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 03, 2018, 02:55:31 PM
        At the risk of conspiritory accusations, this in PLOS 1: http//journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001578

        It aint just the calories...
        Link is broken :(
        http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578)

        Quote

        We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3).

        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 03, 2018, 05:42:35 PM
        At the risk of conspiritory accusations, this in PLOS 1: http//journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001578

        It aint just the calories...
        Link is broken :(
        http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578)

        Quote

        We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3).

        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        ta
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 04, 2018, 06:42:55 PM

        What if sugar is worse than just empty calories? An essay by Gary Taubes | The BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.j5808)
        Quote
        Doctors have long suspected sugar is not simply a source of excess calories but a fundamental cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Gary Taubes argues we must do more to discourage consumption while we improve our understanding of sugar’s role
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 04, 2018, 09:13:38 PM
        Thanks!  great article... there will be howls from the sugar industry, no doubt.

        Shame he is such a compelling and insightful author.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 12, 2018, 04:12:45 PM
        Gary and Ben here:

        https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/podcast/nutrition-podcasts/the-case-against-sugar-gary-taubes/?_ga=2.122047307.1184887485.1515781941-563763840.1515395154
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 17, 2018, 11:04:06 AM
        This is a very good summation of the way the LCHF diet is becoming more acceptable in the mainstream.

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2669724

        (Although they did get the bit about Atkins diet wrong, that was always low carb, high fat, moderate protein )


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2018, 11:07:49 AM
        I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic in 2009.

        Based on the caveats you introduced the thread with you probably don’t want to hear from me on this, but I wonder if you started a thread on using acupuncture or homeopathy and said you didn’t want to hear opposing views would that be any different?





        Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base - Nutrition (http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext)

        Quote
        The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines.

        The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs.

        Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1.

        They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

        This link is a few years old. The described treatment is gaining greater acceptance. The only treatment that works as well is bariatric surgery.  All other dietary treatments are used to manage the disease, not reverse it.

        Best of luck to you.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2018, 06:21:21 PM
        I have never counted carbs before - don't even know what number I should be aiming for; I figured if I stayed away from starchy stuff I'd be OK.  Here's what my app shows:

        (https://i.imgur.com/aKoH1Jz.png)
        That dish has more carbs in a single serving than I would have in a week.

        Quote
        Phone interview tomorrow.

        With whom? (just curious)

        There are two basic approaches to counting carbs.
        The simplest is just count the number of grams of Total Carbs

        Atkins uses "Net Carbs" which means you take the total grams of carbs and subtract the grams of fiber and sugar alcohols. All those are included in the nutrition label.

        (I started on Atkins, and switched to the stricter "Total Carbs.")

        If you're using a LCHF Keto diet to reverse T2 diabetes you want total carbs below 20 per day to start. Once you're fat adapted you can increase to as high as 50, if you want, or switch to Net Carbs. But none of those (beyond trace amounts) should come from sugar (sucrose / HFCS; lactose; etc.); grains (flours, breads, pastries, pastas, etc.) or starchy foods (potatoes; rice; etc.); fruits.

        The carbs should come from green veggies; salads.

        The up-side is you can eat all the fats; meats; bacon and butter you want.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on January 19, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
        This is a very good summation of the way the LCHF diet is becoming more acceptable in the mainstream.

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2669724

        (Although they did get the bit about Atkins diet wrong, that was always low carb, high fat, moderate protein )


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Thanks for that article.... but I think you have posted in the wrong thread!
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 22, 2018, 10:53:20 AM
        Interesting article about protein and a LCHF diet ...

        https://blog.virtahealth.com/how-much-protein-on-keto/


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Billzbub on February 22, 2018, 04:01:28 PM
        When I saw the title, I was so excited that Steve finally heard about our discussions here and decided to chime in.

        https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/low-fat-vs-low-carb-no-difference/

        But then I read the article, and its not about ketogenic diets at all.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 24, 2018, 04:40:18 AM
        Our "Dear Leader' is living in the conflicted near past. 

        Our ancestors ate a lot of protein and fat and few carbohydrates.  They were big and strong.  We saw how large and robust they were ( like the Plains indians and the Mongol warriors) and how humans on average became smaller, less robust and less healthy with the introduction of agriculture.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on February 24, 2018, 06:29:22 AM
        Yeah. Damn our dependence on grains stopping us all from growing to more than 5'8".
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.htm
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on February 24, 2018, 07:17:52 PM
        Our ancestors ate a lot of protein and fat and few carbohydrates.  They were big and strong.  We saw how large and robust they were ( like the Plains indians and the Mongol warriors) and how humans on average became smaller, less robust and less healthy with the introduction of agriculture.

        Evidence?

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on February 24, 2018, 08:32:29 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 24, 2018, 08:57:56 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Really? What’s that ? Aside from learning how to make ourselves obese?


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on February 24, 2018, 09:21:35 PM
        But first of all, citing the Plains Indians and 11th Century Mongols as examples of "our" ancestors is a laughably hasty generalization based on two cherry-picked examples of seminomadic civilizations.

        Besides that, there's no conclusive evidence about the diets of "our ancestors." Even if there was evidence that all paleolithic humans ate diets very low in carbohydrates, that's still not sufficient evidence to validate claims that the carbs were the cause of the decline in physical robustness after humans congregated into cities. In fact there are countless factors that would appear to suggest otherwise, for example some civilizations that have led very healthy lifestyles on carb-heavy diets. 

        The claim that "our ancestors" were "big" is not even true. The Cro Magnon, for example, averaged about 166 to 171 cm (about 5' 5" to 5' 7") tall, which is shorter than modern man. And those guys were relatively tall compared with other early hominids. The Neanderthals (who are thought to have derived even more of their diet from hunting large game) were even shorter.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on February 24, 2018, 10:16:29 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Really? What’s that ? Aside from learning how to make ourselves obese?
        lonely moa's the one who used height as a proxy for health. We're taller now than those people who apparently ate non-agricultural diets and were all big and robust as a result, so on that logic we must be healthier than they were.

        But also, we've been using agriculture for literally a hundred or more times longer than the obesity epidemic has been a thing.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on February 25, 2018, 07:54:46 AM
        Picking cherries is really fun though!
        Check out these gigantic chinese folks who lived on an agricultural diet:
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/skeletons-china-giants-5000-year-old-archaeologists-discovered-jiaojia-jinan-shandong-a7824326.html

        (Apparently Confucius was 190cm?!!)

        Its almost as if its a bullshit metric either way....
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on February 25, 2018, 12:57:35 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Really? What’s that ? Aside from learning how to make ourselves obese?
        lonely moa's the one who used height as a proxy for health. We're taller now than those people who apparently ate non-agricultural diets and were all big and robust as a result, so on that logic we must be healthier than they were.

        But also, we've been using agriculture for literally a hundred or more times longer than the obesity epidemic has been a thing.

        Humans haven't been eating highly processed carbohydrates and sugar for all that long, and only encouraged to eat that way for the last half century. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Harry Black on February 25, 2018, 02:28:33 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Really? What’s that ? Aside from learning how to make ourselves obese?
        lonely moa's the one who used height as a proxy for health. We're taller now than those people who apparently ate non-agricultural diets and were all big and robust as a result, so on that logic we must be healthier than they were.

        But also, we've been using agriculture for literally a hundred or more times longer than the obesity epidemic has been a thing.

        Humans haven't been eating highly processed carbohydrates and sugar for all that long, and only encouraged to eat that way for the last half century.
        And yet average height, lifespan and IQ has been going up and up.
        Along with records being set by athletes with all kinds of diets.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on February 25, 2018, 06:29:13 PM
        I think it's fairly well established that the *introduction* of agriculture caused a drop in health (but also a drop in death by starvation). The thing is that we've figured some stuff out in the past several thousand years.
        Really? What’s that ? Aside from learning how to make ourselves obese?
        lonely moa's the one who used height as a proxy for health. We're taller now than those people who apparently ate non-agricultural diets and were all big and robust as a result, so on that logic we must be healthier than they were.

        But also, we've been using agriculture for literally a hundred or more times longer than the obesity epidemic has been a thing.

        Humans haven't been eating highly processed carbohydrates and sugar for all that long, and only encouraged to eat that way for the last half century.
        And yet average height, lifespan and IQ has been going up and up.
        Along with records being set by athletes with all kinds of diets.

        Actually height has been going up and down since the stone age, and has been leveling off lately.

        Weight has been going up and up lately and shows no sign of leveling off.

        We've pretty much eliminated malnutrition and famine since the introduction of agriculture, but that doesn't mean we've the diet we blindly stumbled on is the ideal human diet.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on February 25, 2018, 07:01:33 PM
        Actually height has been going up and down since the stone age, and has been leveling off lately.

        It depends on which populations you look at. As an aggregate, it's been fluctuating quite a lot and generally trending upward. It shot up dramatically in the US, Europe, and Central Asia over the 20th Century with the progress of modern medicine, and still appears to be on a general upward trend in most parts of the world. 

        (https://i.imgur.com/fSV3OyL.png)
        https://ourworldindata.org/human-height


        Weight has been going up and up lately and shows no sign of leveling off.

        Nobody's arguing that excessive sugar consumption isn't bad for you, and hasn't contributed to an increase in obesity in the United States over the last century or so.

        What we're contesting are the unevidenced "Paleo Diet" myths which assert that some imaginary, overgeneralized, prehistoric population (patronizingly referred to as "our ancestors") were uniformly bigger, stronger, and healthier than modern day humans as a result of having eaten a meat-based diet with very few carbohydrates.


        We've pretty much eliminated malnutrition and famine since the introduction of agriculture

        You're kidding (https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/IGAD-says-28m-Africans-in-ten-States-face-starvation/3946234-4309812-104m8v0z/), right? 


        ...but that doesn't mean we've the diet we blindly stumbled on is the ideal human diet.

        Yet here you are, proselytizing to us about your ideal human diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on March 11, 2018, 05:31:03 PM
        The Food Programme featuring Tim Noakes.  Good show.

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09smnhd
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 12:33:59 AM
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpALLBqcYTE
        Title: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on March 27, 2018, 01:13:46 PM
        OK, I'm quoting two posts from two different threads to make this point. First:

        Not to mention his insistence that Dr. Novella and the AHA and the Mayo clinic and my own doctor do not understand nutrition, implying that either they are ignoring the evidence or are incapable of understanding it.

        That is not my claim at all, and never has been. My claim has been they are victims of their own bias. Pure and simple. The very thing that Dr. Novella tells others to be wary of.

        So here's this graphic listing various (not all) kinds of bias....

        (https://i.imgur.com/avEPxL6.png)

        I would argue that Novella, et. al. are victims of:

        1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 12; 16; 17; 18; 20.

        Taking a second look at this I will admit I may be vulnerable to a few myself:

        4; 5; 7; 12; 14; 17
        Title: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 12:33:33 AM
        I’m still waiting for CarbShark to provide evidence for his claim that high carbohydrate diets cause the fraction of smaller low density lipoprotein particles to increase over the larger/buoyant ones (the smaller ones are supposed to be able to penetrate the gaps between endothelial cells more easily than the larger ones and ‘clog’ arteries - which as an anatomical pathologist I don’t find a convincing argument anyway, I just want to know if there’s any evidence for the first step of the argument; I haven’t been able to find any).

        Here’s one:

        https://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/atkins/sharman.pdf



        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on April 02, 2018, 12:38:57 AM
        OK, I'm quoting two posts from two different threads to make this point. First:

        Not to mention his insistence that Dr. Novella and the AHA and the Mayo clinic and my own doctor do not understand nutrition, implying that either they are ignoring the evidence or are incapable of understanding it.

        That is not my claim at all, and never has been. My claim has been they are victims of their own bias. Pure and simple. The very thing that Dr. Novella tells others to be wary of.

        (click to show/hide)

        I would argue that Novella, et. al. are victims of:

        1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 12; 16; 17; 18; 20.

        Taking a second look at this I will admit I may be vulnerable to a few myself:

        4; 5; 7; 12; 14; 17

        Which one of those biases on your list inspired you to evaluate yourself as less biased than the majority of highly-educated, trained professionals speaking to their area of expertise?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 10:27:17 AM
        OK, I'm quoting two posts from two different threads to make this point. First:

        Not to mention his insistence that Dr. Novella and the AHA and the Mayo clinic and my own doctor do not understand nutrition, implying that either they are ignoring the evidence or are incapable of understanding it.

        That is not my claim at all, and never has been. My claim has been they are victims of their own bias. Pure and simple. The very thing that Dr. Novella tells others to be wary of.

        (click to show/hide)

        I would argue that Novella, et. al. are victims of:

        1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 12; 16; 17; 18; 20.

        Taking a second look at this I will admit I may be vulnerable to a few myself:

        4; 5; 7; 12; 14; 17

        Which one of those biases on your list inspired you to evaluate yourself as less biased than the majority of highly-educated, trained professionals speaking to their area of expertise?

        We are all victims of these bias at some point in time.  Shark is a victim of 12 for self diagnosing and diagnosing others.

        The two missing from the list that I see most on the Internet are:

        devil's advocate/troll bias
        conspiracy/victim bias
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 10:41:56 AM
        It is very unwise to throw out previous studies and blindly claim that eating meat is not a health issue:

        http://www.atkinsexposed.org/All_Long_Term_Studies_on_Atkins_a_Wash.htm
        Quote
        The biggest study on vegans to date compared over a thousand vegans in Europe to tens of thousands of meateaters and vegetarians. The meateaters, on average, were significantly heavier than the vegetarians, who in turn were significantly heavier than the vegans. Even after controlling for exercise, smoking, and other nondietary factors, vegans came out slimmest in every age group. Less than 2% of vegans were obese.[221]

        http://www.atkinsfacts.org/Atkins_Distorted_His_Record_on_Cholesterol.htm
        Quote
        Atkins claimed a worsening of cholesterol levels typically only occurs "when carbohydrates are a large part of the diet."[318] We've known this to be false since 1929 when the Institute of American Meatpackers paid to see what would happen if people lived on an all-meat diet. The blood plasma of the unfortunate subjects was so filled with fat it "showed a milkiness" and one of the subjects' cholesterol shot up to 800![319]
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 12:00:39 PM
        It is very unwise to throw out previous studies and blindly claim that eating meat is not a health issue:

        http://www.atkinsexposed.org/All_Long_Term_Studies_on_Atkins_a_Wash.htm
        Quote
        The biggest study on vegans to date compared over a thousand vegans in Europe to tens of thousands of meateaters and vegetarians. The meateaters, on average, were significantly heavier than the vegetarians, who in turn were significantly heavier than the vegans. Even after controlling for exercise, smoking, and other nondietary factors, vegans came out slimmest in every age group. Less than 2% of vegans were obese.[221]

        http://www.atkinsfacts.org/Atkins_Distorted_His_Record_on_Cholesterol.htm
        Quote
        Atkins claimed a worsening of cholesterol levels typically only occurs "when carbohydrates are a large part of the diet."[318] We've known this to be false since 1929 when the Institute of American Meatpackers paid to see what would happen if people lived on an all-meat diet. The blood plasma of the unfortunate subjects was so filled with fat it "showed a milkiness" and one of the subjects' cholesterol shot up to 800![319]

        Seriously? That anti-atkins web site (both links from the same source) had been twisting science since its start, but it hasn't been updated in something like 15 year.

        There have been a ton of studies since then.

        And the idea that you don't "throw out previous studies" is kind of contradicted when the claim references a 15-year-old as the biggest study "to date."

        And even then, this study does not refute the alternate theory of diet and nutrition (carbs/glucose/insulin leads to excess fat storage and obesity). According to that theory it doesn't matter if the energy comes from meat or plants, what matters is the carb content of the food. (And there are a number of vegetarian and, so I've heard, vegan LCHF dieters).

        I found the study. Carbs are barely mentioned. The meat eaters consumed the most energy.

        Diet and body mass index in 38 000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans | International Journal of Obesity (https://www.nature.com/articles/0802300)
        Quote
        In both men and women, meat-eaters had the highest intakes of energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, and vegans had the highest intakes of fibre and polyunsaturated fat.

        For the second link, now they rely on a study of two subjects in 1929 (89 years ago) to make a point, and they misrepresent that evidence.

        I found this "study" too.

        THE EFFECT OF AN EXCLUSIVE MEAT DIET ON THE CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE BLOOD (http://www.jbc.org/content/83/3/753.short)

        First that was the blood plasma of 1 subject (not subjects). Second, the "milkiness" comment is not in the study. Third, the study concludes there were no significant issues. Fourth, while one reading of blood cholesterol did show 800, that was the first reading on the new diet during the transition to the diet and the subsequent readings showed lower cholesterol than before the all-meat diet. Fifth, we know a lot more about cholesterol than we did 89 years ago.



        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 12:57:10 PM
        It is very unwise to throw out previous studies and blindly claim that eating meat is not a health issue:

        http://www.atkinsexposed.org/All_Long_Term_Studies_on_Atkins_a_Wash.htm
        Quote
        The biggest study on vegans to date compared over a thousand vegans in Europe to tens of thousands of meateaters and vegetarians. The meateaters, on average, were significantly heavier than the vegetarians, who in turn were significantly heavier than the vegans. Even after controlling for exercise, smoking, and other nondietary factors, vegans came out slimmest in every age group. Less than 2% of vegans were obese.[221]

        http://www.atkinsfacts.org/Atkins_Distorted_His_Record_on_Cholesterol.htm
        Quote
        Atkins claimed a worsening of cholesterol levels typically only occurs "when carbohydrates are a large part of the diet."[318] We've known this to be false since 1929 when the Institute of American Meatpackers paid to see what would happen if people lived on an all-meat diet. The blood plasma of the unfortunate subjects was so filled with fat it "showed a milkiness" and one of the subjects' cholesterol shot up to 800![319]

        Seriously? That anti-atkins web site (both links from the same source) had been twisting science since its start, but it hasn't been updated in something like 15 year.

        There have been a ton of studies since then.

        And the idea that you don't "throw out previous studies" is kind of contradicted when the claim references a 15-year-old as the biggest study "to date."

        And even then, this study does not refute the alternate theory of diet and nutrition (carbs/glucose/insulin leads to excess fat storage and obesity). According to that theory it doesn't matter if the energy comes from meat or plants, what matters is the carb content of the food. (And there are a number of vegetarian and, so I've heard, vegan LCHF dieters).

        I found the study. Carbs are barely mentioned. The meat eaters consumed the most energy.

        Diet and body mass index in 38 000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans | International Journal of Obesity (https://www.nature.com/articles/0802300)
        Quote
        In both men and women, meat-eaters had the highest intakes of energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, and vegans had the highest intakes of fibre and polyunsaturated fat.

        For the second link, now they rely on a study of two subjects in 1929 (89 years ago) to make a point, and they misrepresent that evidence.

        I found this "study" too.

        THE EFFECT OF AN EXCLUSIVE MEAT DIET ON THE CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE BLOOD (http://www.jbc.org/content/83/3/753.short)

        First that was the blood plasma of 1 subject (not subjects). Second, the "milkiness" comment is not in the study. Third, the study concludes there were no significant issues. Fourth, while one reading of blood cholesterol did show 800, that was the first reading on the new diet during the transition to the diet and the subsequent readings showed lower cholesterol than before the all-meat diet. Fifth, we know a lot more about cholesterol than we did 89 years ago.

        I think you know less about cholesterol than they did 80 years ago if you think it's good for your arteries.  Cholesterol, refined carbs, cigarettes, alcohol should all be kept to a minimum.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 01:28:50 PM
        It is very unwise to throw out previous studies and blindly claim that eating meat is not a health issue:

        http://www.atkinsexposed.org/All_Long_Term_Studies_on_Atkins_a_Wash.htm
        Quote
        The biggest study on vegans to date compared over a thousand vegans in Europe to tens of thousands of meateaters and vegetarians. The meateaters, on average, were significantly heavier than the vegetarians, who in turn were significantly heavier than the vegans. Even after controlling for exercise, smoking, and other nondietary factors, vegans came out slimmest in every age group. Less than 2% of vegans were obese.[221]

        http://www.atkinsfacts.org/Atkins_Distorted_His_Record_on_Cholesterol.htm
        Quote
        Atkins claimed a worsening of cholesterol levels typically only occurs "when carbohydrates are a large part of the diet."[318] We've known this to be false since 1929 when the Institute of American Meatpackers paid to see what would happen if people lived on an all-meat diet. The blood plasma of the unfortunate subjects was so filled with fat it "showed a milkiness" and one of the subjects' cholesterol shot up to 800![319]

        Seriously? That anti-atkins web site (both links from the same source) had been twisting science since its start, but it hasn't been updated in something like 15 year.

        There have been a ton of studies since then.

        And the idea that you don't "throw out previous studies" is kind of contradicted when the claim references a 15-year-old as the biggest study "to date."

        And even then, this study does not refute the alternate theory of diet and nutrition (carbs/glucose/insulin leads to excess fat storage and obesity). According to that theory it doesn't matter if the energy comes from meat or plants, what matters is the carb content of the food. (And there are a number of vegetarian and, so I've heard, vegan LCHF dieters).

        I found the study. Carbs are barely mentioned. The meat eaters consumed the most energy.

        Diet and body mass index in 38 000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans | International Journal of Obesity (https://www.nature.com/articles/0802300)
        Quote
        In both men and women, meat-eaters had the highest intakes of energy, protein, total fat, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, and vegans had the highest intakes of fibre and polyunsaturated fat.

        For the second link, now they rely on a study of two subjects in 1929 (89 years ago) to make a point, and they misrepresent that evidence.

        I found this "study" too.

        THE EFFECT OF AN EXCLUSIVE MEAT DIET ON THE CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE BLOOD (http://www.jbc.org/content/83/3/753.short)

        First that was the blood plasma of 1 subject (not subjects). Second, the "milkiness" comment is not in the study. Third, the study concludes there were no significant issues. Fourth, while one reading of blood cholesterol did show 800, that was the first reading on the new diet during the transition to the diet and the subsequent readings showed lower cholesterol than before the all-meat diet. Fifth, we know a lot more about cholesterol than we did 89 years ago.

        I think you know less about cholesterol than they did 80 years ago if you think it's good for your arteries.  Cholesterol, refined carbs, cigarettes, alcohol should all be kept to a minimum.

        Cholesterol: False
        refined carbs: True
        cigarettes: True
        alcohol: Not exactly

        I think you know less about cholesterol than we did 10 years ago and even less than we know today.

        Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on serum cholesterol. (Eggs are fine.)

        Serum cholesterol is tracked indirectly via various markers. Some cholesterol (HDL / LDL Large particles) is good for your.
        Some cholesterol (LDL small dense particles) is unhealthy.
        Fasting serum triglyceride levels are also linked with CVD and other health issues.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 01:52:53 PM

        Cholesterol: False
        refined carbs: True
        cigarettes: True
        alcohol: Not exactly

        I think you know less about cholesterol than we did 10 years ago and even less than we know today.

        Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on serum cholesterol. (Eggs are fine.)

        Serum cholesterol is tracked indirectly via various markers. Some cholesterol (HDL / LDL Large particles) is good for your.
        Some cholesterol (LDL small dense particles) is unhealthy.
        Fasting serum triglyceride levels are also linked with CVD and other health issues.

        How many pounds of red meat do you eat per week?  How many eggs per week?  Max amount of alcohol in one day?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 02:08:39 PM

        Cholesterol: False
        refined carbs: True
        cigarettes: True
        alcohol: Not exactly

        I think you know less about cholesterol than we did 10 years ago and even less than we know today.

        Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on serum cholesterol. (Eggs are fine.)

        Serum cholesterol is tracked indirectly via various markers. Some cholesterol (HDL / LDL Large particles) is good for your.
        Some cholesterol (LDL small dense particles) is unhealthy.
        Fasting serum triglyceride levels are also linked with CVD and other health issues.

        How many pounds of red meat do you eat per week?  How many eggs per week?  Max amount of alcohol in one day?

        I'd rather talk about science than anecdotes. Even my own.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 03:19:17 PM

        Cholesterol: False
        refined carbs: True
        cigarettes: True
        alcohol: Not exactly

        I think you know less about cholesterol than we did 10 years ago and even less than we know today.

        Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on serum cholesterol. (Eggs are fine.)

        Serum cholesterol is tracked indirectly via various markers. Some cholesterol (HDL / LDL Large particles) is good for your.
        Some cholesterol (LDL small dense particles) is unhealthy.
        Fasting serum triglyceride levels are also linked with CVD and other health issues.

        How many pounds of red meat do you eat per week?  How many eggs per week?  Max amount of alcohol in one day?

        I'd rather talk about science than anecdotes. Even my own.

        Are you sure or are you embarrassed?  You seem to love posting about anecdotes, how do I rate in your logical fallacy expertise?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 04:53:58 PM

        Cholesterol: False
        refined carbs: True
        cigarettes: True
        alcohol: Not exactly

        I think you know less about cholesterol than we did 10 years ago and even less than we know today.

        Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on serum cholesterol. (Eggs are fine.)

        Serum cholesterol is tracked indirectly via various markers. Some cholesterol (HDL / LDL Large particles) is good for your.
        Some cholesterol (LDL small dense particles) is unhealthy.
        Fasting serum triglyceride levels are also linked with CVD and other health issues.

        How many pounds of red meat do you eat per week?  How many eggs per week?  Max amount of alcohol in one day?

        I'd rather talk about science than anecdotes. Even my own.

        Are you sure or are you embarrassed?  You seem to love posting about anecdotes, how do I rate in your logical fallacy expertise?

        No, actually I'm quite pleased with my diet and happily discuss it with anyone and everyone (I think people around here can confirm that) but I've learned discussions of anecdotes don't really move understanding of the issues any further.

        You may have me confused with someone else.


        I don't know enough about you to know anything about your employment of logical fallacies, or, your biases (which is what I believe you were responding to).

        As to the direct answer to your question...

        (click to show/hide)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on April 13, 2018, 02:35:39 PM
        More ammo for lifespan and higher total cholesterol.  Thanks Sweden.

        http://roguehealthandfitness.com/older-people-with-high-cholesterol-live-longer/
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 24, 2018, 01:48:09 PM
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950743/


        Quote
        We asked participants to alter their habitual mixed Western diet to that of a very low-CHO high-fat diet for 4 weeks and examined its effect on physiological variables during a graded exercise test and a HIIT bout. While substantial changes in substrate oxidation were found, with heightened levels of fat oxidation and blood lactate concentration in the VLCHF group, we found no adverse effects of a 4-week VLCHF diet on any aspect of performance during either the GXT or the HIIT bout in these recreationally-trained participants.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 24, 2018, 03:04:15 PM
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950743/


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Thanks, but my N=1 convinced me long ago.  Nice to see P. Maffetone as one of the authors.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 24, 2018, 03:09:40 PM
        Phil Maffetone? P. D. Mangan?

        Now we're posting anti-aging quacks on a skeptic forum?

        "My N=1" is just a sciency-sounding way of saying "my own personal opinion."
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 24, 2018, 03:16:48 PM
        Phil Maffetone? P. D. Mangan?

        Now we're posting anti-aging quacks on a skeptic forum?

        "My N=1" is just a sciency-sounding way of saying "my own personal opinion."

        Maffetone is very successful coach and forged the use of heart rate training.  A long time ago but winners are still using the template.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 24, 2018, 03:23:04 PM
        Phil Maffetone? P. D. Mangan?

        Now we're posting anti-aging quacks on a skeptic forum?

        "My N=1" is just a sciency-sounding way of saying "my own personal opinion."

        Maffetone is very successful coach and forged the use of heart rate training.  A long time ago but winners are still using the template.

        Even Nobel laureates (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease) are not immune from quackdom.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 24, 2018, 07:10:05 PM
        Phil Maffetone? P. D. Mangan?

        Now we're posting anti-aging quacks on a skeptic forum?

        "My N=1" is just a sciency-sounding way of saying "my own personal opinion."

        Maffetone is very successful coach and forged the use of heart rate training.  A long time ago but winners are still using the template.

        Wow, the threshold for calling someone a Quack around here seems to be that if you disagree you must be a quack.


        Maffetone: 6 selected items - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Maffetone%20PB%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29769827)


        Update on Aging - Dr. Phil Maffetone (https://philmaffetone.com/update-on-agin/)
        Quote
        All humans do it. The months and years pass and we get less efficient with our bodies and brains. We slow down, and it happens whether we are couch potatoes or Olympians. There is no stopping it—anti-aging is a myth. We can, however, significantly control the pace at which aging occurs by being healthier and more fit. The difference is physiological versus chronological aging.  - Dr. Phil Maffetone

        Such quackery </sarcasm>

         
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 26, 2018, 07:24:03 AM
        Wow, the threshold for calling someone a Quack around here seems to be that if you disagree you must be a quack.


        Maffetone: 6 selected items - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Maffetone%20PB%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29769827)

        PubMed is just a repository for research papers. Having one's name on some documents on that website is not a stamp of authenticity indicating the person isn't full of shit.

        Maffetone's quack status has nothing to do with my opinions about low-carb diets. Phil Maffetone has made a lifelong career out of alt-med quackery.

        Besides the fad diet stuff, Maffetone is also a licensed acupuncturist and a leading practitioner of the CAM nonsense known as applied kinesiology (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/applied-kinesiology-and-self-deception/). His so-called "doctorate" is in the pseudoscience of chiropractic. 

        http://myeastrand.co.za/the-big-book-of-health-and-fitness/

        You're apparently so caught up in the bullshit that you'll believe anybody who promotes it, without even bothering to check out their backgrounds.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 26, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
        Wow, the threshold for calling someone a Quack around here seems to be that if you disagree you must be a quack.


        Maffetone: 6 selected items - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Maffetone%20PB%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29769827)

        PubMed is just a repository for research papers. Having one's name on some documents on that website is not a kind of stamp of authenticity indicating the person isn't full of shit.

        Maffetone's quack status has nothing to do with my opinions about low-carb diets. Phil Maffetone has made a lifelong career out of alt-med quackery.

        Besides the fad diet stuff, Maffetone is also a licensed acupuncturist and a leading practitioner of the CAM nonsense known as applied kinesiology (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/applied-kinesiology-and-self-deception/). His so-called "doctorate" is in the pseudoscience of chiropractic. 

        http://myeastrand.co.za/the-big-book-of-health-and-fitness/

        You're apparently so caught up in the bullshit that you'll believe anybody who promotes it, without even bothering to check out their backgrounds.


        Founder of MAF - Dr. Phil Maffetone (https://philmaffetone.com/about/)
        Quote
        Dr. Maffetone has also worked with other endurance athletes of all types, professional baseball and football players, adventurers, NASCAR drivers, and Olympic medalists in a variety of sports.

        I looked through his entire website and found no mention of acupuncture, scant mention of chiropractic, and that wasn't promoting it.

        His expertise seems to be in physical fitness and endurance training and as the fourth author on a peer-reviewed study directly related to that subject I don't see an issue.

        How do you feel about the other four authors of the peer reviewed study?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 26, 2018, 02:29:51 PM
        Remember, the "fad diet" is probably what you are eating.  Humans have ben fasting and incorporating as much fat and organ meat in our diet as possible for as long as we have been human.  Some humans have been been eating wheat, barley and rice for the only the last few thousand years, just a few percent of our time as a species.  Humans are well adapted to what you call a "fad diet", not what you think is normal. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 26, 2018, 08:07:41 PM
        I looked through his entire website and found no mention of acupuncture, scant mention of chiropractic, and that wasn't promoting it.

        The depth of your denial is really astounding. Maffetone's credentials are touted by booksellers that carry his books and podcasters who interview him. Yet for some reason his own website inexplicably fails to mention where he got his "doctorate." It's funny that his website doesn't mention that, and equally funny that you deigned to cite any other source than his own website. Googling the search terms "maffetone" and "chiropractic" and "kinesiology" returned two pages of results that list his credentials.

             
        Quote
        Dr. Maffetone has a bachelor’s degree in human biology and a doctorate in chiropractic, with certifications in physiotherapy, Chinese medicine, and kinesiology.
        http://www.nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/phil-maffetone-doctor-coach-author-teacher/

        Quote
        Dr. Philip Maffetone is an applied kinesiologist who has been in private practice since 1977. He's an authority on alternative medicine, has a background in biochemistry and exercise physiology, and is certified in meridian therapy (acupuncture) and physiotherapy. He also holds a bachelor's degree in human biology and a Ph.D. in chiropractic.
        https://www.outsideonline.com/1831311/guests-phil-maffetone-endurance-sports-doctor

        Maffetone also writes for a Chiropractic and Applied Kinesiology website called Spinewise, which identifies him as an Applied Kinesiologist and Chiropractor: http://www.spinewise.com.au/fit-but-unhealthy.aspx

        You didn't look very closely at his own website either. On the "about" page, it says:

           
        Quote
        Schooled in the fields of human biology, kinesiology, physiotherapy and Chinese medicine
        https://philmaffetone.com/about/

        Here on his own website he enthusiastically promotes chiropractic along with several other types of CAM woo. He even makes the bullshit claim that chiropractic can actually make a patient taller:

                 
        Quote
        A successful intervention also produces other easily measured changes such as greater spinal length, which increases your height — sometimes enough so that you may need to adjust your car mirror on the way out.

        The benefits of improved muscle balance occur through slightly different pathways depending on the technique. For example, a Swedish massage can reduce the stress hormone cortisol. Cranial therapists work through the skull and temporomandibular joints, while those performing manipulation adjust spinal, foot and other joints. Most therapies that use muscle-testing are biofeedback-based, improving communication between the brain and muscles to re-establish proper balance.

        There are hundreds of other types of remedies across the world provided by a multiplicity of professionals with an equal variation of educational degrees: physical therapists, osteopaths, acupuncturists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and many others.

        Some approaches even incorporate several assessment and treatment tools into one organized approach, influencing neuromuscular balance through diet and nutrition, exercise, and mental-emotional factors. Chinese medicine, for example, uses acupuncture, color and music therapy, skeletal and muscular manipulation, diet and herbs, mental-emotional interventions, and exercise.

        In general, it’s not so much that different therapies provide different benefits, or that one approach is better than another. The most important factor is the expertise and experience of the practitioner, especially in their ability to first assess the body and differentiate primary causes from secondary symptoms. Important assessment tools include obtaining a detailed health and fitness history (such as the MAF app), along with a physical examination that includes posture, gait and muscle testing.

        While there are hundreds of named therapies, with many different theories and philosophies, their remedies primarily come down to improving brain and neuromuscular balance. When this happens successfully, we literally get taller — and the old rearview mirror position has to change.
        https://philmaffetone.com/tag/chiropractor/

        In the SEC registration for Maffetone's company Vital Living, Inc., Maffetone's credentials are listed as follows:

                 
        Quote
        Dr. Maffetone attended the Rochester Institute of Technology where he received a B.S. in Human Biology and a Doctor of Chiropractic Degree from the National College of Chiropractic, Lombard, IL. He has also received post-doctoral certifications in meridian therapy (acupuncture), physiotherapy and applied kinesiology. He has been a member of the International College of Applied Kinesiology since 1980

        ...

        From 1989 until 1994, he was chairman and chief executive officer of the International College of Applied Kinesiology.
        https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1145700/000104746904000871/a2126463zsb-2.htm
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 26, 2018, 08:41:27 PM
        How do you feel about the other four authors of the peer reviewed study?

        I think that posting these "peer reviewed studies" as if they're conclusive evidence betrays a lack of understanding of how science works.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on May 27, 2018, 02:25:24 AM
        Maffetone's list of champions he has coached speaks volumes. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on May 27, 2018, 08:18:32 AM
        Yeah because as we all know, professional athletes never fall for pseudoscientific bullshit.

        (https://hips.hearstapps.com/ell.h-cdn.co/assets/16/32/1024x512/landscape-1470859042-1470662821-michael-phelps.jpg)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 27, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
        Besides the chiropractic, applied kinesiology and Chinese medicine woo, Maffetone is such an extreme low-carb diet nutcase that he's made up his own fake medical condition which he calls "carbohydrate intolerance (https://philmaffetone.com/white-paper-carbohydrate-intolerance/)."

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 27, 2018, 10:50:10 AM
        Besides the chiropractic, applied kinesiology and Chinese medicine woo, Maffetone is such an extreme low-carb diet nutcase that he's made up his own fake medical condition which he calls "carbohydrate intolerance (https://philmaffetone.com/white-paper-carbohydrate-intolerance/)."

        Quote
        The beginning of the process appears to be some combination of the trio of insulin resistance, chronic inflammation and increased body fat. In fact, stress (in all its physical, biochemical and mental forms), can further worsen, and even trigger, this trio.
        Since around 1980, the author has referred to this complex array of dysfunctions and illnesses — the full spectrum of associated conditions — under the umbrella term Carbohydrate Intolerance (CI).
        What's fake about it? The excess fat storage, the insulin resistance or the chronic inflammation?

         He made up the condition? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.


        carbohydrate intolerance - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)
        Diagnosing and Treating Intolerance to Carbohydrates in Children. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26978392)
        [Correlation between the presence and intensity of symptoms and the results of hydrogen breath tests in the diagnosis of carbohydrate intolerance]. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716759)
        Screening for carbohydrate intolerance in pregnancy: a comparison of two tests and reassessment of a common approach. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4050911)
        Evaluation of postpartum carbohydrate intolerance and cardiovascular risk factors in women with gestational diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20540676)
        Prediction of persistent carbohydrate intolerance in patients with gestational diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1889347)
        Complex carbohydrate intolerance: diagnostic pitfalls and approach to management. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3361380)
        carbohydrate intolerance in pregnancy: incidence and neonatal outcomes. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959350)
        carbohydrate intolerance after acute gastroenteritis--a disappearing problem in Polish children. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9174217)
        Enzyme replacement as an effective treatment for the common symptoms of complex carbohydrate intolerance. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15481741)
        THE ASSOCIATION OF AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (MOTOR NEURON DISEASE) AND carbohydrate intolerance, A CLINICAL STUDY. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14241228)
        Glycosylated hemoglobin as a screening test for carbohydrate intolerance in pregnancy. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6496578)
        carbohydrate intolerance in infants with acute diarrhoea and its complications. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1155066)
        Acquired carbohydrate intolerance and cow milk protein-sensitive enteropathy in young infants. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/572868)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on May 27, 2018, 11:25:26 AM
        Yeah, gotta say, John, if you're going to (rightfully) take CarbShark to task for failing to do even a basic level of investigation into Maffetone's credentials, you yourself should probably make the minimal effort to search a two-word phrase in the medical literature before saying this guy made it up in 2016.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 27, 2018, 11:52:33 AM
        I will grant that the fourth author of a five-author peer review study may have some questionable credentials.

        The acupuncture does not bother me so much. I see no evidence that he practices acupuncture. (of course, if he's currently practicing or promoting acupuncture that would change my view)

        The chiropractic doesn't bother me that much either. There are chiropractic techniques that have been found as beneficial as the standard of care and there are a number of Chiropractors who ignore the Chi crap and provide effective treatment.

        The other alt-med stuff may be a little more troubling, but he's certainly not as far afield as most practitioners.

        And, none of those issues have anything to do with the subject of the study he co-authored.

        It was about the performance of athletes on LCHF diet.

        And you still haven't answered the question about the other four authors.

        Or does the fact that you can raise one ad hominem negate the entire study?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 27, 2018, 12:00:19 PM
        Maffetone also writes for a Chiropractic and Applied Kinesiology website called Spinewise, which identifies him as an Applied Kinesiologist and Chiropractor:

         http://www.spinewise.com.au/fit-but-unhealthy.aspx


        BTW, thanks for that link. I know your intention was to impeach the credentials of the author by showing he wrote for a Chiropractic web site*, but it's actually a very good article that raises a number of issues (and doesn't promote or even mention Chiropractic )
        Spinewise - Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Applied Kinesiology and Natural Healthcare (http://www.spinewise.com.au/fit-but-unhealthy.aspx)

        Quote
        There are several issues to address here. First, our definition of health is wrong if we include fitness. One cannot be healthy while diseased. And, neither youth nor athleticism automatically confers health. Death comes when something goes wrong – some problem causes the heart to stop, a blood vessel clogs or some other pathology causes death. Second, most of these problems are preventable. But because as a society we worship athletes, and a lot of money is often involved, prevention is no longer the priority. Third, we must differentiate between those young athletes who die in their twenties, teens and younger, and those in the 35 and older age‐group who make up the majority of competitive athletes. Fourth, when this issue surfaces, which it does regularly, the lifestyle habits of the person are almost never mentioned as a possible cause – especially those factors that can contribute to heart disease, including diet, stress and even overtraining. And finally, a fifth consideration is an ethical one.




        *EDIT: I'm not sure he actually wrote for that web site. Some of his articles on that site  (including the one linked to) appear verbatim in other publications and web sites. They may be simply reposting.

        So, does giving a web site permission to repost you article also impeach his credentials?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 27, 2018, 06:08:36 PM
        So, does giving a web site permission to repost you article also impeach his credentials?

        Not necessarily. His credentials don't require "impeachment" because they're not legit medical degrees in the first place.


        The chiropractic doesn't bother me that much either. There are chiropractic techniques that have been found as beneficial as the standard of care and there are a number of Chiropractors who ignore the Chi crap and provide effective treatment.

        The other alt-med stuff may be a little more troubling, but he's certainly not as far afield as most practitioners.

        My point is that the guy has no education in actual medicine and an extensive history of promoting alt-med crap. Glossing over those obvious red flags only demonstrates your skeptical blindness when it comes to dietary issues.

        Arguing that he can be trusted because his credentials aren't as bad as others is kind of silly. You're clearly overlooking this guy's extensive quack cred because he's promoting an idea that you happen to like. If he were shilling for "cupping" or magnetic bracelets or some other kind of popular athlete's woo you'd be right here with me pointing out that he's a fraud.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 27, 2018, 07:00:49 PM
        Okay, so I've spent a few hours doing a bit of reading about carbohydrate intolerance.

        Quote
        The beginning of the process appears to be some combination of the trio of insulin resistance, chronic inflammation and increased body fat. In fact, stress (in all its physical, biochemical and mental forms), can further worsen, and even trigger, this trio.
        Since around 1980, the author has referred to this complex array of dysfunctions and illnesses — the full spectrum of associated conditions — under the umbrella term Carbohydrate Intolerance (CI).

        What's fake about it? The excess fat storage, the insulin resistance or the chronic inflammation?

        That's apparently not what "carbohydrate intolerance" means. Maffetone's view appears inconsistent with everything I'm reading about the condition from legit sources (ie. materials written by actual doctors outside of the purpose-driven low carb advocate websites).

        The term "carbohydrate intolerance" means that the patient's digestive system is not producing the enzymes responsible for breaking down one or more particular carbohydrates (usually disaccharides and complex polysaccharides). It results in excessive intestinal gas and diarrhea. Apparently, it's a class of ailments not uncommon among infants and young children, that can also manifest during pregnancy. Among adults, lactose intolerance is the most common form of carbohydrate intolerance. The term is also used to describe certain symptoms of advanced diabetes.

        Maffetone misuses the term to say that large segments of the population are intolerant of all carbohydrates in general. Reading further, this appears to be a common trope among low-carb diet promoters: "if you're gaining weight while eating a diet that contains carbs, then you're carbohydrate intolerant." When in fact the patient could simply be eating poorly and not getting enough exercise. It's not so much that "carbohydrate intolerance" doesn't exist, but that the terminology is being misused by low carb enthusiasts to promote their diet in much the same way as the "gluten intolerance" folks do.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 28, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
        How do you feel about the other four authors of the peer reviewed study?

        I think that posting these "peer reviewed studies" as if they're conclusive evidence betrays a lack of understanding of how science works.
        Your non answer is more exaggerated bullshit. Where did I ever claim that the evidence I posted from peer reviewed studies is conclusive?

        That’s not how I work.

        The studies I link to are evidence, and as with all other evidence they add to the understanding of the topic. Each study has its own strengths and weaknesses.

        This study adds to an ongoing discussion about the athletes on LCHF diets in competition. And while it supports my view, there are some weaknesses in the study. (Too short, not enough time for full adaptation) but even so it adds to our knowledge

        No where did I claim imply suggest or even hint that it was conclusive.

        That’s something you made up, as you do.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 28, 2018, 12:48:17 PM
        Arguing that he can be trusted because his credentials aren't as bad as others is kind of silly. You're clearly overlooking this guy's extensive quack cred because he's promoting an ideology that you happen to like. If he were shilling for "cupping" or magnetic bracelets or some other kind of popular athlete's woo you'd be right here with me pointing out that he's a fraud.

        There’s a difference between exposing quacks and ad hominem arguments.

        You are making an ad hominem. Noting more.

        You’re completely ignoring any aspects of the study itself, the methodology, the data, the findings, conclusions or what it means and simply focusing on aspects one author’s background, ignoring the part of the same author’s back ground justifies his participation.

        No, I would not be right there with you.

        I would be looking at the evidence.

        Not fixating on the ad hominem.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 30, 2018, 07:54:53 AM
        You are making an ad hominem. Nothing more.

        No, I'm not. Go back and reread the conversation. I'm not dismissing the study on the premise that Maffetone is a quack; I'm pointing out that he is one. You argued that he wasn't a quack, and I presented the evidence that he is.

        Phil Maffetone has no legitimate medical credentials, and he promotes all the most popular forms of quackery right alongside his low-cab diet woo. Calling Maffetone a "quack" is essentially no worse than calling somebody like Deepack Chopra a "quack."

        There are very good good reasons why having a miseducation in quackery and a career promoting quackery is detrimental to one's scientific credibility.


        You’re completely ignoring any aspects of the study itself, the methodology, the data, the findings, conclusions or what it means and simply focusing on aspects one author’s background, ignoring the part of the same author’s back ground justifies his participation.

        No, I'm not. I just haven't addressed them yet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on May 30, 2018, 02:31:17 PM
        The studies I link to are evidence

        No, they're not. They're simply reports of studies. Some of those studies might be well-executed and some might be sloppy and inconclusive.

        This is precisely the lack of understanding that I was referring to before.


        as with all other evidence they add to the understanding of the topic.

        Not necessarily. Some of them might weaken one's understanding of the subject. It all depends on the quality of the study. Some studies are crap.


        Each study has its own strengths and weaknesses.

        Which is precisely why they're not necessarily attributable as "evidence" for any particular point you're trying to make.

        Lacking the training in how to evaluate studies of this nature, you're in no position to decide which are good and which are bad studies.

        Judging by your posts in this and other threads, you seem to post links to any and all studies that have anything to do with low-carb diets, and then you blindly assert that they support your opinions about that regimen. In some cases the studies you've posted don't support your claims, and in some cases they've even weakened your position.

        But regardless of the evidence, you refuse to ever admit you might be wrong about LCHF diets, in the same way that right now you're refusing to admit that Phil Maffetone is an alt-med quack.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on May 31, 2018, 11:33:59 AM
        This is exactly the kind of lies and misrepresentation that led me to put you on ignore, and are putting you back on ignore. ( I only saw and responded to your initial comments because they appeared in a quote).

        The studies I link to are evidence

        No, they're not. They're simply reports of studies. Some of those studies might be well-executed and some might be sloppy and inconclusive.

        This is precisely the lack of understanding that I was referring to before.

        Seriously? So studies published in peer review journals directly on topic are not evidence?

        What do you imagine evidence is?

        Quote
        as with all other evidence they add to the understanding of the topic.

        Not necessarily. Some of them might weaken one's understanding of the subject. It all depends on the quality of the study. Some studies are crap.

        And yet they are peer reviewed. I think you have confused proof with evidence. I'm not claiming and have never claimed these studies prove anything. They are evidence. Evidence can be of various qualities, but if you don't like it or think that it's crap, that does not make it not evidence.

        Quote
        Each study has its own strengths and weaknesses.

        Which is precisely why they're not necessarily attributable as "evidence" for any particular point you're trying to make.

        Again, you've confused the very basic concepts of proof and evidence. Evidence can lead to proof, depending on various factors, including the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence, but these studies are evidence, it's stupid to claim otherwise.

        No one is claiming they are absolute proof.


        Quote
        Lacking the training in how to evaluate studies of this nature, you're in no position to decide which are good and which are bad studies.

        That's what the peer review process is for.
        Quote
        Judging by your posts in this and other threads, you seem to post links to any and all studies that have anything to do with low-carb diets, and then you blindly assert that they support your opinions about that regimen. In some cases the studies you've posted don't support your claims, and in some cases they've even weakened your position.

        More lies. I post links to numerous studies, yes. I do not blindly assert anything.

        Quote
        But regardless of the evidence, you refuse to ever admit you might be wrong about LCHF diets, in the same way that right now you're refusing to admit that Phil Maffetone is an alt-med quack.


        More lies. My opinion on LCHF diets has evolved. There have been aspects I've been wrong about and I have adjusted my views (haven't see you do anything like that, you're just doing the knee jerk reaction every time).

        The body of evidence does not refute the basic tenants of the alternate theory, so until that happens I still see the alternate theory has more validity than the mainstream theory.

        And, early on in this discussion I readily admitted that there were issues with Maffetone, the fourth author on a five-author paper, but those issues did affect his area of expertise (fitness and training for athletic competition).

        Further, if you are studying an alternate theory of science, medicine or nutrition, it would certainly behoove you work with a proponent of that theory in order to make sure the study is a fair representation of the alternate theory's claims. Too often studies are published with the LCHF or Ketogenic wing not meeting even the basic criteria of the alternate methods.

        This has happened in several studies on this very topic, and this one was indeed better than most in its methodology, but still not perfect.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 01, 2018, 05:07:16 AM

        Seriously? So studies published in peer review journals directly on topic are not evidence?

        What do you imagine evidence is?

        As a statistician, I can answer that question without the need for imagination:  Something (E) is evidence for one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2) if it increases the odds that H1 versus H2 is true.  So, let's say H1 is that an LCHF diet has some health benefit and H2 is that it doesn't.  Now, suppose E is (just) that "a peer reviewed paper has been published purporting to show a benefit for an LCHF diet."  Is E evidence for H1 over H2?  Well, what effect does it have on the probability that H1 is true versus H2 is true?  The fact is, the quality of most papers in the biomedical literature is pretty poor; nonetheless, E probably raises the probability of H1 over H2, but probably by only tiny amount.  So E, technically, IMO, is evidence for H1 over H2, albeit very weak evidence.  Obviously, the more we know about the paper, the journal, etc, the better we can judge its evidential value.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2018, 01:10:00 PM

        Seriously? So studies published in peer review journals directly on topic are not evidence?

        What do you imagine evidence is?

        As a statistician, I can answer that question without the need for imagination:  Something (E) is evidence for one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2) if it increases the odds that H1 versus H2 is true.  So, let's say H1 is that an LCHF diet has some health benefit and H2 is that it doesn't.  Now, suppose E is (just) that "a peer reviewed paper has been published purporting to show a benefit for an LCHF diet."  Is E evidence for H1 over H2?  Well, what effect does it have on the probability that H1 is true versus H2 is true?  The fact is, the quality of most papers in the biomedical literature is pretty poor; nonetheless, E probably raises the probability of H1 over H2, but probably by only tiny amount.  So E, technically, IMO, is evidence for H1 over H2, albeit very weak evidence.  Obviously, the more we know about the paper, the journal, etc, the better we can judge its evidential value.

        Perfectly reasonable. (E - A peer reviewed RCT, or meta-analysis of such, as examples) is evidence. It may not be good evidence or conclusive evidence, and shouldn't be considered "proof," but to not consider it evidence is just silly.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 01, 2018, 02:48:58 PM
        Yeah, it's evidence like discovering a new exoplanet is evidence for alien life.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2018, 03:06:26 PM
        Yeah, it's evidence like discovering a new exoplanet is evidence for alien life.

        What does "it's" refer to here? Are you dismissing all studies that support some aspect of the alternate theory of diet an nutrition?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 01, 2018, 03:31:13 PM
        The post you agreed with from jt512 describes evidence as anything increasing the odds of one hypothesis over another.

        Given any nonzero probability that a random planet develops life, finding more planets increases (ever so slightly) the likelihood that alien life exists somewhere. So it's evidence the same way jt512 acknowledged your study is technically evidence.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 01, 2018, 04:27:55 PM
        This is exactly the kind of lies and misrepresentation that led me to put you on ignore, and are putting you back on ignore.

        Now you're accusing me of lying? This reaction seems a bit hyperbolic. Go ahead and ignore me again. I'll gladly continue to comment in the third person without your noisy interruptions.


        The studies I link to are evidence

        No, they're not. They're simply reports of studies. Some of those studies might be well-executed and some might be sloppy and inconclusive.

        This is precisely the lack of understanding that I was referring to before.

        Seriously? So studies published in peer review journals directly on topic are not evidence?

        No, they're simply reports of studies. Just by themselves they don't necessarily represent evidence that LCHF diets are necessarily any more healthy than other diets. For one thing, "healthy" is a pretty loaded term to begin with. Different individuals have varied nutritional needs, different metabolic rates, different levels of physical activity, different lifestyles, food preferences, dietary restrictions, food sensitivities, etc. A diet that may be appropriate for one individual could be unhealthy for another.

        Besides that, some of those studies might use faulty methodology or reach faulty conclusions. An earlier meta-study you posted in another thread found that researcher bias was a serious issue in the area of inquiry (low-carb diets). If a given study is badly flawed, then its value as evidence could be even worse than useless. Assessing these studies with an eye toward detecting flaws would require a detailed understanding of professional clinical research methods and the science of nutrition. That's a level of understanding that neither you nor I possess, despite your inflated claims of having done "a ton of research."

        Which is why I think it's a very disingenuous to create numerous discussion threads with titles implying a strong preconceived conclusion about LCHF diets, then proceed to fill those threads with random research papers which may or may not actually support your conclusion. That attitude crosses over from evangelism into assholishness when you start to personally attack anyone who comes into the discussion expressing skepticism of the studies or your conclusions about them.


        What do you imagine evidence is?

        For one thing, studies must be independently replicated and their results confirmed.

        And some of the studies you've posted have even reached conclusions that run contrary to your own, yet you still put them up as evidence. 


        Quote
        as with all other evidence they add to the understanding of the topic.

        Not necessarily. Some of them might weaken one's understanding of the subject. It all depends on the quality of the study. Some studies are crap.

        And yet they are peer reviewed.

        What do you think "peer reviewed" means? Who are the peers doing the reviewing?

        The article you're discussing was published in an open-access journal called the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. What can you tell me about their peer review process and their reviewers' qualifications to assess nutritional studies?


        I think you have confused proof with evidence. I'm not claiming and have never claimed these studies prove anything. They are evidence.

        You're not even considering what I'm saying, just rejecting it on flimsy semantics. What I said has nothing to do with "proof" vs. "evidence."

        Throughout these threads you keep hurling outrageous accusations about the FDA and claiming that LCHF diets are most appropriate for everyone. Then you post links to these research papers and call them "evidence." Exactly what position do you think they're evidence for?


        Again, you've confused the very basic concepts of proof and evidence. Evidence can lead to proof, depending on various factors, including the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence, but these studies are evidence, it's stupid to claim otherwise.

        Apparently, you're the one who's confused about the definitions of "proof" and "evidence."

        In science, "evidence" means experimental data that appears to support a given hypothesis.

        "Proof" is a series of logical propositions or mathematical statements that lead to a logical conclusion. "Proof" has no proper meaning in the practice of science.   


        Quote
        Lacking the training in how to evaluate studies of this nature, you're in no position to decide which are good and which are bad studies.

        That's what the peer review process is for.

        No, it is not. The peer review process is to determine whether the piece meets the journal's basic requirements for publication, which vary from one publication to another. It's not meant as a tacit stamp of approval that the study represents conclusive evidence for any given proposition.


        Quote
        Judging by your posts in this and other threads, you seem to post links to any and all studies that have anything to do with low-carb diets, and then you blindly assert that they support your opinions about that regimen. In some cases the studies you've posted don't support your claims, and in some cases they've even weakened your position.

        More lies. I post links to numerous studies, yes. I do not blindly assert anything.

        In the Type II Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.90.html) thread you posted a study and misrepresented the researchers' conclusions.


        Quote
        But regardless of the evidence, you refuse to ever admit you might be wrong about LCHF diets, in the same way that right now you're refusing to admit that Phil Maffetone is an alt-med quack.


        More lies. My opinion on LCHF diets has evolved. There have been aspects I've been wrong about and I have adjusted my views (haven't see you do anything like that, you're just doing the knee jerk reaction every time).

        Yet every time I've pointed out a problem in your reasoning, or some unevidenced claim you made, or a misinterpretation of a study, you have argued vociferously without ever admitting you were wrong.


        And, early on in this discussion I readily admitted that there were issues with Maffetone

        It's useless to try and ret-con a discussion on a message board where others can quote your exact words. Anyone can go back and re-read the conversation starting from the middle of page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) and see exactly what was said by whom.

        Lonely_moa expressed that she was happy to see P. Maffetone's association with the study, at which point I replied that he and Mangan are known quacks. She replied that he's a famous coach, to which I replied that even Nobel laureates have turned out be quacks, so being successful is irrelevant. Then you jumped in to suggest that I called Maffetone a quack simply because I disagree with his opinions. That's when I began presenting some very obvious evidence of his alt-med and TCM quackdom, which you repeatedly hand-waved. Finally, you dismissed the entire discussion by calling it an "ad hominem" and demanded that I review the credentials of all the other researchers on the paper.

        At what point did you readily admit that Maffetone has "issues"? 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 01, 2018, 05:39:10 PM
        Is E evidence for H1 over H2?  Well, what effect does it have on the probability that H1 is true versus H2 is true?

        Who makes this assessment, and what methodology do they use to calculate this probability?

        If I start a thread called "UFOs and space aliens" and fill that thread with arguments that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth along with links to reports of new exoplanet discoveries, do you think that those pieces actually represent evidence in support of my position that UFOs are space aliens?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2018, 05:39:50 PM
        This is exactly the kind of lies and misrepresentation that led me to put you on ignore, and are putting you back on ignore.
        I know I said I would ignore, but, I happen to be off work a couple days...

        Quote
        Now you're accusing me of lying? This reaction seems a bit hyperbolic. Go ahead and ignore me again. I'll gladly continue to comment in the third person without your noisy interruptions.

        That's funny, your lies are hyperbolic exaggerations of the facts and total misrepresentations, but calling you on them is "hyperbolic." (And you say that in a post with more lies)

        Quote
        The studies I link to are evidence

        No, they're not. They're simply reports of studies. Some of those studies might be well-executed and some might be sloppy and inconclusive.

        This is precisely the lack of understanding that I was referring to before.

         At least read JT's post.

        Hint: sloppy or inconclusive studies are weak evidence. They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.
        Quote

        Quote
        Seriously? So studies published in peer review journals directly on topic are not evidence?

        No, they're simply reports of studies. Just by themselves they don't necessarily represent evidence that LCHF diets are necessarily any more healthy than other diets. For one thing, "healthy" is a pretty loaded term to begin with. Different individuals have varied nutritional needs, different metabolic rates, different levels of physical activity, different lifestyles, food preferences, dietary restrictions, food sensitivities, etc. A diet that may be appropriate for one individual could be unhealthy for another.

        So you're introducing the word "healthy," I guess as a qualifier for evidence? In this case the evidence supported the hypothesis that athletes LCHF K diet did not negatively impact performance of competitive athletes who switched to that diet. (Or negated the hypothesis that performance would diminish on such a diet).

        Quote

        Besides that, some of those studies might use faulty methodology or reach faulty conclusions. Assessing these studies with an eye toward detecting flaws would require a detailed understanding of professional clinical research methods and the science of nutrition. That's a level of understanding that neither you nor I possess, despite your inflated claims of having done "a ton of research."

        Again, that's why we rely on the peer review process and why methodology and analysis are clearly spelled out in the study.


        Quote
        Which is why I think it's a very disingenuous to create numerous discussion threads with titles implying a strong preconceived conclusion about LCHF diets,

        I don't do that. (This thread was created by Lonley Moa, and it's purpose was to create a single thread for discussion of said diet rather than start numerous topics or bleed into other threads. So far you're the only one who has complained.

        Quote
        ... then proceed to fill those threads with random research papers which may or may not actually support your conclusion.

        Right, so you're criticizing me for not cherry picking studies that support a conclusion?


        Quote

        That attitude crosses over from evangelism into assholishness when you start to personally attack anyone who comes into the discussion expressing skepticism of the studies or your conclusions about them.

        Another lie. I do not "personally attack anyone who comes into the discussion expressing skepticism of the studies or your conclusions about them." That is not me. And, there are plenty of skeptics on these boards who have engaged with me and I think will agree that I do not launch into personal attacks.

        However, most of them do not flat out lie, misrepresent what I say, misrepresent their own comments and exaggerate beyond any resemblance to the truth. (Actually, here, I don't think any one conducts themselves that way consistently but you).


        Quote
        What do you think "peer reviewed" means? Who are the peers doing the reviewing?
        The article you're discussing was published in an open-access journal called the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. What can you tell me about their peer review process and the qualifications of their reviewers?

        So you don't know? Or are you just too lazy to look it up?

        This journal uses a double-blind method of peer review, so the authors and reviewers don't know each other.

        In general peer reviewers are experts in the field, most of them have recently published research in the field.


        Quote
        I think you have confused proof with evidence. I'm not claiming and have never claimed these studies prove anything. They are evidence.

        You're just rejecting the things I'm saying without even the slightest consideration.

        Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I'm reading what you write, and then realize that you're using the criteria for conclusive proof to determine if it's evidence and I'm pointing out your confusion.

        Quote
        Throughout these threads you keep hurling outrageous accusations about the FDA and claiming that LCHF diets are most appropriate for everyone.

        And that's a flat-out lie, that you're repeated several times and been called on it several times. I have never said anything of the kind. LCHF diets are weight-loss diets. Everyone does not need to lose weight, so they would not be most appropriate for those who do not need or want to lose weight (and, of course, I've never said they were.) Among those who do need to lose weight (most people in the US, BTW) I've argued that they should be considered the default diet, the first option recommended, rather than the last option after all others have failed, and I believe the bulk of the science supports that.  But, no I'm not claiming that means they're most appropriate, even for everyone who wants to lose weight. The specific claim is that larger numbers of people who want to lose weight would be better off trying LCHF first, and moving on to other diets or strategies if that doesn't work. No where does that imply the diet works for everyone.

         (Not to mention it's the USDA I'm critical of).


        Quote
        Then you post links to these research papers and call them "evidence." Exactly what position do you think they're evidence for?

        Maybe read at least the abstract, if not the full study?




        Quote
        The peer review process is to determine whether the piece meets the journal's basic requirements for publication, which vary from one publication to another. 

        No. That's wrong. That's the editorial process. The editor's of a journal make that determination. Not the peer reviewers. (This is science 101.) The reviewers are independent, they are not concerned with the Journal's basic requirements. They are concerned with the study they are reviewing.

        Quote
        Judging by your posts in this and other threads, you seem to post links to any and all studies that have anything to do with low-carb diets, and then you blindly assert that they support your opinions about that regimen. In some cases the studies you've posted don't support your claims, and in some cases they've even weakened your position.

        More lies. I post links to numerous studies, yes. I do not blindly assert anything.

        Quote
        In the Type II Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.90.html) thread you posted a study and misrepresented the researchers' conclusions.


        Bullshit.  The one study that I think you mean is where I quoted the authors conclusions without comment.


        Quote
        Quote
        But regardless of the evidence, you refuse to ever admit you might be wrong about LCHF diets, in the same way that right now you're refusing to admit that Phil Maffetone is an alt-med quack.


        More lies. My opinion on LCHF diets has evolved. There have been aspects I've been wrong about and I have adjusted my views (haven't see you do anything like that, you're just doing the knee jerk reaction every time).

        Every time I've pointed out a problem with your reasoning, a misinterpretation of a study, or other claims, you have argued vociferously without ever admitting you were wrong.

        Maybe one day you'll actually raise a valid point about my reasoning, etc., and I'll admit my error. As I have done with others here who have done exactly that. (And as I did with you regarding the qualifications of that one author.)

        And, early on in this discussion I readily admitted that there were issues with Maffetone

        It's useless to try and ret-con a discussion on a message board where others can quote your exact words. Anyone can go back and re-read the conversation starting from the middle of page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) and see exactly what was said by whom.
        [/quote]

        But, apparently, you're too lazy to do that. 

        I will grant that the fourth author of a five-author peer review study may have some questionable credentials.

        Quote
        Lonely_moa expressed that she was happy to see P. Maffetone's association with the study, at which point I replied that he and Mangan are known quacks. She replied that he's a famous coach, to which I replied that even Nobel laureates have turned out be quacks, so being successful is irrelevant. Then you jumped in to suggest that I called Maffetone a quack simply because I disagree with his opinions. That's when I began presenting the evidence for his alt-med and TCM quackdom, which you repeatedly hand-waved. Finally, you dismissed the entire discussion by calling it an "ad hominem" and demanded that I review the credentials of all the other researchers on the paper.

        First, why are you calling Lonely Moa "she"? Is that meant to be an insult? Are you 9-years-old?

        Second, yes, his credentials are questionable, but if you dismiss the entire study based on that it's still an ad hominem. Even if the ad hominem accusation is correct, that does not make mean using it is not an ad hominem. (that's logic 101, there). Nixon said the Soviet Union is a threat. Nixon is a liar, therefore the Soviet Union is not a threat. Well, Nixon was a liar, but that did not make the premise false. This study shows that Athetetes do well on LCHF diets; one author of the study is a quack; therefore athletes don't do well on LCHF diets.

        Third, you don't know what "hand-waving" means.

        Fourth, asking how you feel about the other authors is not "demanding."
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2018, 05:40:46 PM
        Yeah, it's evidence like discovering a new exoplanet is evidence for alien life.

        Bullshit.

        It's more like finding a earth-like planet near by and picking up unusual radio signals from that area.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 01, 2018, 06:16:08 PM
        They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.

        Exactly how poor would they have to be? Who decides what's a good study or a poor one? What are their qualifications?

        On what criteria do these individuals assess that value, and on what scale is it quantized? How is that quantifier used in calculating a probability assessment?


        Again, that's why we rely on the peer review process

        That's how posting cherry-picked sources on the internet works, not how science works.


        Right, so you're criticizing me for not cherry picking studies

        Cherry-picking articles that support a conclusion and calling them evidence is exactly what I'm "accusing" you of doing. ("Accusing" seems an overly strong word.)


        Another lie. I do not "personally attack anyone who comes into the discussion expressing skepticism of the studies or your conclusions about them." That is not me. And, there are plenty of skeptics on these boards who have engaged with me and I think will agree that I do not launch into personal attacks.

        Yet here you are boldly calling me a liar.


        However, most of them do not flat out lie, misrepresent what I say, misrepresent their own comments and exaggerate beyond any resemblance to the truth. (Actually, here, I don't think any one conducts themselves that way consistently but you).

        Point out examples where I've done that.

        The difference between me and most of the other members is that most of them don't call you on your bullshit.

        The specific thing that made me step up and start opposing your nonsense is when you purported to give out medical advice. It's one thing to have unreasonable views, but promoting unscientific health opinions in such a way as to make oneself sound like an expert is beyond the pale in my opinion.


        Quote
        What do you think "peer reviewed" means? Who are the peers doing the reviewing?
        The article you're discussing was published in an open-access journal called the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. What can you tell me about their peer review process and the qualifications of their reviewers?

        So you don't know? Or are you just too lazy to look it up?

        This journal uses a double-blind method of peer review, so the authors and reviewers don't know each other.

        I'm asking you, because you're the one saying you implicitly trust the peers to vet these articles to make them useful as scientific evidence, yet you haven't the slightest idea who those peers are. Just like you had no idea that Phil Maffetone was a run of the mill fake medicine quack.


        And that's a flat-out lie, that you're repeated several times and been called on it several times. I have never said anything of the kind.

        Like I said, it serves no purpose to lie about this. The posts are already there for anyone to see. Do I really have to start blockquoting all the crazy and blatantly false things you've said about low-carb diets being optimal for everyone, and about conspiracies of the medical industry and world governments to thwart low-carb diets?


        No. That's wrong. That's the editorial process. The editor's of a journal make that determination. Not the peer reviewers. (This is science 101.) The reviewers are independent, they are not concerned with the Journal's basic requirements. They are concerned with the study they are reviewing.

        You don't know what you're talking about. The peer review process is part of the process of determining (https://www.jssm.org/newauthors.php) which articles the journal chooses to publish.   


        Quote
        In the Type II Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.90.html) thread you posted a study and misrepresented the researchers' conclusions.

        Bullshit.  The one study that I think you mean is where I quoted the authors conclusions without comment.

        I already linked to the post. You posted a meta-study that concluded that low-carb diets may be helpful but adherence was an issue, and most of the low-carb diets literature was full of bias, and better research was needed.  You then misrepresented that work as an endorsement of LCHF diets.


        Quote
        It's useless to try and ret-con a discussion on a message board where others can quote your exact words. Anyone can go back and re-read the conversation starting from the middle of page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) and see exactly what was said by whom.

        But, apparently, you're too lazy to do that. 

        I just did! Click the link, bozo!


        Second, yes, his credentials are questionable

        Questionable? You gotta be shitting me.

        He has an undergrad degree in biology but his "doctorate" is in chiropractic! Besides that he's got certs from 4 other major quack med institutions, has served on the boards of two such institutions and his own website pushes all manner of alt-med woo and claims that a chiropractic adjustment can make a person grow taller.


        but if you dismiss the entire study based on that it's still an ad hominem.

        And I did not do that.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 01, 2018, 06:53:16 PM
        Is E evidence for H1 over H2?  Well, what effect does it have on the probability that H1 is true versus H2 is true?

        Who makes this assessment, and what methodology do they use to calculate this probability?





        Each of us does using whatever background information we bring to the situation.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 01, 2018, 07:33:00 PM
        At least read JT's post.

        Hint: sloppy or inconclusive studies are weak evidence.

        I disagree. His conclusion is based on a few unsupported assumptions.

        You should take that up with JT. (GLWT)
        Quote
        They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.

        Exactly how poor would they have to be? Who decides what's a good study or a poor one? What are their qualifications?

        On what criteria do these individuals assess that value, and on what scale is it quantized? How is that quantifier used in calculating a probability assessment?

        The scientific community, of course.

        Assuming it was peer reviewed and published, then everyone, including experts in the field, would be able to read it, analyze it, critique, comment on it, and try to reproduce its findings.

        That's kind of why studies are published.

        Quote
        Again, that's why we rely on the peer review process

        That's how posting cherry-picked sources on the internet works, not how science works.
        Non-sequitor. Your facts are uncoordinated.

        Quote
        Right, so you're criticizing me for not cherry picking studies

        Cherry-picking articles that support a conclusion and calling them evidence is exactly what I'm "accusing" you of doing. ("Accusing" seems an overly strong word.)

        I get that, but at the same time you're saying that some of the evidence I'm linking to doesn't fully support my position. Pretty poor picking?

        Quote
        Another lie. I do not "personally attack anyone who comes into the discussion expressing skepticism of the studies or your conclusions about them." That is not me. And, there are plenty of skeptics on these boards who have engaged with me and I think will agree that I do not launch into personal attacks.

        Yet here you are boldly calling me a liar.

        Apparently you're not just anyone.

        Quote

        However, most of them do not flat out lie, misrepresent what I say, misrepresent their own comments and exaggerate beyond any resemblance to the truth. (Actually, here, I don't think any one conducts themselves that way consistently but you).

        Point out examples where I've done that.

        I have numerous times. Pretty much anytime you characterize what I've said or my position on an issue, you take a carefully crafted precise meaning and exxagerate it to an extreme, and then argue against that.
        Quote

        The difference between me and most of the other members is that most of them don't call you on your bullshit.

        Take that up with them. (GLWT)

        Quote
        The specific thing that made me step up and start opposing your nonsense is when you purported to give out medical advice. It's one thing to have unreasonable views, but promoting unscientific health opinions in such a way as to make oneself sound like an expert is beyond the pale in my opinion.

        Wrong on both accounts. I do not give medical advice, and the opinions I promote are scientific.

        Quote
        Quote
        Quote
        What do you think "peer reviewed" means? Who are the peers doing the reviewing?
        The article you're discussing was published in an open-access journal called the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. What can you tell me about their peer review process and the qualifications of their reviewers?

        So you don't know? Or are you just too lazy to look it up?

        This journal uses a double-blind method of peer review, so the authors and reviewers don't know each other.
        Quote
        I'm asking you, because you're the one saying you implicitly trust the peers to vet these articles to make them useful as scientific evidence
        Where did I say that? (Answer nowhere but your rather vivid imagination )


        Quote
        And that's a flat-out lie, that you're repeated several times and been called on it several times. I have never said anything of the kind.

        Like I said, it serves no purpose to lie about this. The posts are already there for anyone to see. Do I really have to start blockquoting all the crazy and blatantly false things you've said about low-carb diets being optimal for everyone, and about conspiracies of the medical industry and world governments to thwart low-carb diets?

        Yes. Those are flat-out lies and misrepresentations. Either prove it or admit you're making shit up again.
        Quote
        No. That's wrong. That's the editorial process. The editor's of a journal make that determination. Not the peer reviewers. (This is science 101.) The reviewers are independent, they are not concerned with the Journal's basic requirements. They are concerned with the study they are reviewing.

        You don't know what you're talking about. The peer review process is part of the process of determining (https://www.jssm.org/newauthors.php) which articles the journal chooses to publish.   

        Nice job removing the part of your quote where you made the incorrect assertion. Of course, peer review is part of the process of determining which articles a journal chooses to publish.

        But your comment: "The peer review process is to determine whether the piece meets the journal's basic requirements for publication, which vary from one publication to another. It's not meant as a tacit stamp of approval that the study represents conclusive evidence for any given proposition. "

        Before peer review, the editors decide if a paper meets the journal's basic requirements. If it doesn't they don't bother with peer review. Most journals reject far more articles before peer review than after peer review, in many cases because the article, content, subject ect. don't meet the basic requirements. Peer review goes way beyond the basic requirements.

        Quote
        In the Type II Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.90.html) thread you posted a study and misrepresented the researchers' conclusions.

        Bullshit.  The one study that I think you mean is where I quoted the authors conclusions without comment.

        Quote
        I already linked to the post. You posted a meta-study that concluded that low-carb diets may be helpful but adherence was an issue, and most of the low-carb diets literature was full of bias, and better research was needed.  You then misrepresented that work as an endorsement of LCHF diets.

        No. Now that I know which study on that page you're referring to, I can respond.

        First you didn't do your homework. If you'd looked a little deeper you'd have learned that the reason they found most of the diet studies were biased was because they are not double-blinded. It is nearly impossible to double-blind RCTs comparing diets. Almost none of the dietary studies are double blinded (the few that are generally have much shorter time frames and very narrow application). If you're going to dismiss LCHF studies for that bias you pretty much have to dismiss them all.

        (EDIT: Clarified I was referring to double-blind RCT studies comparing diets. RCTs with adequate controls are pretty much the gold standard for comparing diets, but are rarely double blind.)

        As to adherence, they found that in the diets where the average carb intake for those diets where the total grams of carbs per day was 25, the actual intake was closer to 50g (off the top of my head). So, yes, there was not strict adherence to the strictest diet. But even so, those dieters consumed less than half the daily carb intake as the next threshold (100g) and even though they didn't drop to the prescribed intake, they still had the lowest level of carb intake and the best results.



        Quote
        And, early on in this discussion I readily admitted that there were issues with Maffetone

        Quote
        It's useless to try and ret-con a discussion on a message board where others can quote your exact words. Anyone can go back and re-read the conversation starting from the middle of page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) and see exactly what was said by whom.

        But, apparently, you're too lazy to do that. 

        I just did! Click the link, bozo!

        Bozo? Really? That's a first grade insult there.
        But seriously, you are only linking to a page with dozens of posts and making general comments that may or may not apply so any of them. Is it beyond you to use the feature that links directly to the post you're referring to?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Friendly Angel on June 01, 2018, 07:45:31 PM

        What if sugar is worse than just empty calories? An essay by Gary Taubes | The BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.j5808)


        Happened to catch a Sam Harris podcast interview with Mr. Taubes from about a year ago last night.

        Probably won't change anybody's mind but presented without all the bickering:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A6hl4xdQBM

        Way too long, might fall asleep.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: lonely moa on June 02, 2018, 05:35:43 AM


        Happened to catch a Sam Harris podcast interview with Mr. Taubes from about a year ago last night.

        Probably won't change anybody's mind but presented without all the bickering:


        Sam unfortunately isn't well informed about the science that Gary has carefully studied for nearly two decades (and much to the chagrin of many on this forum, is far more knowledgeable than many would think are the "experts").

        It was a disappointing interview.  I would suggest that Sam's latest conversation with Michael Pollan is far more interesting..
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 03:21:04 PM
        Quote
        They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.

        Exactly how poor would they have to be? Who decides what's a good study or a poor one? What are their qualifications?

        On what criteria do these individuals assess that value, and on what scale is it quantized? How is that quantifier used in calculating a probability assessment?

        The scientific community, of course.

        Exactly my point. Thank you.

        At least as far as I know, there is no objective, universal metric for rating the accuracy or validity of scientific studies. That being the case, any probability that one might assign to a given study's value as evidence would be completely arbitrary and subjective. Lacking objectivity, we're back to square one.  The individual studies themselves cannot be objective evidence until their results are independently corroborated.

        As you just admitted, the decision falls to the scientific community as a whole. For medical issues, that would include the world's major medical institutions such as (in the USA) the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Massachusetts General, etc. Outside the USA we would defer to organizations such as the World Health Organization, London Clinic, LMU, and the world's major university medical schools.

        What do these organizations have to say about the safety and efficacy of low-carb diets?

        They generally take a very measured stance, acknowledging the benefits (rapid weight loss, lower blood pressure, moderating blood sugar, etc.) but also careful to point out the adverse side effects (weakness, fatigue, muscle cramps, GI issues) and potential risks of excessive meat intake (nutritional deficiencies, heart disease, kidney and liver issues, certain forms of cancer).

         
        Assuming it was peer reviewed and published, then everyone, including experts in the field, would be able to read it, analyze it, critique, comment on it, and try to reproduce its findings.

        That's kind of why studies are published.

        Exactly. Peer review is only as good as the quality of industry professionals that the journal can attract to review the material prior to publication.

        Most importantly, as you pointed out, studies are published for research scientists and other experts in the field to read, analyze, critique, comment, and replicate the studies. Respectable scientific journals do not publish for the intention of being cited as "evidence" to bolster debates on the Internet and news media.

        That's assuming that the journal in question is a good scientific journal operating in good faith. Within the last couple decades some new types of journals have cropped up which are less stringent about their content. These journals are always open-access (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing), and they operate on different business models than legit academic journals. These types of journals might make money by publishing snd promoting, on a pay-to-play basis, some crappy studies that other journals won't touch. Or they might be a mouthpiece for ideologically-motivated institutions (like think tanks, fringe science and alt-med orgs) for the purpose of promoting their special interests on the Internet and news media.

        Before you even go there (because I suspect that you're going to go there), I want to clarify I'm not accusing the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine of being an unscrupulous journal.

        I'm merely pointing out that bunkum journals exist and we must always be on guard when reading reports about new discoveries in the media and on the Internet. In the Internet age, we all have a due diligence to check the sources and the backgrounds of the researchers involved.

        As for that article you posted (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566505.html#msg9566505), none of the researchers has any credentials in nutrition or medicine. They're all sports trainers, kinesiologists and physiologists, including Maffetone who's also a known alt-med quack whose work on science matters is not trustworthy. Alessandro Ferretti (http://alessandroferretti.co.uk) is also into the alt-med; he's a naturopath, an uncredentialed nutritionist, and also a low-carb evangelist. The other two guys are not scientists, dieticians or medical doctors, but professional sports trainers.


        Quote
        Right, so you're criticizing me for not cherry picking studies

        Cherry-picking articles that support a conclusion and calling them evidence is exactly what I'm "accusing" you of doing. ("Accusing" seems an overly strong word.)

        I get that, but at the same time you're saying that some of the evidence I'm linking to doesn't fully support my position. Pretty poor picking?

        Poor picking indeed.

        At least one of the articles doesn't represent what you said it did.

        You said it represented "evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556600.html#msg9556600)" when in fact it said nothing at all about LCHF diets. It actually concluded (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556737.html#msg9556737) that moderate-low carb diets "may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol" but the results are inconclusive and patient adherence is problematic; it also said that the existing research literature is mostly biased so "clarity" is needed.


        I do not give medical advice, and the opinions I promote are scientific.

        You have backed off significantly on your rhetoric lately, but you used to be quite bold about offering medical opinions while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. I thank you for that self-moderation. But saying "the opinions I promote are scientific" is itself quite an anti-scientific thing to say.


        First you didn't do your homework. If you'd looked a little deeper you'd have learned that the reason they found most of the diet studies were biased was because they are not double-blinded. It is nearly impossible to double-blind RCTs comparing diets. Almost none of the dietary studies are double blinded (the few that are generally have much shorter time frames and very narrow application). If you're going to dismiss LCHF studies for that bias you pretty much have to dismiss them all.

        (EDIT: Clarified I was referring to double-blind RCT studies comparing diets. RCTs with adequate controls are pretty much the gold standard for comparing diets, but are rarely double blind.)

        As to adherence, they found that in the diets where the average carb intake for those diets where the total grams of carbs per day was 25, the actual intake was closer to 50g (off the top of my head). So, yes, there was not strict adherence to the strictest diet. But even so, those dieters consumed less than half the daily carb intake as the next threshold (100g) and even though they didn't drop to the prescribed intake, they still had the lowest level of carb intake and the best results.

        Pussyfooting around the details with your own unprofessional opinions while pretending to be more knowledgeable than the trained experts, that doesn't change the fact that the study doesn't represent evidence for what you said it did.


        Quote
        And, early on in this discussion I readily admitted that there were issues with Maffetone

        Quote
        It's useless to try and ret-con a discussion on a message board where others can quote your exact words. Anyone can go back and re-read the conversation starting from the middle of page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) and see exactly what was said by whom.

        But, apparently, you're too lazy to do that. 

        I just did! Click the link, bozo!

        Bozo? Really? That's a first grade insult there.
        But seriously, you are only linking to a page with dozens of posts and making general comments that may or may not apply so any of them. Is it beyond you to use the feature that links directly to the post you're referring to?

        Again, you didn't even bother to click the link and read, before jumping straight into the bickering and insults.

        That link goes straight to lonely_moa's post on page 38 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566509.html#msg9566509) that originally sparked off the debate about Maffetone's credentials. I posted it so that you (or anyone) can go back and see the way the conversation really went down.

        What's with all the petty bickering and pointless misdirections? Why do you find it so difficult to simply look at the objective information and engage honestly?

        Come on, man.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 04:15:54 PM
        Quote
        They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.

        Exactly how poor would they have to be? Who decides what's a good study or a poor one? What are their qualifications?

        On what criteria do these individuals assess that value, and on what scale is it quantized? How is that quantifier used in calculating a probability assessment?

        The scientific community, of course.
        At least as far as I know, there is no objective, universal metric for rating the accuracy or validity of scientific studies. That being the case, any probability that one might assign to a given study's value as evidence would be completely arbitrary and subjective. Lacking objectivity, we're back to square one. 
        Well, you may be back to square one, but no one else is. Infact there are several objective metrics for rating the accuracy and validity of scientific studies. They are generally employed when meta analysis are done. (again, science 101)

        Quote
        As you just admitted, the decision falls to the scientific community as a whole. For medical issues, that would include the world's major medical institutions such as (in the USA) the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Massachusetts General, etc. Outside the USA we would defer to organizations such as the World Health Organization, London Clinic, LMU, and the world's major university medical schools. ]]

        What do these organizations have to say about the safety and efficacy of low-carb diets?

        So, now you're making the leap from the validity of specific studies to the broad acceptance of scientific theories and hypotheses.

        You're basically saying this study (and all studies that have findings contrary to the mainstream) are invalid because their findings run contrary to the mainstream.

        That is not how science works. That's also not how logic works.
        Quote
        They generally take a very measured stance, acknowledging the benefits (rapid weight loss, lower blood pressure, moderating blood sugar, etc.) but also careful to point out the adverse side effects (weakness, fatigue, muscle cramps, GI issues) and potential risks of excessive meat intake (nutritional imbalances, heart disease, kidney and liver issues, certain forms of cancer).

        They are slowly adapting the new information from the multitude of studies. A few years ago they did not acknowledge any benefits, claimed numerous adverse side effects.

        Their is gradual progress in the mainstream toward broader acceptance.

        Quote
        Quote
        Assuming it was peer reviewed and published, then everyone, including experts in the field, would be able to read it, analyze it, critique, comment on it, and try to reproduce its findings.

        That's kind of why studies are published.

        Exactly. Peer review is only as good as the quality of industry professionals that the journal can attract to review the material prior to publication.

        Exactly? Obviously you totally missed the point.

        Quote
        Most importantly, as you pointed out, studies are published for research scientists and other experts in the field to read, analyze, critique, comment, and replicate the studies. Respectable scientific journals do not publish for the intention of being cited as "evidence" to bolster debates on the Internet and news media.

        That's assuming that the journal in question is a good scientific journal operating in good faith. Within the last couple decades some new types of journals have cropped up which are less stringent about their content. These journals are always open-access (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing), and they operate on different business models than legit academic journals. These types of journals might make money by publishing snd promoting, on a pay-to-play basis, some crappy studies that other journals won't touch. Or they might be a mouthpiece for ideologically-motivated institutions (like think tanks, fringe science and alt-med orgs) for the purpose of promoting their special interests on the Internet and news media.

        Before you even go there (because I suspect that you're going to go there), I want to clarify I'm not saying that the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine is an unscrupulous journal.

        I'm merely pointing out that bunkum journals exist and we must always be on guard when reading reports about new discoveries in the media and on the Internet. In the Internet age, we all have a due diligence to check the sources and the backgrounds of the researchers involved.


        So your point is that you don't know what you're talking about, but you've heard bad things about other journals but don't know enough to say anything about this one. But say shit anyway.


        As for that article you posted (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9566505.html#msg9566505), none of the researchers has a background in nutrition or medicine. They're all sports trainers, kinesiologists and physiologists, including Maffetone who's also a known alt-med quack whose scientific opinions are not to be trusted. Alessandro Ferretti (http://alessandroferretti.co.uk) is also into the alt-med; he's a naturopath, an uncredentialed nutritionist, and also a low-carb evangelist. The other two guys are just sports trainers.


        Quote
        Right, so you're criticizing me for not cherry picking studies

        Cherry-picking articles that support a conclusion and calling them evidence is exactly what I'm "accusing" you of doing. ("Accusing" seems an overly strong word.)
        Quote
        I get that, but at the same time you're saying that some of the evidence I'm linking to doesn't fully support my position. Pretty poor picking?

        Poor picking indeed.

        At least one of the articles doesn't represent what you said it did.

        You said it represented "evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556600.html#msg9556600)" when in fact it said nothing at all about LCHF diets. It actually concluded (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556737.html#msg9556737) that moderate-low carb diets "may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol" but the results are inconclusive and patient adherence is problematic; it also said that the existing research literature is mostly biased so "clarity" is needed.


        The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)
        Quote
        Conclusions
        Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.

        To say that this study offers evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D is not a misreprsentation. That's exactly what the conclusion says. It also says that more research and clarity is needed. In other words it's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence. (again, you're problem is you don't know the difference between proof and evidence).

        To use JT's definition it increases the odds that LCHF diets are effective.

        Quote
        I do not give medical advice, and the opinions I promote are scientific.

        You have backed off significantly on your rhetoric lately, but you used to be quite bold about offering medical opinions while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. I thank you for that self-moderation. But saying "the opinions I promote are scientific" is itself quite an anti-scientific thing to say.

        Another non-sequitur.  Nothing unscientific about that.

        And, no, I have not backed off on my rhetoric. Again, you are lying and if you don't like me calling you a liar, then either put up or shut up. It's easy enough to search all of someone's posts on this forum.

        If you can't figure it out, here's the link: https://sguforums.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=18090 (https://sguforums.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=18090)

        Quote
        First you didn't do your homework. If you'd looked a little deeper you'd have learned that the reason they found most of the diet studies were biased was because they are not double-blinded. It is nearly impossible to double-blind RCTs comparing diets. Almost none of the dietary studies are double blinded (the few that are generally have much shorter time frames and very narrow application). If you're going to dismiss LCHF studies for that bias you pretty much have to dismiss them all.

        (EDIT: Clarified I was referring to double-blind RCT studies comparing diets. RCTs with adequate controls are pretty much the gold standard for comparing diets, but are rarely double blind.)

        As to adherence, they found that in the diets where the average carb intake for those diets where the total grams of carbs per day was 25, the actual intake was closer to 50g (off the top of my head). So, yes, there was not strict adherence to the strictest diet. But even so, those dieters consumed less than half the daily carb intake as the next threshold (100g) and even though they didn't drop to the prescribed intake, they still had the lowest level of carb intake and the best results.
        Pussyfooting around the details with your own unprofessional opinions while pretending to be more knowledgeable than the trained experts, that doesn't change the fact that the study doesn't represent evidence for what you said it did.

        Ah. So you're not into details, you're move of a big-picture kind of guy. Got it.

        I stand by what I said about this study.


        Quote
        What's with all the petty bickering and pointless misdirections? Why do you find it so difficult to simply look at the objective information and engage honestly?

        That is laugh out loud funny, coming from you.

        You want to have a civil conversation, stop wildly exaggerating, misrepresenting and lying about my what I've said and my positions.

        Otherwise you can just dwell in you grade school level insults and name calling, which I will be ignoring.
         
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 02, 2018, 04:18:58 PM


        Exactly. Peer review is only as good as the quality of industry professionals that the journal can attract to review the material prior to publication.

        Most importantly, as you pointed out, studies are published for research scientists and other experts in the field to read, analyze, critique, comment, and replicate the studies. Respectable scientific journals do not publish for the intention of being cited as "evidence" to bolster debates on the Internet and news media.

        That's assuming that the journal in question is a good scientific journal operating in good faith. Within the last couple decades some new types of journals have cropped up which are less stringent about their content. These journals are always open-access (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing), and they operate on different business models than legit academic journals. These types of journals might make money by publishing snd promoting, on a pay-to-play basis, some crappy studies that other journals won't touch. Or they might be a mouthpiece for ideologically-motivated institutions (like think tanks, fringe science and alt-med orgs) for the purpose of promoting their special interests on the Internet and news media.


        John Albert makes some good points about peer reviewed journals here.  I'm reading Sagan's Demon Haunted World and there's a section where he extolls the scientific process and peer review, and it seems so naive compared to how journal publishing is nowadays (only 20 years later).  With so few published papers being reproducible and clear publication bias towards positive, novel results, not to mention publishing work with poor methodology (often methodology is all but omitted) and P-hacked results, there are serious problems with how we are evaluating and distributing information amongst the scientific community. It's not just the pay-to-print journals that are the problem. 

        Peer-reviewers are unpaid.  All their feedback is done in their free time with no compensation, which might raise a question about how deeply they have considered the paper.  There is also a race to publish quickly; with things like arXiv around and freely available, journals need to compete with each other and these more immediate forms of dissemination.  Publishing novel, interesting work is always more impactful in terms of gaining a subscription base than publishing null results or repetitions.  The payment and distribution models have changed too; you used to have a subscription to the journal and they would send you a hardcopy, but individual (and even institutional) subscriptions are fairly rare (much access is through things like Athens and Shibboleth).  And PDFs are easily shared by one person who has access - much more readily than photocopying an article and posting it out - which is essentially piracy and reduces income.  Pay to publish is an alternative method in many legitimate journals, but it can be obscenely expensive.  I looked into it for the last paper I submitted to a journal, and it was about £3000GBP.  Finally, scientists who read these papers are all too often easily persuaded by the paper - we do, sadly, lack skills of critical, skeptical thinking.  We are taught that if something is peer-reviewed, it has merit.  We are taught that P=0.05 is statistically significant but no one says what the basis of that is (except to say 'it's probably about correct'  - quote from my doctoral level statistics professor).





        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 04:27:46 PM

        John Albert makes some good points about peer reviewed journals here.

        You raise some interesting points, Albert's post was just flailing away at a bedrock of science because he doesn't understand the process.


        Quote
        Peer-reviewers are unpaid.  All their feedback is done in their free time with no compensation, which might raise a question about how deeply they have considered the paper.

        They are not paid by the journals, but most are academic scientists and researchers and reviewing journals is often considered part of their job. Further, most have published articles in the fields of the studies they review.

        Quote
        There is also a race to publish quickly; with things like arXiv around and freely available, journals need to compete with each other and these more immediate forms of dissemination. 

        How is that a detriment?

        Quote
        Publishing novel, interesting work is always more impactful in terms of gaining a subscription base than publishing null results or repetitions.  The payment and distribution models have changed too; you used to have a subscription to the journal and they would send you a hardcopy, but individual (and even institutional) subscriptions are fairly rare (much access is through things like Athens and Shibboleth). 

        Yes, there is a publication bias.

        Quote
        And PDFs are easily shared by one person who has access - much more readily than photocopying an article and posting it out - which is essentially piracy and reduces income.  Pay to publish is an alternative method in many legitimate journals, but it can be obscenely expensive.  I looked into it for the last paper I submitted to a journal, and it was about £3000GBP.  Finally, scientists who read these papers are all too often easily persuaded by the paper - we do, sadly, lack skills of critical, skeptical thinking.  We are taught that if something is peer-reviewed, it has merit.  We are taught that P=0.05 is statistically significant but no one says what the basis of that is (except to say 'it's probably about correct'  - quote from my doctoral level statistics professor).


        Sharing really isn't as much of an issue in the scientific community. Most colleges and universities pay for access for their faculty and students.

        And, again, no one claiming that peer review is infallible. But it is the best method available to us to evaluate scientific research.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 02, 2018, 04:41:56 PM
        So, now you're making the leap from the validity of specific studies to the broad acceptance of scientific theories and hypotheses.

        You're basically saying this study (and all studies that have findings contrary to the mainstream) are invalid because their findings run contrary to the mainstream.

        That is not how science works. That's also not how logic works.
        Single studies are generally not worth very much on the whole.  It is only when the findings are replicated that they become useful.  Major clinical trials are an exception, but these require a lot of money and effort to run, far more than a typical journal article study.  The mainstream is formed from a metaanalysis of all the studies.   That is how science works, in the sense that it is how mainstream opinion is formed within the scientific community.  As an example, there are plenty of studies that confirm anthropogenic climate change/global warming is not happening, but the overwhelming majority of studies contradict this, leading to a mainstream view that anthropogenic climate change/global warming is real.


        Quote
        Quote
        Assuming it was peer reviewed and published, then everyone, including experts in the field, would be able to read it, analyze it, critique, comment on it, and try to reproduce its findings.

        That's kind of why studies are published.

        Exactly. Peer review is only as good as the quality of industry professionals that the journal can attract to review the material prior to publication.



        The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)
        Quote
        Conclusions
        Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.

        To say that this study offers evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D is not a misreprsentation. That's exactly what the conclusion says. It also says that more research and clarity is needed. In other words it's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence. (again, you're problem is you don't know the difference between proof and evidence).

        The study you quote says 'may produce clinical improvements'.  This isn't evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D, it is evidence that the study has not demonstrated that LCHF diets are worse than standard of care.  These are two different things.  It's like publishing a study on ghosts after investigating 100 haunted houses, not finding any ghosts, and concluding that ghosts may be real.  Yes they may be, but there is no evidence presented in the study to say that they are real, nor has the study provided evidence that they aren't real (only that the study did not find any in their sample).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 04:51:08 PM
        Quote
        They would have to be extremely poor to not be considered evidence at all.

        Exactly how poor would they have to be? Who decides what's a good study or a poor one? What are their qualifications?

        On what criteria do these individuals assess that value, and on what scale is it quantized? How is that quantifier used in calculating a probability assessment?

        The scientific community, of course.

        At least as far as I know, there is no objective, universal metric for rating the accuracy or validity of scientific studies. That being the case, any probability that one might assign to a given study's value as evidence would be completely arbitrary and subjective. Lacking objectivity, we're back to square one. 

        Well, you may be back to square one, but no one else is. Infact there are several objective metrics for rating the accuracy and validity of scientific studies. They are generally employed when meta analysis are done. (again, science 101)

        Okay then, why don't you tell us about it in your own words, according to your own understanding. And then explain how such a metric might be used to calculate a given study's value as evidence for any conclusion that some random guy on the Internet wishes to apply it to.

        Because that was the essence of my point.


        So, now you're making the leap from the validity of specific studies to the broad acceptance of scientific theories and hypotheses.

        You're basically saying this study (and all studies that have findings contrary to the mainstream) are invalid because their findings run contrary to the mainstream.

        No, I'm not making any leap at all. You ought to reread what I actually said. The medical institutions I listed are primarily scientific organizations. As such, their opinions are determined by the preponderance of evidence.

        If the evidence (that LCHF diets are optimal for human health without any serious adverse side-effects) ever becomes overwhelming, then I'll trust the opinions of the medical establishment to that effect. But I'm certainly not going to take the word of naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and other random hype-mongers on the Internet.


        Quote
        They generally take a very measured stance, acknowledging the benefits (rapid weight loss, lower blood pressure, moderating blood sugar, etc.) but also careful to point out the adverse side effects (weakness, fatigue, muscle cramps, GI issues) and potential risks of excessive meat intake (nutritional imbalances, heart disease, kidney and liver issues, certain forms of cancer).

        They are slowly adapting the new information from the multitude of studies. A few years ago they did not acknowledge any benefits, claimed numerous adverse side effects.

        Their is gradual progress in the mainstream toward broader acceptance.

        The progress of science is mostly gradual, because it relies on the preponderance of evidence.


        Quote
        Assuming it was peer reviewed and published, then everyone, including experts in the field, would be able to read it, analyze it, critique, comment on it, and try to reproduce its findings.

        That's kind of why studies are published.

        Exactly. Peer review is only as good as the quality of industry professionals that the journal can attract to review the material prior to publication.

        Exactly? Obviously you totally missed the point.

        No, you just glossed over my point. Like we both agreed earlier, studies are published in science journals for the purpose of research scientists and other experts to read, analyze, critique, comment, and replicate the studies.

        My point is that respectable scientific journals do not publish studies to have them cited as "evidence" for Internet arguments.


        So your point is that you don't know what you're talking about, but you've heard bad things about other journals but don't know enough to say anything about this one. But say shit anyway.

        No, that's just you being a dick again.

        I basically said that just because something is published in a research journal, that doesn't make it valid science. If you have no knowledge of the researchers and their credentials, or the peers or their credentials, then you have no specific reason to trust that what they've published is actually reliable.

        That's why science doesn't hinge on just published journal articles. Science is based on the preponderance of evidence, which is to say the aggregate results of many replicated experiments.


        To say that this study offers evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D is not a misreprsentation. That's exactly what the conclusion says.

        No, it doesn't say that. I quoted (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556737.html#msg9556737) what it says. 

                 
        Quote
        Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.
        [bolding and italics mine]

        Furthermore:

        Quote
        Dietary adherence was an issue in most studies. A very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day) seems unrealistic in this population, however, a low-carbohydrate diet (<130 g/day) appears to be achievable. Improved clinical outcomes were observed in some studies as a result of achieving a low- or moderate-carbohydrate diet.

        Fifteen out of 18 studies were considered high risk of bias, with performance bias being a common issue.


        It also says that more research and clarity is needed. In other words it's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence. (again, you're problem is you don't know the difference between proof and evidence).

        It doesn't say what you said it says. At all. Therefore it's not evidence to support the claim you made. "Proof" has nothing to do with it.


        Quote
        I do not give medical advice, and the opinions I promote are scientific.

        You have backed off significantly on your rhetoric lately, but you used to be quite bold about offering medical opinions while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. I thank you for that self-moderation. But saying "the opinions I promote are scientific" is itself quite an anti-scientific thing to say.

        Another non-sequitur.  Nothing unscientific about that.

        Asserting "my opinion is scientific" is the essence of anti-science.


        And, no, I have not backed off on my rhetoric. Again, you are lying and if you don't like me calling you a liar, then either put up or shut up. It's easy enough to search all of someone's posts on this forum.

        You can call me a liar all you want. As you said, it's easy enough to search all of someone's posts on this forum.


        Quote
        First you didn't do your homework. If you'd looked a little deeper you'd have learned that the reason they found most of the diet studies were biased was because they are not double-blinded. It is nearly impossible to double-blind RCTs comparing diets. Almost none of the dietary studies are double blinded (the few that are generally have much shorter time frames and very narrow application). If you're going to dismiss LCHF studies for that bias you pretty much have to dismiss them all.

        (EDIT: Clarified I was referring to double-blind RCT studies comparing diets. RCTs with adequate controls are pretty much the gold standard for comparing diets, but are rarely double blind.)

        As to adherence, they found that in the diets where the average carb intake for those diets where the total grams of carbs per day was 25, the actual intake was closer to 50g (off the top of my head). So, yes, there was not strict adherence to the strictest diet. But even so, those dieters consumed less than half the daily carb intake as the next threshold (100g) and even though they didn't drop to the prescribed intake, they still had the lowest level of carb intake and the best results.

        Pussyfooting around the details with your own unprofessional opinions while pretending to be more knowledgeable than the trained experts, that doesn't change the fact that the study doesn't represent evidence for what you said it did.

        Ah. So you're not into details, you're move of a big-picture kind of guy. Got it.

        I'm the kind of guy who'd rather trust the professional opinions of medical researchers over some random guy promoting a fad diet on the Internet under the moniker "CarbShark."



        John Albert makes some good points about peer reviewed journals here.

        You raise some interesting points, Albert's post was just flailing away at a bedrock of science because he doesn't understand the process.

        Why do you find it so hard to have an honest and civil discussion about this issue? You seem quite reasonable about some other topics of conversation. I can't help but see it as a red flag.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 05:00:13 PM
        The study you quote says 'may produce clinical improvements'.  This isn't evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D, it is evidence that the study has not demonstrated that LCHF diets are worse than standard of care.  These are two different things.  It's like publishing a study on ghosts after investigating 100 haunted houses, not finding any ghosts, and concluding that ghosts may be real.  Yes they may be, but there is no evidence presented in the study to say that they are real, nor has the study provided evidence that they aren't real (only that the study did not find any in their sample).

        The results, upon which the conclusions were based:
        Quote
        Results
        Eighteen studies (n = 2204) were eligible for inclusion within the systematic review. The definition of a low-carbohydrate diet varied. At trial end, the descriptive analysis suggested that the low-carbohydrate intervention arm (LCIA) may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. The LCIA demonstrated reduced requirements for diabetes medication, which may have reduced the observed benefit of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c. Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%), HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%), triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%). Meta-analyses for weight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.

        Well you're correct that the study does not show LCHF worse than the standard of care. But it's not all like your ghosts analogy. The study provides evidence, but the researchers have reservations about certain aspects, but these do not contradict the results.

        (BTW, the reduced requirement for diabetes medication is huge. T2D is considered a progressive disease and standard of care rarely, if ever, results in reducing requirements for medication. Usually is the opposite over time.)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 05:01:46 PM
        Quote
        The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)
        Quote
        Conclusions
        Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.

        To say that this study offers evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D is not a misreprsentation. That's exactly what the conclusion says. It also says that more research and clarity is needed. In other words it's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence. (again, you're problem is you don't know the difference between proof and evidence).


        The study you quote says 'may produce clinical improvements'.  This isn't evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D, it is evidence that the study has not demonstrated that LCHF diets are worse than standard of care.  These are two different things.  It's like publishing a study on ghosts after investigating 100 haunted houses, not finding any ghosts, and concluding that ghosts may be real.  Yes they may be, but there is no evidence presented in the study to say that they are real, nor has the study provided evidence that they aren't real (only that the study did not find any in their sample).

        Moreover, that analysis isn't even about LCHF diets specifically. It's about low-carb diets in general.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 02, 2018, 05:02:49 PM

        John Albert makes some good points about peer reviewed journals here.

        You raise some interesting points, Albert's post was just flailing away at a bedrock of science because he doesn't understand the process.


        Quote
        Peer-reviewers are unpaid.  All their feedback is done in their free time with no compensation, which might raise a question about how deeply they have considered the paper.

        They are not paid by the journals, but most are academic scientists and researchers and reviewing journals is often considered part of their job. Further, most have published articles in the fields of the studies they review.

        Quote
        There is also a race to publish quickly; with things like arXiv around and freely available, journals need to compete with each other and these more immediate forms of dissemination. 

        How is that a detriment?

        It means the reviewers have to provide their reviews quickly.  When people hurry, they are more likely to miss things, particularly in the details, just to get the review.
        Quote
        Quote
        Publishing novel, interesting work is always more impactful in terms of gaining a subscription base than publishing null results or repetitions.  The payment and distribution models have changed too; you used to have a subscription to the journal and they would send you a hardcopy, but individual (and even institutional) subscriptions are fairly rare (much access is through things like Athens and Shibboleth). 

        Yes, there is a publication bias.

        Quote
        And PDFs are easily shared by one person who has access - much more readily than photocopying an article and posting it out - which is essentially piracy and reduces income.  Pay to publish is an alternative method in many legitimate journals, but it can be obscenely expensive.  I looked into it for the last paper I submitted to a journal, and it was about £3000GBP.  Finally, scientists who read these papers are all too often easily persuaded by the paper - we do, sadly, lack skills of critical, skeptical thinking.  We are taught that if something is peer-reviewed, it has merit.  We are taught that P=0.05 is statistically significant but no one says what the basis of that is (except to say 'it's probably about correct'  - quote from my doctoral level statistics professor).


        Sharing really isn't as much of an issue in the scientific community. Most colleges and universities pay for access for their faculty and students.
        There are many more places that employ scientists, though, and access can be extremely poor, particularly when budgets are strained.  My own access comes from my university links, not from my paid job, and still I can't access all the papers I want to read.  On the SGU show, Cara mentioned having to 'beg, borrow and steal' papers for her journalism work.
        Quote

        And, again, no one claiming that peer review is infallible. But it is the best method available to us to evaluate scientific research.

        We need to be less accepting of peer review as a benchmark.  It is so flawed as to be almost detrimental.   My opinion is that scientific research will soon be evaluated en masse by AI which will score it across various domains (novelity, relevance, quality of method, interpretation of results).  I also think the journal article format is dated.  It made sense pre-internet, but now we can access data much more dynamically.  For example, publish your intent and methodology before collecting your data, and have it peer reviewed.  Then publish your raw data, processed data and summarised data (not just the summary).  Then your analysis, conclusions and abstract.  Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        But I fear I have strayed off topic so I will stop here...
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 05:09:00 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 02, 2018, 05:13:02 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.

        True, but so often it is taken as the former instead of the latter.  Being 'published' is a badge of honour among scientists, it boosts careers, but it doesn't mean the work was rigorous.

        OK, definitely stopping now.  No, NOW.  now...

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 05:15:52 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.

        True, but so often it is taken as the former instead of the latter.

        Yeah, and that's a big problem when journalists cite research studies as evidence of new scientific knowledge.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 02, 2018, 05:58:27 PM
        Quote
        Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the
        LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%),
        HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%),
        triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and
        systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%).
        Meta-analyses for weight,
        total cholesterol,
        LDL cholesterol and
        diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.
        With eight separate comparisons, only the two bolded p-values should actually be considered significant. Getting p=0.03 when doing multiple comparisons is not significant if your overall threshold is 0.05.

        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 06:13:33 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.

        That is not what peer review is.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 06:15:08 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.

        That is not what peer review is.

        https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 02, 2018, 07:37:38 PM
        Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        Be careful about projecting the inadequacies of your field onto the rest of science. 
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 02, 2018, 07:39:32 PM
        Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        Be careful about projecting the inadequacies of your field onto the rest of science.

        You'd do well to heed your own advice.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 02, 2018, 07:41:21 PM
        Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        Be careful about projecting the inadequacies of your field onto the rest of science.

        You'd do well to heed your own advice.

        Huh?  Care to explain?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 09:13:36 PM
        Quote
        Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the
        LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%),
        HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%),
        triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and
        systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%).
        Meta-analyses for weight,
        total cholesterol,
        LDL cholesterol and
        diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.
        With eight separate comparisons, only the two bolded p-values should actually be considered significant. Getting p=0.03 when doing multiple comparisons is not significant if your overall threshold is 0.05.

        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.

        You're looking at total averages of all the trials. If you look at the individual data you'll see that some of the trial have a significant effect, while others not so much.

        Hope the table translates:

        Change in HbA1c at trial end
        Change in HbA1c
        Difference between groups
        AuthorTrial
        duration
        LCIAControl95% CIp-value
        Wolever et al. (2008)12 months+0.3+0.1 and +0.1NSNS
        Elhayany et al. (2010)12 months-2-1.8 and -1.60.021‡
        Westman et al. (2008)24 weeks-1.5-0.50.03 † / 0.06
        Pohl et al. (2009) §12 weeks-1.3-1.20.5576
        Goldstein et al. (2011)12 months-1-10.73
        Tay et al. (2015)12 months-1-1-0.3 to 0.50.65
        Esposito et al. (2009)4 years-0.9-0.5-0.9 to -0.1
        Pohl et al. (2005) §12 weeks-0.80.00.0275
        Mayer et al. (2014)48 weeks-0.70.1-1.6 to -0.020.045
        Rock et al. (2014)12 months-0.7-0.3 and +0.1<0.05 and <0.01
        Shirai et al. (2013)24 weeks-0.6-0.20.002
        Yamada et al. (2013)6 months-0.6-0.20.03
        Daly et al. (2006)3 months-0.55-0.230.132
        Jonasson et al. (2014)6 months-0.4-0.1NS
        Larsen et al. (2011)12 months-0.23-0.28-0.37 to 0.46
        Davis et al. (2009)12 months-0.020.240.71†
        Guldbrand et al. (2012)2 years0+0.20.76†
        LCIA   Low-carbohydrate intervention arm
        NS   Not significant as reported by authors
        §   Median change reported and one-sided p-value used in favour of the LCIA
        †   p-value calculated across all time points within the study
        ‡   p-value calculated between all groups
        † when adjusted for baseline HbA1c
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 02, 2018, 09:22:16 PM
        You're looking at total averages of all the trials. If you look at the individual data you'll see that some of the trial have a significant effect, while others not so much.
        And how does that solve the multiple comparison problem?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 09:33:09 PM
        You're looking at total averages of all the trials. If you look at the individual data you'll see that some of the trial have a significant effect, while others not so much.
        And how does that solve the multiple comparison problem?

        I didn't say it did. The authors narrowed the scope of the analysis to arrive at the numbers you posted, minimizing the number of comparisons, somewhat.

        The table I posted ignores all that and provides the results of each study.

        (It would be interesting to compare how well the change in H1Ac correlates with the amount of carbs consumed)
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 09:36:39 PM
        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.


        I have learned about the multiple comparison problem, but I don't think it's been gone into here. And, no I don't ignore anything (except John Albert, I think may start ignoring him again).
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 02, 2018, 09:41:52 PM
        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.
        I have learned about the multiple comparison problem, but I don't think it's been gone into here.
        What do you mean "gone into here"? Do you not think it applies to this situation where eight comparisons are made?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2018, 09:58:50 PM
        Peer review is not a stamp of validity or even a professional endorsement. All it means is that some qualified professionals have looked over the material and vetted it according to the journal's standards for academic rigor.

        That is not what peer review is.

        https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

        That's probably not the best page to learn about peer review (unless you really are in grade school) but even then, it's probably best if you read it.
        Quote
        Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

        So, no the peer reviewers are not just making sure it meets the journal's standards, that's the editor's job, and it's done before peer review begins.

        Peer Review Overview (https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/howtopeerreview/peer-review-overview/10286386)
        Quote
        After an editor receives a manuscript, their first step is to check that the manuscript meets the journal’s rules for content and format. If it does, then the editor moves to the next step, which is peer review.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 03, 2018, 12:04:37 AM
        Quote
        Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the
        LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%),
        HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%),
        triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and
        systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%).
        Meta-analyses for weight,
        total cholesterol,
        LDL cholesterol and
        diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.
        With eight separate comparisons, only the two bolded p-values should actually be considered significant. Getting p=0.03 when doing multiple comparisons is not significant if your overall threshold is 0.05.

        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.

        And significance at the .03 level is poor evidence against the null regardless.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 12:54:33 AM
        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.
        I have learned about the multiple comparison problem, but I don't think it's been gone into here.
        What do you mean "gone into here"? Do you not think it applies to this situation where eight comparisons are made?
        That was in response to your “pointed out to you before” comment. I don’t think we’ve discussed it in this forum.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: RubyDuckman on June 03, 2018, 05:40:23 AM
        The multiple comparison problem has been pointed out to you before, but apparently you're still willing to ignore it when it supports your golden cow.
        I have learned about the multiple comparison problem, but I don't think it's been gone into here.
        What do you mean "gone into here"? Do you not think it applies to this situation where eight comparisons are made?
        That was in response to you “pointed out to you before” comment. I don’t think we’ve discussed it in this forum.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Wrong as usual.

        https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=50056.msg9559051.msg#9559051

        Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 11:43:58 AM
        Whoops. You’re right, that had been discussed before.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 11:44:39 AM
        BTW, the reason we have resurrected discussion of this old study and are rehashing the same issues, is that I was accused of misrepresenting the study by referring to it as evidence that supports the LCHF model.

        Although the evidence may not be of high quality, and it certainly isn't conclusive, and doesn't prove the case, my representation of the study was fair.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 03, 2018, 02:26:31 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 02:42:25 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: RubyDuckman on June 03, 2018, 03:12:11 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Barely reaching statistical significance isn't even remotely the same as "good probability"

        Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 03:24:08 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Barely reaching statistical significance isn't even remotely the same as "good probability"


        I think the HDL and Triglycerides findings showed good probability.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 03, 2018, 04:01:18 PM
        Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        Be careful about projecting the inadequacies of your field onto the rest of science.

        I wasn't talking about my own field specifically (which is physics, if the name didn't give it away).  I was talking about science in general.  It is a recognised problem (Steve Novella mentioned this at some point on the podcast, don't remember which episode, and there are repositories available where people can submit there methodology in advance of their study results).  It's also visible in the analysis of published literature, with publication bias.  You can make a negative finding into a positive finding, if you change what you are looking for when your null hypothesis doesn't work out the way you want.  You can change your P value to basically anything you want in order to get a required result too.  Sadly, I have been taught these lesson by several well regarded people from different disciplines at 'quality' universities, and much criticism of peer reviewed published articles on the SGU revolves on similar lines.

        There are quality studies being published all the time, in all fields, but there is a lot of junk.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: Physicity on June 03, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
        The study you quote says 'may produce clinical improvements'.  This isn't evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D, it is evidence that the study has not demonstrated that LCHF diets are worse than standard of care.  These are two different things.  It's like publishing a study on ghosts after investigating 100 haunted houses, not finding any ghosts, and concluding that ghosts may be real.  Yes they may be, but there is no evidence presented in the study to say that they are real, nor has the study provided evidence that they aren't real (only that the study did not find any in their sample).

        The results, upon which the conclusions were based:
        Quote
        Results
        Eighteen studies (n = 2204) were eligible for inclusion within the systematic review. The definition of a low-carbohydrate diet varied. At trial end, the descriptive analysis suggested that the low-carbohydrate intervention arm (LCIA) may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. The LCIA demonstrated reduced requirements for diabetes medication, which may have reduced the observed benefit of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c. Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%), HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%), triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%). Meta-analyses for weight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.

        Well you're correct that the study does not show LCHF worse than the standard of care. But it's not all like your ghosts analogy. The study provides evidence, but the researchers have reservations about certain aspects, but these do not contradict the results.

        (BTW, the reduced requirement for diabetes medication is huge. T2D is considered a progressive disease and standard of care rarely, if ever, results in reducing requirements for medication. Usually is the opposite over time.)

        With results like 'estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02,', 'estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03' , the effects are small indeed.   One P value is p=0.93!

        This paper isn't doing much to promote LCHF.  But just so you know, I do believe this kind of diet is hugely beneficial, particulary for type 2 diabetes.  It's just that this paper isn't doing much to support that belief.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: RubyDuckman on June 03, 2018, 04:17:20 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Barely reaching statistical significance isn't even remotely the same as "good probability"


        I think the HDL and Triglycerides findings showed good probability.
        That's because you have no idea how statistics work.

        Statistical significance isn't the same as clinical significance.

        Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 03, 2018, 04:51:04 PM
        Why wait until it is complete, unless you want to change the methodology to suit a particular result - which is unscientific, but it is what we are taught to do.

        Be careful about projecting the inadequacies of your field onto the rest of science.

        You'd do well to heed your own advice.

        Huh?  Care to explain?

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to apply principles of subjective statistics to scientific questions.

        Can a single, unreplicated study from untrustworthy sources working outside their field of expertise represent objective evidence?
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 04:52:08 PM
        The study you quote says 'may produce clinical improvements'.  This isn't evidence to support LCHF diets over standard of care for T2D, it is evidence that the study has not demonstrated that LCHF diets are worse than standard of care.  These are two different things.  It's like publishing a study on ghosts after investigating 100 haunted houses, not finding any ghosts, and concluding that ghosts may be real.  Yes they may be, but there is no evidence presented in the study to say that they are real, nor has the study provided evidence that they aren't real (only that the study did not find any in their sample).

        The results, upon which the conclusions were based:
        Quote
        Results
        Eighteen studies (n = 2204) were eligible for inclusion within the systematic review. The definition of a low-carbohydrate diet varied. At trial end, the descriptive analysis suggested that the low-carbohydrate intervention arm (LCIA) may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. The LCIA demonstrated reduced requirements for diabetes medication, which may have reduced the observed benefit of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c. Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%), HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%), triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%). Meta-analyses for weight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.

        Well you're correct that the study does not show LCHF worse than the standard of care. But it's not all like your ghosts analogy. The study provides evidence, but the researchers have reservations about certain aspects, but these do not contradict the results.

        (BTW, the reduced requirement for diabetes medication is huge. T2D is considered a progressive disease and standard of care rarely, if ever, results in reducing requirements for medication. Usually is the opposite over time.)

        With results like 'estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02,', 'estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03' , the effects are small indeed.   One P value is p=0.93!

        This paper isn't doing much to promote LCHF.  But just so you know, I do believe this kind of diet is hugely beneficial, particulary for type 2 diabetes.  It's just that this paper isn't doing much to support that belief.

        Well, it wasn't intended as a promotion for LCHF and no one said it did promote LCHF diet for T2D. It is more evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes.

        FWIW, as I said before, reducing medications needed for T2D is a pretty big deal. That's by itself is worth the price of admission.

        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: gmalivuk on June 03, 2018, 05:30:04 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Barely reaching statistical significance isn't even remotely the same as "good probability"


        I think the HDL and Triglycerides findings showed good probability.
        Good probability of a tiny effect size is not really anything too exciting, though.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: John Albert on June 03, 2018, 05:37:43 PM
        Well, it wasn't intended as a promotion for LCHF and no one said it did promote LCHF diet for T2D. It is more evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes.

        FWIW, as I said before, reducing medications needed for T2D is a pretty big deal. That's by itself is worth the price of admission.

        It has nothing to do with LCHF diets in specific. It was a study of low- and moderate- carbohydrate diets. The term "LCHF" was not even mentioned in the study.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 07:04:31 PM
        Okay, fine, it is evidence, but of very low quality.

        Just like finding a new exoplanet is low-quality evidence of alien life.

        That's a poor analogy. I would say comparatively this is of higher quality evidence than that.

        This is direct measurements of effect with some categories showing evidence of a good probability, that is indirect finding.
        Barely reaching statistical significance isn't even remotely the same as "good probability"


        I think the HDL and Triglycerides findings showed good probability.
        Good probability of a tiny effect size is not really anything too exciting, though.
        Ok. Good thing I didn’t represent it as exciting evidence.

        Reducing T2D meds is something to get excited about


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 07:08:37 PM
        Well, it wasn't intended as a promotion for LCHF and no one said it did promote LCHF diet for T2D. It is more evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes.

        FWIW, as I said before, reducing medications needed for T2D is a pretty big deal. That's by itself is worth the price of admission.

        It has nothing to do with LCHF diets in specific. It was a study of low- and moderate- carbohydrate diets. The term "LCHF" was not even mentioned in the study.

        No, but several (not all) of the studies included meet the criteria for LCHF. And if you actually read even just the abstract you'd realize that one of the issues they raised was specifically about the terminology used to refer to these diets.
        Title: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2018, 07:52:16 PM
        At the risk of beating a dead horse, which, I guess I'm prone to do, let's look at this quote from the guy accusing me of misrepresenting the study in question. 

        You said it represented evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes" when in fact it said nothing at all about LCHF diets. It actually concluded that moderate-low carb diets "may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol" but the results are inconclusive and patient adherence is problematic; it also said that the existing research literature is mostly biased so "clarity" is needed.

        (Below are the results and conclusions from the study, with emphasis added)

        JA Says:
        Quote
        "in fact it said nothing at all about LCHF diets."

        The fact is that the authors specifically mentioned that there is no consensus on how to refer to these diets. Several of the studies included meet the criteria for LCHF diets.

        JA Says:
        Quote
        "It actually concluded that moderate-low carb diets "may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol" but the results are inconclusive"

        It actually does not use the word "inconclusive" at all. He seems to be assuming that using the word "may" rather than "definitely does" is the same as "inconclusive."

        Further, he ignores the caveat on HbA1c, where they explain those results may be understated due to the effect of subjects stopping their medication during the studies (that would reduce the affect of the LC diet lowering HbA1c).

        And, they did not use the word "may" at all when the study says "The LCIA demonstrated reduced requirements for diabetes medication" So just this one line negates his argument that this study does not have evidence that favors LCHF diets over standard of care.

        JA says:
        Quote
        " and patient adherence is problematic"

        Well, no they said it was "an issue." they did not use the word "problematic" and that means something different.

        And, as for the adherence issues they raised, it's not that big of a deal. The dieters did not strictly adhere to the minimal carb intakes in the studies with the strictest levels (<20g and <50g) But they did lower their total carb intake much more than the other diets, both as a proportion of calories and actual grams, and got more benefit. That's hardly "problematic."

        JA says:
        Quote
        "it also said that the existing research literature is mostly biased so "clarity" is needed."

        Well, no, that's not what they said. They ran an analysis that found specific reasons for risk of bias (mostly non-double-blinding, for the diet trials included in this analysis).

        But nowhere did they relate bias to the need for clarity. That's just JA making shit up again.

        "Clarity" is used only in reference to the terminology used to refer to LC diets.

        Read for yourselves.  Decide who is misrepresenting the authors and who is changing the meaning of their study.


        The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)
        Quote
        Eighteen studies (n = 2204) were eligible for inclusion within the systematic review. The definition of a low-carbohydrate diet varied. At trial end, the descriptive analysis suggested that the low-carbohydrate intervention arm (LCIA) may promote favourable outcomes in terms of HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. The LCIA demonstrated reduced requirements for diabetes medication, which may have reduced the observed benefit of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c. Seven studies provided data to be included in the meta-analyses at 1 year. The meta-analyses showed statistical significance in favour of the LCIA for HbA1c (estimated effect = −0.28%, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.02, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 13.15, df = 6, p = 0.03; I 2 = 54%), HDL cholesterol (estimated effect = 0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.00001; χ 2 = 6.05, df = 6, p = 0.42; I 2 = 1%), triglycerides (estimated effect = −0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.13, p < 0.0001; χ 2 = 1.88, df = 6, p = 0.93; I 2 = 0%) and systolic blood pressure (estimated effect = −2.74 mmHg, 95% CI −5.27 to −0.20, p = 0.03; χ 2 = 10.54, df = 6, p = 0.10; I 2 = 43%). Meta-analyses for weight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between interventions.

        Dietary adherence was an issue in most studies. A very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day) seems unrealistic in this population, however, a low-carbohydrate diet (<130 g/day) appears to be achievable. Improved clinical outcomes were observed in some studies as a result of achieving a low- or moderate-carbohydrate diet.

        Fifteen out of 18 studies were considered high risk of bias, with performance bias being a common issue.

        Conclusions
        Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes.

        Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention.

        Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.
        Title: Re: LCHF and healthy eating
        Post by: jt512 on June 03, 2018, 09:24:21 PM