Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Sep-12-18, 02:46
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,957
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/192/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: UK
Default Carbs, Good for You? Fat Chance!

Quote:
From the Wall Street Journal
September 11, 2018

Carbs, Good for You? Fat Chance!

Dietary dogma’s defenders continue to mislead the public and put Americans’ health at risk.

By Nina Teicholz


The U.S. government’s nutrition advice since 1980 has mainly been to increase consumption of carbohydrates and avoid fats. Despite following this advice for nearly four decades, Americans are sicker and fatter than ever. Such a record of failure should have discredited the nutrition establishment. Yet defenders of the nutrition status quo continue to mislead the public and put Americans’ health at risk.

A widely reported study last month purported to show that carbohydrates are essential to longevity and that low-carb diets are “linked to early death,” as a USA Today headline put it. The study, published in the Lancet Public Health journal, is the nutrition elite’s response to the challenge coming from a fast-growing body of evidence demonstrating the health benefits of low-carb eating.

The authors relied on data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, or ARIC, which since 1987 has observed 15,000 middle-aged people in four U.S. communities. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, ARIC may seem robust study, but it is based on a thin data set. Researchers’ food questionnaires typically feature between 100 and 200 dietary items, but participants in this study were queried on only 66. Popular foods such as pizza and energy bars were left out, with undercounting of calories the inevitable result. ARIC calculated that participants ate only 1,500 calories a day—starvation rations for most.

Further, the ARIC participants’ eating habits were tracked only twice, from 1987-89 and 1993-95. After 1995 the study’s participants were assumed to have continued eating the same diet for the next 15 years. During that time the Mediterranean diet craze hit and the junk-food industry exploded, yet ARIC captured none of these effects.

Diet questionnaires are inherently unreliable since people tend to under- and overestimate food quantities to make their diets look better. The Lancet authors’ treatment of the data also falls short. They make no mention of adjusting their results for alcohol consumption, for example, which is a critical factor in longevity.

It gets worse. The authors threw out any data on carb consumption from subjects who “developed heart disease, diabetes, and stroke” before the second diet visit, “to reduce potential confounding.” They don’t reveal how much evidence was dropped, but this seems like it would be the most relevant portion of any study about the relationship between carb consumption and disease.

Randomized controlled clinical trials are considered the scientific gold standard because they can demonstrate cause and effect, which ARIC’s associational data can’t. The authors of the Lancet study give short shrift to the more than 70 such trials that have looked at the health effects of a low-carb diet. While grudgingly acknowledging the “beneficial short-term weight loss and improvements in cardiometabolic risk” from high-fat/low-carb diets, the authors claim without evidence that such diets have been “hypothesised to stimulate inflammatory pathways, biological ageing, and oxidative stress.”

The Lancet authors, in recommending a “moderate” diet of 50% to 60% carbohydrates, essentially endorse the government’s nutrition guidelines. Because this diet has been promoted by the U.S. government for nearly 40 years, it has been tested rigorously in NIH-funded clinical trials involving more than 50,000 people. The results of those trials show clearly that a diet of “moderate” carbohydrate consumption neither fights disease nor reduces mortality.

Lancet Public Health (a separate journal from its more prestigious parent, the Lancet) charges contributors an “article processing fee” of $5,000. The journal publishes papers that need to be distributed “quickly” to “advance public health policies.” What exactly was the rush here? Given the lack of rigor, it seems the paper’s purpose was not to help people eat better and live longer but rather to quash public interest in low-carb, high-fat diets. Needlessly scaring people away from diets with established health benefits could endanger the public.

Ms. Teicholz is a science journalist, author of “The Big Fat Surprise,” and executive director of the Nutrition Coalition.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/carbs-...ance-1536705397
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Sep-12-18, 06:06
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,320
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Good Op-Ed. The Wall Street Journal has given her a powerful platform since they published her article on fats before her Big Fat Surprise book was released in 2014.

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Sep-12-18 at 06:17.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Sep-12-18, 06:34
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,103
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Propaganda not science is the take home message from this op-ed. Wish more people would take it to heart.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Sep-12-18, 08:11
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,231
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/218/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 31%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Ah the battle is heating up!

Having lived LC on and off for so many years, my own personal experience is enough to convince me of the good health it brings.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:15.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.