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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 05:21
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,687
 
Plan: LC/IF
Stats: 238/219/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 24%
Location: UK
Default Alternative Dietary Patterns for Americans: Low-Carbohydrate Diets

A major new paper on the low-carb diet has just been released, making the case that it should be one option in the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans, particularly for people with obesity, diabetes etc. The paper also addresses criticisms of low-carb, such as the idea that it's not heart healthy.


Quote:
Alternative Dietary Patterns for Americans: Low-Carbohydrate Diets

by Jeff S. Volek, Stephen D. Phinney, Ronald M. Krauss, Richard J. Johnson, Laura R. Saslow, Barbara Gower, William S. Yancy, Jr., Janet C. King, Frederick M. Hecht, Nina Teicholz, Bruce R. Bistrian and Osama Hamdy

Abstract


The decades-long dietary experiment embodied in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) focused on limiting fat, especially saturated fat, and higher carbohydrate intake has coincided with rapidly escalating epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) that are contributing to the progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other diet-related chronic diseases. Moreover, the lack of flexibility in the DGA as it pertains to low carbohydrate approaches does not align with the contemporary trend toward precision nutrition. We argue that personalizing the level of dietary carbohydrate should be a high priority based on evidence that Americans have a wide spectrum of metabolic variability in their tolerance to high carbohydrate loads. Obesity, metabolic syndrome, and T2D are conditions strongly associated with insulin resistance, a condition exacerbated by increased dietary carbohydrate and improved by restricting carbohydrate. Low-carbohydrate diets are grounded across the time-span of human evolution, have well-established biochemical principles, and are now supported by multiple clinical trials in humans that demonstrate consistent improvements in multiple established risk factors associated with insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recently recognized a low carbohydrate eating pattern as an effective approach for patients with diabetes. Despite this evidence base, low-carbohydrate diets are not reflected in the DGA. As the DGA Dietary Patterns have not been demonstrated to be universally effective in addressing the needs of many Americans and recognizing the lack of widely available treatments for obesity, metabolic syndrome, and T2D that are safe, effective, and sustainable, the argument for an alternative, low-carbohydrate Dietary Pattern is all the more compelling.


Full text here: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3299/htm


Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 07:20
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,589
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/165/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 120%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

The food industry will not support low-carb eating until someone figures out how to make lots of cheap packaged low-carb items to replace all the high-carb junk food that is heavily advertised. Wheat, corn, and rice are major money-making substances with no low-carb replacement.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 07:30
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 4,937
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

It strikes me as absurd that this topic is still controversial. It's simply evidence that science doesn't matter when it comes to governmental nutritional advice. Other factors, like corporate greed, are at work here.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 11:34
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,725
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
It strikes me as absurd that this topic is still controversial. It's simply evidence that science doesn't matter when it comes to governmental nutritional advice. Other factors, like corporate greed, are at work here.

Excellent point. And one could extend this observation beyond nutrition. We as individuals must be fully aware, apply a degree of healthy skepticism, and weigh the evidence before taking any advice. Unfortunately in today's polarized world, science is only fact when it supports a desired narrative. Then, those who pose different views are often attacked and discredited. I'm glad to see this paper published, as it's been a tough and never-ending road attempting to update the DGAs to reflect those approaches that may be more effective for metabolically unhealthy people. Here's hoping the message doesn't get drowned out by those with other agendas.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 11:36
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,895
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Science doesn't win.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 12:31
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,595
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Science doesn't win.

No kidding. I've also become skeptical (not cynical, just cautiously skeptical) about any health or illness related advice being given out recently. Too much big food and big pharma $$$ at stake plus organizations or individuals visible in the news possibly trying to cover for publicly noticed poor decisions and policies they may have made by censoring and silencing dissenting opinions, etc. I just have to use the best information I'm personally able to find and go with what seems to work best for me.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 13:36
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 4,937
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Unfortunately in today's polarized world, science is only fact when it supports a desired narrative.


Well said. Instead of being open minded most people only look for confirmation of what they already believe is true. Lots of egos seem to hang in the balance. Someone like Tim Noakes is a role model. He discarded his low fat high carb model for low carb when he realized that what he had preached for so many years, what he had based his career on, was not only wrong but damaging for many people, himself included. Learning to listen with an open mind to alternative or new information is a skill we all need to develop. What many of us on this forum have going for us is that we have tested our beliefs out in the crucibles of our own bodies, using what works and discarding what doesn't work. For many of us, myself included, this has worked over many years so has stood the test of time.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Sep-25-21, 14:20
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,895
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
No kidding. I've also become skeptical (not cynical, just cautiously skeptical) about any health or illness related advice being given out recently. Too much big food and big pharma $$$ at stake plus organizations or individuals visible in the news possibly trying to cover for publicly noticed poor decisions and policies they may have made by censoring and silencing dissenting opinions, etc. I just have to use the best information I'm personally able to find and go with what seems to work best for me.



I understand completely.

I use my noggin. Use what I understand of how scientific studies can be less than perfect, yet useful. Like don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which brought me to a number of online sources that are worth my time to "ingest". The skeptical side of me, listened, or read, with a "prove it" mentality.

Years ago I worked at a well known research facility. It opened my eyes to the stark realities. Like to get published, established PhDs evaluated papers before it was accepted for publication. Or, the "outcome" of the research was couched to extract more research dollars.

None the less, good research is vital.

These days I depend on the YouTubers that meet my high bar of credibility, and over the years accept that new information, from research, changes what is best.

The critic in me looks for the " what's in it for me" angle.....who are the backers, where is big pharma hiding, or big farma hiding, lol, or any business that is focused on profit.

Ads are another word for lying, IMHO

As alluded to earlier, I go to my trusted sources, with ever an eagle eye of skepticism because the YouTubers don't get a cent from me, it's given freely. ( Of course, the more views, the more YouTube pays the content provider.) My point is I'm not getting fleeced of my money. I learn far far more studying on line than what I get from a doctor's visit that costs $60 on top of a pricey health insurance policy.

Be skeptical. Be wise.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Sep-26-21, 05:55
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,517
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Science doesn't win.


Actually, science does win. No one uses "alternative forms" of engineering to put up bridges. Because the consequences would be fairly immediate, highly undeniable, and horribly expensive.

Unfortunately for all of us, dietary choices do not have these advantages. It takes decades for habitual bad decisions to start becoming obvious. This allows plenty of wiggle room for careerists and con artists to hold sway. I've concluded that almost all eating plans -- scientifically based or sheer propaganda -- have one thing in common which virtually guarantees a short-term upward bounce in health: they all tend to cut down on certain kinds of junk foods. Even if the composition of the diet doesn't change, the amounts often do. That alone can help people feel better.

But yes, I agree with the sentiment: we need more and better science in the health/medicine field. But this has other vast differences which make it far more more slippery than other fields of science.

Whether the bridge falls down or stays up is a clearly demonstrated binary. No one has cultural or family traditions about what kind of bridge will cross that next river, or for that matter, any choice if we want to reach the other side. If we have a phobia about it, that's clearly recognized and we can seek treatment. And there's no struggles to "fit in." We all use the same bridge.

Food is infinitely more complicated, emotional, and embedded in our identity. Other people feel entitled to comment, opine, and even harass us about our personal choices. We are tempted by offers of hospitality, we have hurt feelings when we don't want birthday cake, and our own emotions often drive us into short-term bad decisions.

Grandma would never want us to take the bad bridge, but she would be hurt if we didn't eat her special holiday treat.

Even now, in the midst of a global emergency, we have elements of society who deliberately undercut the known science of acute illness treatment, which currently operates at a level that is at an absolute, and undisputed, peak. Even decades of research that created prevention medicine in an amazingly short time has created controversy.

In the far less defined world of nutritional science, it's no wonder there's so much confusion and factionalism. I'm reminded of our past threads on the Rice Diet: a radical approach to diabetes that made one third of the people worse, one third unchanged, and one third well on their way to remission.

Unlike bridges, we don't have ONE way to achieve that river crossing goal.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Sep-28-21, 06:15
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 11,932
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/27%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Letter from Nina Teicholz at Nutrition Coalition:

Quote:
A group of papers has just been published that arguably represent the most significant critique of the Dietary Guidelines to date. They are part of a series in the journal Nutrients, called Towards Better Dietary Guidelines: New Approaches Based on Recent Science, with co-guest editors Arne Astrup and Ronald M. Krauss.

Most importantly, these papers include authors who are top, mainstream academics, including several former members of previous Dietary Guidelines Committees, who are the experts reviewing the science for the Guidelines. These scientists represent the highest-level challenge of the Guidelines to date. I believe this work will spark conversation in the field and be hard to ignore. Also, these articles can be used to further efforts to inform patients, clients, and institutions about the current evidence-base for an alternative set of food guidelines.

The papers published in this series so far (all open access) are:

1. A review on saturated fats. I think the headline of this paper is that we examined the totality of evidence used by the most recent US Dietary Guidelines expert committee looking at sat fats, and the evidence clearly did not support the continuation of limits on these fats. The analysis of the data is in the supplementary table, and it’s quite clear that the vast majority of evidence cited by the committee did not support its conclusion.

2. A paper making the case that a low-carbohydrate diet should be one of the “Dietary Patterns” promoted by the US Dietary Guidelines. This paper has tons of references and I think may be a useful resource for many of you. It also includes sections responding to the criticisms that low-carb diets are bad for your heart or increase mortality.

3. A review of the data on sodium, making the case that the “lower is better” policy of the Dietary Guidelines is not based on the evidence and that a moderate amount is better for the vast majority of people.

I’m very honored to have helped organize the series and be an author on a couple of these papers. The series is not yet complete.


Edit. Copy and Paste lost all the links, they are:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrie...tary_Guidelines

Fats: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3305

Low Carb: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3299

Sodium: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/9/3232

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Sep-28-21 at 07:26.
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 02:50.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.