Thu, Mar-25-21, 09:34
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 4,044
|
|
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav
I wouldn't call it disingenuous at all, it just helps to make one particular point without also complicating the picture with various other factors.
Many who argue against low carb on the grounds of "keto flu" style symptoms will often cite those shorter studies as the basis for their arguments. What this study demonstrates is that yes, there can often be side effects when first getting underway with low carb, but also that those symptoms are temporary. Past the first 2-3 weeks, things tend to work out much better in terms of TEE in the long run. That's the real point behind this study as I see it.
Yes, this may well have incorporated some studies where the definition of low carb might not quite agree with ours. But think about this: if a study like this had been done by assessing only those studies where carbs made up a maximum of say 20% of energy intake for example, the results may very well have turned out even better from our point of view, but at the same time, would also have given detractors an opportunity to argue the point, that not all "low carb" studies were considered, that the data was "cherry-picked" or whatever. And by their definition, they would be right. By including more liberal low carb studies in the mix, to actually meet their definition anyway and still demonstrate successful outcomes, that really leaves opponents with no room whatsoever to argue that particular point.
Could the results have turned out even better if eligible studies were limited to only those with even greater carb restriction? Probably, but that's not the purpose of this study as I understand it. That would be the subject of another study for another day.
|
Grav, thanks for clarifying. "Disingenuous" is not the correct word in this case, as I don't believe any of the referenced studies were that. I like the fact that Ludwig observed that issues with low carb (reduced TEE) resolved after a few weeks (~2.5 wks), citing the importance of study duration, to your point. He also found increased TEE in other studies. This Ludwig meta-analysis appears to be a direct response to the Kevin Hall study of a few years ago among others.
However, I would like to see future studies designed to report on more discrete consumption of carbs by several levels of percentages with weights referenced, say 250, 200, 150, 100, 50 grams per day, etc, on a continuum. Given the variables at play among the macros, being able to identify how a low carb group is defined in a particular study would be helpful in producing reliable results and enabling accurate claims. Agree that isn't the purpose of Ludwig's analysis, but I'm curious to discover what the "sweet spot" would be for participants using these conditions.
Consuming fewer carbs than a SAD does not necessarily mean it was actually low carb depending on the definition; yet, some will take it as gospel and some will immediately discount it based on subjective interpretation. It would be nice to see that subjective interpretation eliminated. I believe this is one of the issues that stimulated conducting this meta-analysis.
Last edited by GRB5111 : Thu, Mar-25-21 at 12:07.
|