re: Your low carb diet is probably killing you

Dexa is still operator dependent and can fluctuate with intake for the day.

Bodpod and inbody scan are really close to dexa in my experience. Dexa is still best but it's only useful to identify trends just like bodpod and inbody.

quote:

---

That’s still low carb by most standards. You can hit that by breakfast with a chopped banana in a cup of oatmeal, with milk. A normal healthy breakfast by traditional standards.

That’s only 320 cal from carbs. Most eat 3-4x that

---

And that’s probably way to many carbs for the average persons daily needs

quote:

---

It's almost literally beside the point of health.

---

On that Attia podcast I posted, Dr Ron Krauss discussed his 5 criteria for metabolic disease and truncal obesity is on the list. Visceral fat means one has fat around his organs.

However, you are correct that the lack of visible visceral fat doesn't let one off the hook, as there are many people (especially various Asian subsets) who have fat around organs without obesity.

Anyway, that "study" isn't worthy of a rebuttal it's so ill-designed. Oh and the woman running the "study" is a vegan. So there's that--they're sort of like Muslims: not all radical lunatics with no basis in science, but burden of proving they aren't is on them.

I may come back with bullet points but it's one of these:

If you manage your carbs the same way you do fat and sodium, you'll be fine.

Looking forward to it. I've been trying to keep protein at right above 50 percent of calories. I find it tough to not overeat by trying to reach the gram per lb of body weight though.

Might need to go a little leaner on the proteins. Picked up some mahi mahi today.

A couple of high-quality takedowns of this ridiculous "study". We honestly should just stop reporting on epidemiological studies. It's only scientific in the most nominal sense:

LINK

LINK


Also, from one of those links, here's an interesting snippet and something to always keep in mind:

quote:

---

In 1977 the Senator McGovern committee issued some dietary goals for Americans (Ref 1). The first goal was “Increase carbohydrate consumption to account for 55 to 60 percent of the energy (caloric) intake.” This recommendation did not come from any evidence related to carbohydrate. It was the inevitable consequence of setting a dietary fat guideline of 30% with protein being fairly constant at 15%.

---

I'm almost literally amazed at the impact of that obscure bit of history. Just a few years after big sugar paid off Harvard to blame heart disease on saturated fat, we had the American government codifying a nearly wholesale restructuring of the American diet.

so they put 315 people who already had preexisting conditions in the low carb zone and stacked 6,000 people at mid carb zone who were already moderately healthy.

Folks, the people who were in the low carb portion of the study were there because they already had Type II Diabetes and still on average, they only lived four years less!

What a piece of shite headline.

If you want a real howler, Nina Teicholz has tracked down a copy of the actual questionaire:

LINK

Yeah, I trust the average American to accurately fill out that monster, months in arrears.

Also, notice the last category: "Meat, sweets, baked goods, cereal, etc."

Chris Kresser

quote:

---

Another term for agenda-driven bias is “confirmation bias.” This is defined by Wikipedia as “the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories.”

Was this an issue in the Lancet paper? While we can’t be sure, it’s certainly a possibility. The paper was published by a research group that included Walter Willett, a physician and researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health who is notorious for his advocacy of a low-fat, plant-based diet. This alone is not necessarily cause to suspect confirmation bias.

However, in an unprecedented turn of events, Willett was censured in an editorial and feature article in the prestigious journal Nature for “promoting over-simplification of scientific results in the name of public health and engaging in unseemly behavior towards those who venture conclusions that differ to his.” (13)

Willett co-authored a study claiming to link aspartame with cancer, but the study was retracted by Harvard at the last minute because the data did not support that conclusion. Meanwhile, the damage had already been done by sensational media headlines like “Aspartame Causes Cancer.” Sound familiar?

---