Legit criticism of LCHF?
mlinton_mesapark
Posts: 517 Member
Hi folks,
Just to play devil's advocate, I was cruising the web this afternoon, looking for any hard science debunking the LCHF approach to diet. I found lots of click-bait headlines, but the articles were emore neutral than the headline would suggest, poorly written, or drew conclusions that didn't seem to follow from anywhere but some expert's hunch, bias or misinterpreted data.
Have you come across any legitimate criticism of this way of eating, from a health standpoint?
One possible criticism I can think of is that it leaves the door open for eating processed foods that may include harmful components, like trans fats, MSG, etc. Of course, one can take care to read labels and avoid those things.
Thanks!
Mary
Just to play devil's advocate, I was cruising the web this afternoon, looking for any hard science debunking the LCHF approach to diet. I found lots of click-bait headlines, but the articles were emore neutral than the headline would suggest, poorly written, or drew conclusions that didn't seem to follow from anywhere but some expert's hunch, bias or misinterpreted data.
Have you come across any legitimate criticism of this way of eating, from a health standpoint?
One possible criticism I can think of is that it leaves the door open for eating processed foods that may include harmful components, like trans fats, MSG, etc. Of course, one can take care to read labels and avoid those things.
Thanks!
Mary
0
Replies
-
Any dietary plan, if executed improperly, can be debunked. The main things I've heard about LC is that some folks have bodies that react differently to saturated fats and their cholesterols go up, and that is legit, but the fact is they don't know what that means badly. The core of LCHF/Keto is to eat whole foods (not processed), that you don't eat trans fats and MSG, etc., so I don't see how that is a criticism of the principles, because that is when it is improperly executed....
Now if they want criticisms on how people actually use it versus how it was intended, that's a whole different world...0 -
the eco-groovey crowd will bash because we are eating off the top of the food chain ( lots of meat), and killing animals. ( the 70s also saw the start of the "eat small on a small planet" movement, guilting meat consumers)
Others will say there is NO longterm proof* this much fat will not harm the body somehow. Gary Taubes and others admit to this..so part of LCHF is trust the science is right!!!
[ *which is true for MODERN times…we are NOT the Inuits, didn't grow up, or our ancestors, eating that way, OR living in that cold environment..we do NOT have their genes either..so pointing to them as "recent success", I feel, is not good enough proof. Opponents can point easily to island culturers at the hot equator eating tubers and fruits only. just sayin'
The answer to that is NOT to go so far back as the Inuits in 1901..but just look at how healthy Americans were all thru the 40s-60's ( the depression had real food famine, so can't include them..they fit the CICO mode) ....there were very very few obese people..maybe one guy you knew, or one teen had thyroid problems. there is an article somewhere showing pics of teens in 1920s, 40s, 60's..then the 70s change to high grain diet changed all of it.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Any dietary plan, if executed improperly, can be debunked. The main things I've heard about LC is that some folks have bodies that react differently to saturated fats and their cholesterols go up, and that is legit, but the fact is they don't know what that means badly. The core of LCHF/Keto is to eat whole foods (not processed), that you don't eat trans fats and MSG, etc., so I don't see how that is a criticism of the principles, because that is when it is improperly executed....
Now if they want criticisms on how people actually use it versus how it was intended, that's a whole different world...
This is inline with what I have researched, read and implemented.
The main issue I had early on was that I was addicted to carbs and could not get into ketosis.
0 -
Tough question. I'll give you two of my favorite anti-LCHF sites:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
Stephan Guyenet is an obesity researcher who basically eats paleo. He thinks LCHF has some benefits for some people, but he doesn't believe extreme carb restriction is useful, and he thinks fat/LDL can be legitimately harmful.
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/
Paul Jaminet is a scientist who also basically eats paleo. He likes "safe starches," which I think means root veggies and white rice. He has some interesting arguments, but I frankly find the foundation of some of his theories kind of shaky.
As others have said, it's really a matter of implementation and your particular physiology. There is no one perfect diet.0 -
your particular physiology
I think this is probably the biggest criticism. CICO at it's true use, someone with no underlying medical conditions, who is fairly average, will lose weight if they eat less than they burn and those numbers would be around what we would expect from the formulas.
Low carb is not for everyone, the way person A processes carbs is different than person B, same with the other macros. So its scientifically much more difficult to refute Cico than LC, and that causes fear of lc.
0 -
What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.0 -
I've been meaning to compile a list of known side-effects of low-carb diets, including possible mechanisms and solutions. I'm just posting this here to goad myself on. Maybe this week.
0 -
Just to toss fuel into the fire, In the last month or so, I've developed some sensitivities. I can't seem to isolate exactly what the issue is, but I'm getting sick to my stomach with fats or added salt, triggering bile/bowel dumps with seemingly no trigger, and just struggling with my eating. Apparent triggers I'm testing but have been unable to isolate yet or intentionally recreate the effects are: coconut oil, eggs, pickles, excessive salt/added pink himalayan, vinegar, some AS, some dairy (even after cutting down to 1-2 oz a day, flat) and now, most recently, heavy cream. It is making me mental, because I can't isolate or recreate the triggers, but removing some of them in part or conjunction has provided not having the symptoms, but not consistently...
I really don't want to have to go through a full isolation diet, because I can't afford to fill in all the gaps right now... SIGH
It seems to be over a certain portion of fat (though even 1 tsp coconut oil triggered a few times, other fats require more for the issue) or in combination with salt... But also, for a long time (3 weeks), the queasy stuff was exactly the same duration. Roughly 3 hours starting 30-60 minutes after consumption. This last week or so, it's almost instant, and sometimes it goes away in minutes, other times, hours... I'm hating this conflict, because I'm loving my WOE/WOL.0 -
JessicaLCHF wrote: »What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.
Mmmm, butter on steak.... (sorry, you distracted me)
0 -
Thanks for all the input, folks! And thanks for the links @wabmester!
I think it helps keep us honest to view whatever WOE we are following with a healthy dose of skepticism. And I do think that different things work for different people... But you can't really know what works for you until you give it a sustained, wholehearted trial.
I did lose a significant amount of weight 7 years ago with CICO, so I can attest that it does work. LCHF with a CICO-style calorie limit is much easier to follow for me, and a few ailments have improved, mostly joint/muscle pain, headaches and congestion.
I look forward to reading about studies on the long-term effects of LCHF.
My paternal grandfather, a Cajun butcher and a great cook, stubborn as a mule and wouldn't listen to anyone, let alone a doctor, lived to 87 on every kind of meat and fat imaginable. I wouldn't say he restricted carbs, but meat was definitely center stage. I choked down squirrel and blackbird gumbo at his house, and suffered through unrequested second helpings, too. He had diabetes near the end of his life, but was clear-headed and sharp-witted up to the very end. My grandmother outlived him by a few years, and was just as sharp as he was until he passed.0 -
JessicaLCHF wrote: »What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.
Or the one's that have a sample size of less than 500 and a testing period of less than a year...0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »JessicaLCHF wrote: »What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.
Or the one's that have a sample size of less than 500 and a testing period of less than a year...
What really get me are the ones with sample sizes of a dozen or less and a testing period of two weeks...0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Just to toss fuel into the fire, In the last month or so, I've developed some sensitivities. I can't seem to isolate exactly what the issue is, but I'm getting sick to my stomach with fats or added salt, triggering bile/bowel dumps with seemingly no trigger, and just struggling with my eating. Apparent triggers I'm testing but have been unable to isolate yet or intentionally recreate the effects are: coconut oil, eggs, pickles, excessive salt/added pink himalayan, vinegar, some AS, some dairy (even after cutting down to 1-2 oz a day, flat) and now, most recently, heavy cream. It is making me mental, because I can't isolate or recreate the triggers, but removing some of them in part or conjunction has provided not having the symptoms, but not consistently...
I really don't want to have to go through a full isolation diet, because I can't afford to fill in all the gaps right now... SIGH
It seems to be over a certain portion of fat (though even 1 tsp coconut oil triggered a few times, other fats require more for the issue) or in combination with salt... But also, for a long time (3 weeks), the queasy stuff was exactly the same duration. Roughly 3 hours starting 30-60 minutes after consumption. This last week or so, it's almost instant, and sometimes it goes away in minutes, other times, hours... I'm hating this conflict, because I'm loving my WOE/WOL.
Try a probiotic?0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »JessicaLCHF wrote: »What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.
Or the one's that have a sample size of less than 500 and a testing period of less than a year...
What really get me are the ones with sample sizes of a dozen or less and a testing period of two weeks...
I saw that one. ABC news. How can they even report that!?! Followed by a "doctor" espousing low fat dieting. Oh, in lab conditions, too! And they didn't tell that the carb limit was but just that it was "900 cals less" than normal. SMH0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Just to toss fuel into the fire, In the last month or so, I've developed some sensitivities. I can't seem to isolate exactly what the issue is, but I'm getting sick to my stomach with fats or added salt, triggering bile/bowel dumps with seemingly no trigger, and just struggling with my eating. Apparent triggers I'm testing but have been unable to isolate yet or intentionally recreate the effects are: coconut oil, eggs, pickles, excessive salt/added pink himalayan, vinegar, some AS, some dairy (even after cutting down to 1-2 oz a day, flat) and now, most recently, heavy cream. It is making me mental, because I can't isolate or recreate the triggers, but removing some of them in part or conjunction has provided not having the symptoms, but not consistently...
I really don't want to have to go through a full isolation diet, because I can't afford to fill in all the gaps right now... SIGH
It seems to be over a certain portion of fat (though even 1 tsp coconut oil triggered a few times, other fats require more for the issue) or in combination with salt... But also, for a long time (3 weeks), the queasy stuff was exactly the same duration. Roughly 3 hours starting 30-60 minutes after consumption. This last week or so, it's almost instant, and sometimes it goes away in minutes, other times, hours... I'm hating this conflict, because I'm loving my WOE/WOL.
I wonder if this recent change for you could be a compounding factor with environmental or hormonal factors as well. My sisters children have reactions to many foods and in the month of August they often will start having reactions from foods that they had been eating previously with no issues.0 -
JessicaLCHF wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »JessicaLCHF wrote: »What drives me crazy are all the studies debunking a low carb diet over a low fat diet when their idea of low carb is 150-200g of carbs a day. Grrrrr....
It's especially wonderful when my naturally thin family members send those to me with dire warnings that I'm killing myself eating butter on my steak. Sigh.
Or the one's that have a sample size of less than 500 and a testing period of less than a year...
What really get me are the ones with sample sizes of a dozen or less and a testing period of two weeks...
I saw that one. ABC news. How can they even report that!?! Followed by a "doctor" espousing low fat dieting. Oh, in lab conditions, too! And they didn't tell that the carb limit was but just that it was "900 cals less" than normal. SMH
this made me think of all the news lately about the "little pink pill" for women that's been approved by the fda. supposed to help with low libido. my first thought was, why don't you try eating some more fat! I had no clue how important fat was to our bodies, like literally none, ate low fat everything. I know I'm not the only one and I wonder how much that has messed up our hormones. I can tell you that I have no need for a "little pink pill" now that I'm eating more fats in my diet.
It's very sad that fat has been demonized so much for so long that so many people can't accept it as ok to eat.
0 -
KETOGENICGURL wrote: »the eco-groovey crowd will bash because we are eating off the top of the food chain ( lots of meat), and killing animals. ( the 70s also saw the start of the "eat small on a small planet" movement, guilting meat consumers)
Others will say there is NO longterm proof* this much fat will not harm the body somehow. Gary Taubes and others admit to this..so part of LCHF is trust the science is right!!!
[ *which is true for MODERN times…we are NOT the Inuits, didn't grow up, or our ancestors, eating that way, OR living in that cold environment..we do NOT have their genes either..so pointing to them as "recent success", I feel, is not good enough proof. Opponents can point easily to island culturers at the hot equator eating tubers and fruits only. just sayin'
The answer to that is NOT to go so far back as the Inuits in 1901..but just look at how healthy Americans were all thru the 40s-60's ( the depression had real food famine, so can't include them..they fit the CICO mode) ....there were very very few obese people..maybe one guy you knew, or one teen had thyroid problems. there is an article somewhere showing pics of teens in 1920s, 40s, 60's..then the 70s change to high grain diet changed all of it.
1. The Inuit are not a separate species. In fact, if you're of European, northern Asian (Russia), or northern Native American descent, your pre-industrial ancestors likely ate the same kind of diet (ice age = very few plants; northern Native American tribes, particularly the Dakota tribes, lived almost exclusively on Bison). Evolutionarily speaking, you're not going back nearly far enough to claim that we differ so wildly from our pre-industrial or pre-agrarian ancestors (fact is, we don't; we have a handful of mutations, but we are still the same species).
2. Vilhjalmur Stefansson, as well as his many fellow Arctic explorers, not to mention Dr. James Salisbury's patients, would beg to differ with you. Also, the reason people go back to the 1900s populations is because most of the native tribes have been Westernized and no longer follow their traditional diets (and have had their health suffer horribly as a result).
3. No one's disputing that people can live off one extreme or the other (no one here, anyway). In fact, most people accept as given that people can live off the one extreme -- extreme, low fat (even low protein) vegan -- but most people still don't believe that yes, we can also live off the other extreme -- low carb, high fat (varying protein). Pointing to examples of those that live almost entirely off carbohydrates is only a counter-argument to the people that claim that all carbohydrates are bad for everyone, not to the claim that LCHF is not harmful and is in fact a safe, healthy, beneficial way to live.
As for the Diabetes front, accounts like this one are very telling and essential to our understanding, since Dr. Bernstein is in the unique position of having been diagnosed with Diabetes in the "dark ages" of 1948, and has lived to tell about it (a feat in and of itself given the abysmal state of Diabetes management in that day). He learned through trial and error the diet that saved his life -- low carb, higher fat diet -- even when the medical industry was still insisting that not only was monitoring and controlling blood glucose not necessary to managing Diabetes, but not even possible to do.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Any dietary plan, if executed improperly, can be debunked. The main things I've heard about LC is that some folks have bodies that react differently to saturated fats and their cholesterols go up, and that is legit, but the fact is they don't know what that means badly. The core of LCHF/Keto is to eat whole foods (not processed), that you don't eat trans fats and MSG, etc., so I don't see how that is a criticism of the principles, because that is when it is improperly executed....
Now if they want criticisms on how people actually use it versus how it was intended, that's a whole different world...
This is the only one I've ever seen, and even then, it's been found that most of them can switch to monounsaturated fats as the primary fat type and not have an issue.
Everything else is usually flawed premises or outright incorrect foundations (or just bald-faced lying).
The argument that you could just replace everything with garbage is a red herring, because you can do that with any way of eating, even the standard one. Remember the "low fat!" stuff (and have you seen the ingredient list on a lot of those microwave meals)? Generally speaking, it's called "doing it wrong."
No one in their right mind advocates trans-fat containing foods, because it's been unquestionably shown to be a horrible substance time and time again. In fact, the nature of LCHF discourages eating the foods that usually contain trans fats -- margarines (eat real butter!) and processed foods with hydrogenated oils (which are usually also high carb).
Same goes for MSG and the nature of low carb eating, though you might get it in low carb tortillas or whatever if you're doing a highly processed version. I think most people start realizing that they can get a lot more food in general in if they skip the fake stuff and go for the meat+vegetables combination.0 -
I like getting some carbs only as I need them for fuel.
So I can be technically not low carb if you look at a number of grams
But just figure a 30 mile ride and 1800 calories for riding fast
If I eat 150 grams of carbs that is only 600 calories. It all gets burnt off
For me low carb dieting means not having much glycogen in my system so my body sources fat as fuel.
Exercise also has other benefits.
I don't feel as good on a low carb intake. I feel a bit lower energy but never this keto flu.
I feel never consuming carbs lowers some energy levels for me
I am better off to once in a while get 150 carbs. Get my body refilled momentarily, as I burn it back off. Maybe the carb desire gets sated.
That is my only comment
I can live off of steak and wings with salads and veggies
Never need a potato or ear of corn.0 -
My GP reckons it has negative effects on fertility, but hasn't backed it up with any actual articles for me to read.
I'm definitely finding it negative today, there are only 3 eggs left and a bit of dark chocolate but lots of bread and rice and cereal. Sigh.
I'm not as charmed with this WOE as I used to be, I'm kinda not sure why I started doing it now.0 -
My GP reckons it has negative effects on fertility, but hasn't backed it up with any actual articles for me to read.
I'm definitely finding it negative today, there are only 3 eggs left and a bit of dark chocolate but lots of bread and rice and cereal. Sigh.
I'm not as charmed with this WOE as I used to be, I'm kinda not sure why I started doing it now.
Do you have any kind of deli meat or bacon sitting around? Or even cream cheese or the like? 3 eggs, plus a couple ounces of meat and/or cheese makes for an awesome scramble!
As for the fertility thing, some women doing keto notice their cycle going irregular, but I haven't seen whether it's a transitional thing or not (also, no information on starting weight, as keto does seem to be counterproductive, or at least rougher, for most people to start when already at a low body fat percentage). When going to this way of eating from an already dysfunctional state, though (ie - if the woman is already infertile for one reason or another), it tends to correct the dysfunction and bring about/improve fertility.
For example, I have PCOS and with it came amenorrhea (no periods at all), even when I was on Metformin. I was able to get light "periods" (ie - spotting for a day or two every 25-35 days) with the help of Inositol, but it wasn't until I went carnivore/zero carb that they were "actual" periods and stabilized at right around 28-30 days.0 -
I'm not as charmed with this WOE as I used to be, I'm kinda not sure why I started doing it now.
A lot of people get excited in the early stages, mostly due to the water weight loss.
Then they get excited by the apparent increase in energy.
Over time, energy seems to decline. I've been meaning to look into it, but there seems to be some evidence of thyroid effects in the long term, and that could explain the waning energy feelings.
I've been low carb for about 7 months now and still like my "new normal." I don't restrict as much as most people around here, but I'm still interested in the long term effects. My next blood test will probably be next month.
To me, the biggest reasons to stay low-carb long term are for hunger/craving control and to keep my triglycerides and blood sugar lower.
0 -
There is 3 eggs, 20g dark choc and butter. No other keto foods available :-). I'll obviously live just fine till tomorrow, just annoying is all.
I did have fertility issues beforehand and it took 8 years to have a successful pregnancy. I have a somewhat regular cycle these days, but how can I be sure it's low carb doing that or the fact that I have dropped 83lbs?
I started lowering my carbs in Feb, went keto reasonably quickly and have mostly enjoyed it. I am feeling more tired again these days though and just wondering if all the benefits I was attributing to keto are actually just benefits from having lost weight.
I'm not interested in going 'regular' carb and plan to stick with keto because of the reduced hunger, I guess I'm just out of the honeymoon period with it. I dunno. I like it but don't want to stick my WOE up on a pedestal if that makes sense.0 -
I absolutely noticed hormonal systems need a blast of carbs on occasion to be optimal
Even though it gets burnt back out right away
If it is date weekend I eat more Carbs.
But I don't do keto level like lots do. It is carb restricted to and calorie control.
I understand not wanting to say my way is the only way
That is part of why this group is so awesome!0 -
I did have fertility issues beforehand and it took 8 years to have a successful pregnancy. I have a somewhat regular cycle these days, but how can I be sure it's low carb doing that or the fact that I have dropped 83lbs?
Probably both. I have the opposite problem, since I'm about 20 years older than you. I don't know if it is the low carb that has stabilized my hormones enough for TOM to have stopped, or if it would have stopped anyway because it was time. Prior to LC I was having all the classic symptoms of the worst of peri-menopausal and menopausal symptoms (and some rare strange ones too). Almost all of them are gone now for the most part, and I do credit LC for that.
0
This discussion has been closed.