Interesting Studies: Probably low carb related in one way or another
Replies
-
Your definition of robust and mine must be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?1
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.2 -
I understand. LOL I'm getting to the point where I can see that I don't need veggies but still feel weird skipping them. There's a part of me that wants to hedge my bets and still eat some, which is why I still include some every few weeks even though I sometimes feel the worse for it.
I have been carnivore so long that my gut has adapted to it. I drink coffee (black) and tea (unsweetened), as well as add a small amount of seasonings (I plan to cut back quite a bit on that over the next few months). I went to a buffet recently in hopes of finding sufficient carnivore options. There were a few things, but not that much. So I ended up at the Italian section with some sausages in a tomato sauce. I pulled the sausages out of the sauce and did not eat the sauce, but apparently enough had soaked into them or the small amount left on them was just too much for me. I spent much of the day very uncomfortable, moving very slowly, spending a fair amount of time in the bathroom, and taking pills for gas and Tums.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I understand. LOL I'm getting to the point where I can see that I don't need veggies but still feel weird skipping them. There's a part of me that wants to hedge my bets and still eat some, which is why I still include some every few weeks even though I sometimes feel the worse for it.
I have been carnivore so long that my gut has adapted to it. I drink coffee (black) and tea (unsweetened), as well as add a small amount of seasonings (I plan to cut back quite a bit on that over the next few months). I went to a buffet recently in hopes of finding sufficient carnivore options. There were a few things, but not that much. So I ended up at the Italian section with some sausages in a tomato sauce. I pulled the sausages out of the sauce and did not eat the sauce, but apparently enough had soaked into them or the small amount left on them was just too much for me. I spent much of the day very uncomfortable, moving very slowly, spending a fair amount of time in the bathroom, and taking pills for gas and Tums.
It's pretty neat, although sometimes inconvenient, how the body can change its norm.3 -
-
Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial.
What you'd expect.
Source0 -
I like that they used the words reversal and resolution with respect to patients' T2D when it went away instead of just remission.
2 -
lol That does seem pretty contentious.
From 1992 (metabolic ward, liquid diet, 16 ppl): Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition.
Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.
Source via nutrition wonk0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext
Just in case you haven't seen it. Mor support for the benefits of fibrous foods, to include high quality carb sources. Go ahead and keep thinking fiber isn't necessary or beneficial.5 -
"Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre."
How can anyone be impressed by this or conclude it's the fiber? Nutrition research is truly shocking.7 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »"Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre."
How can anyone be impressed by this or conclude it's the fiber? Nutrition research is truly shocking.
Confirmation bias is truly shocking.
This is why providing you with other data isn't worth it. You literally won't look at the evidence unless it aligns to your thinking. Thank you for proving my point.8 -
In reading Fire in the Belly (2012 edition) by Dr. Scott-Mumby, MD. yesterday he drove home the point how getting the right amount of fiber especially soluble fiber is key to preventing premature death from all causes as I took it. The science seems to be there to support:
"Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre."
It seems a lot of bad stuff gets sweep out the back door with an adequate amount of fiber from quality food sources.
Starting on page 134 he gets into the facts and fiction about fiber needs being in the 30-40 gram range with women and seniors needs being towards the low side. He states fiber is important because "it helps with weight loss, lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, lessens the risk of cancer and diabetes, improves digestion and greatly benefits our gut flora, for a start."
Below is a current paper on the fiber/health connection importances.
https://health.harvard.edu/heart-health/healthy-gut-healthy-heart
Healthy gut, healthy heart?
How the trillions of bacteria in your intestinal tract play a role in your cardiovascular health.
Published: June, 2018
"If you ask most medical experts about the hottest trends in health research, chances are they'll mention the microbiome. The term refers to the trillions of microbes living inside our bodies, known as the human microbiota. The vast majority of these bacteria, viruses, and fungi dwell deep within our intestines. These microbes help with digestion, make certain nutrients, and release substances that have wide-ranging health effects.
"There's a complex interplay between the microbes in our intestines and most of the systems in our bodies, including the vascular, nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. All of these relationships are highly relevant to cardiovascular health," says Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Microbe metabolites
As you'd expect, what we eat plays a major role in the composition of our gut microbiota. And we're learning more about how the substances gut microbes churn out (called metabolites) influence our risk for many chronic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, says Dr. Manson.
One of the best known of these gut metabolites, called trimethylamine (TMA), forms when gut microbes feed on choline, a nutrient found in red meat, fish, poultry, and eggs. In the liver, TMA is converted to trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a substance strongly connected with the formation of artery-clogging plaque (atherosclerosis). A 2017 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association by Dr. Manson and colleagues pooled findings from 19 studies looking at the connection between blood levels of TMAO and serious cardiovascular problems (mainly heart attacks and strokes).
People with the highest TMAO levels were 62% more likely to experience serious cardiovascular problems than those with the lowest levels. High TMAO levels were also linked to higher mortality rates. What's more, these connections were independent of traditional risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and kidney problems. This suggests that TMAO could be a novel target for prevention or treatment strategies.
Gut microbe metabolites are also known to influence other factors closely tied to cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and inflammation. For example, a high-fiber diet may encourage the growth of gut bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids. A gut that includes these microbes seems to help people with diabetes better control their blood sugar and body weight, according to one small study....."4 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext
Just in case you haven't seen it. Mor support for the benefits of fibrous foods, to include high quality carb sources. Go ahead and keep thinking fiber isn't necessary or beneficial.
That article most likely does not touch on what was being discussed: a ketones genie diet with vegetables vs a carnivorous diet without vegetables. I have not gone through all the sources of that metabalysis, but I am guess the low fibre group were comprised of those getting plenty of carbs but from highly processed and refined sources like bread, sugars, junky carbs and noodles.
It does not prove that a diet containing veggies, but void of almost all processed carbs, is better than a diet without any plants. I'd venture a guess that still having carbs in the diet makes a difference in how useful fibre is. That seems to be the major benefit of fibre, and foods naturally rich in fibre - carb digestion and nutrition content. The fibre seems to help in carb digestion and BG control when one eats carbs but it doesn't help if you aren't eating them.5 -
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext
Just in case you haven't seen it. Mor support for the benefits of fibrous foods, to include high quality carb sources. Go ahead and keep thinking fiber isn't necessary or beneficial.
That article most likely does not touch on what was being discussed: a ketones genie diet with vegetables vs a carnivorous diet without vegetables. I have not gone through all the sources of that metabalysis, but I am guess the low fibre group were comprised of those getting plenty of carbs but from highly processed and refined sources like bread, sugars, junky carbs and noodles.
It does not prove that a diet containing veggies, but void of almost all processed carbs, is better than a diet without any plants. I'd venture a guess that still having carbs in the diet makes a difference in how useful fibre is. That seems to be the major benefit of fibre, and foods naturally rich in fibre - carb digestion and nutrition content. The fibre seems to help in carb digestion and BG control when one eats carbs but it doesn't help if you aren't eating them.
Did you read the article? It looks at food quality based a ton of other research.
Just under 135 million person-years of data from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials with 4635 adult participants were included in the analyses. Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre. Risk reduction associated with a range of critical outcomes was greatest when daily intake of dietary fibre was between 25 g and 29 g. Dose-response curves suggested that higher intakes of dietary fibre could confer even greater benefit to protect against cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal and breast cancer. Similar findings for whole grain intake were observed. Smaller or no risk reductions were found with the observational data when comparing the effects of diets characterised by low rather than higher glycaemic index or load. The certainty of evidence for relationships between carbohydrate quality and critical outcomes was graded as moderate for dietary fibre, low to moderate for whole grains, and low to very low for dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load. Data relating to other dietary exposures are scarce.
Its not these one one of LCHF diets. Its a meta analysis of hundreds of studies.
But again, we can sit back and make assessments based on personal biases while arguing the existing evidence. This isn't the only meta analysis that demonstrates these findings. Simply good meta analyses of fruits and vegetables and you will see a ton of other studies.
Where is this kind of evidence regarding keto or carnivore diets showing there is no additional benefit to having fiber?5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.
ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext
Just in case you haven't seen it. Mor support for the benefits of fibrous foods, to include high quality carb sources. Go ahead and keep thinking fiber isn't necessary or beneficial.
That article most likely does not touch on what was being discussed: a ketones genie diet with vegetables vs a carnivorous diet without vegetables. I have not gone through all the sources of that metabalysis, but I am guess the low fibre group were comprised of those getting plenty of carbs but from highly processed and refined sources like bread, sugars, junky carbs and noodles.
It does not prove that a diet containing veggies, but void of almost all processed carbs, is better than a diet without any plants. I'd venture a guess that still having carbs in the diet makes a difference in how useful fibre is. That seems to be the major benefit of fibre, and foods naturally rich in fibre - carb digestion and nutrition content. The fibre seems to help in carb digestion and BG control when one eats carbs but it doesn't help if you aren't eating them.
Did you read the article? It looks at food quality based a ton of other research.
Just under 135 million person-years of data from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials with 4635 adult participants were included in the analyses. Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre. Risk reduction associated with a range of critical outcomes was greatest when daily intake of dietary fibre was between 25 g and 29 g. Dose-response curves suggested that higher intakes of dietary fibre could confer even greater benefit to protect against cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal and breast cancer. Similar findings for whole grain intake were observed. Smaller or no risk reductions were found with the observational data when comparing the effects of diets characterised by low rather than higher glycaemic index or load. The certainty of evidence for relationships between carbohydrate quality and critical outcomes was graded as moderate for dietary fibre, low to moderate for whole grains, and low to very low for dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load. Data relating to other dietary exposures are scarce.
Its not these one one of LCHF diets. Its a meta analysis of hundreds of studies.
But again, we can sit back and make assessments based on personal biases while arguing the existing evidence. This isn't the only meta analysis that demonstrates these findings. Simply good meta analyses of fruits and vegetables and you will see a ton of other studies.
Where is this kind of evidence regarding keto or carnivore diets showing there is no additional benefit to having fiber?
I did read it. Did you notice it is not about what was being discussed? No plants? No fibre?
Again, I don;t doubt that a diet low in fibre may not be ideal if eating plants. It says nothing about no plants. It is possibly completely irrelevant unless you can show that eating a low fibre diet = no fibre diets with no plants.
But I'll stop. Apologies. This is not a debate thread but rather a collection of resources related to LCHF. A useful one too.
4 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Canada's new food guidelines are encouraging plant based protein instead of milk and red meat because of the evil saturated fat which has supposedly been proven to lead to CAD.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3660130/meat-dairy-canada-food-guide-changes/
0 -
Crazy times.
[Post edited by MFP staff to remove political references.]0 -
Meh. Government guidelines are always years behind science. Our guidelines are coming out soon...
I agree that the way beef and eggs are produced right now is bad for the environment, but that does not make the products bad - just the farming practices. I don't know why they keep confounding that.
Have you read Defending Beef by Niman yet? She makes some great points for beef consumption and better farming practices, even coming from her vegetarian point of view, especially for area like mine (semi-arid grasslands) that do not support many crops well.
https://www.amazon.ca/Defending-Beef-Case-Sustainable-Production/dp/1603585362
[Post edited by MFP staff to remove political references.]0 -
Trump was just an example of something monumentally stupid that came to be in the exact same way as this campaign. In this instance I don't care that our farming practices are bad for the environment - fossil fuels are worse. It's insane to adopt a nutritionally inferior/deficient diet under the guise of environmental concerns. It's 100% pure marketing backed by vegan nutjobs and a food industry looking to make massive profits.
That there's so much money being invested in this scheme should concern everyone.7 -
True. Very true.
Death by Foid Pyramid is another interesting read that leads to where we are today... or down to where we are. 1 -
Changes in blood lipid concentrations associated with changes in intake of dietary saturated fat in the context of a healthy low-carbohydrate weight-loss diet: a secondary analysis of the Diet Intervention Examining The Factors Interacting with Treatment Success (DIETFITS) trial.
Tonclusions:
Those on a low-carbohydrate weight-loss diet who increase their percentage intake of dietary saturated fat may improve their overall lipid profile provided they focus on a high-quality diet and lower their intakes of both calories and refined carbohydrates. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01826591.
Source1 -
-
-
Effect of a Low Free Sugar Diet vs Usual Diet on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Adolescent BoysA Randomized Clinical Trial
Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 40 adolescent boys aged 11 to 16 years with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease followed up for 8 weeks, provision of a diet low in free sugars compared with usual diet resulted in a greater reduction in hepatic steatosis from 25% to 17% in the low free sugar diet group and from 21% to 20% in the usual diet group, a statistically significant difference of −6.23% when adjusted for baseline.
Meaning These preliminary findings suggest potential benefit of a diet low in free sugars for children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but further research is needed to assess long-term and clinical outcomes.
Source3 -
-
Effects of carbohydrate-restricted diets on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
These favorable changes were more marked in the subgroup with very-low carbohydrate content (< 50 g/d; 0.12 mmol/L; 95%CI, 0.10–0.14; P < 1 × 10−5 and −0.19 mmol/L; 95%CI, −0.26 to −0.12; P = 0.02, respectively).
Conclusions
Large randomized controlled trials of at least 6 months duration with carbohydrate restriction appear superior in improving lipid markers when compared with low-fat diets. Dietary guidelines should consider carbohydrate restriction as an alternative dietary strategy for the prevention/management of dyslipidemia for populations with cardiometabolic risk.
Source0 -
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions