New Nutrition Study Changes Nothing

2»

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    What overweight people? I'm 5'1" and weigh 119 pounds, my BMI is 22.5, smack dab in the middle of normal range.

    I had been at a lower weight, 116. I want to get down to 110. I went lower carb to try to get those last few pounds off. You know what happened? A bit of back story here. I had low carbed before. For ten years. I wasn't active back then. Doing it now, as a very active person? Big mistake.

    My cravings went through the roof, and I turned into a binge monster.

    Adding carbs, particularly starchy carbs like potatoes and whole grains back into my diet got rid of my cravings and binge problems. I've been able to stick with my planned deficit since doing that.

    Not everyone is insulin resistant or has a need or wants to low carb. Even some people who are insulin resistant can and do successfully lose weight simply by reducing calories. There used to be a poster on these forums who just didn't want to low carb. She had insulin resistance. She successfully lost around 80 pounds, IIRC, without every giving up any foods she loved.

    Regardless, this is off topic for the purposes of the study.

    The results are being misinterpreted by some of you low carbers.

    If being poor and having a subsistence diet of white rice leading to a high mortality rate inflating the statistics is something you want to hang your hats on, have at it. I don't think those findings are something that prove much of anything, personally.
  • timtam163
    timtam163 Posts: 500 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    TheSunAndTheRainfall wrote: »
    Whenever people find out someone is trying to lose weight, I've noticed a common question is, "Oh, what diet are you on?"

    As if there has to be a label. A fad. A title. A certain method, maybe involving apple cider vinegar or activated almonds. Something, ANYTHING to avoid the boring, prosaic truths contained in that study, and in the countless other studies that say the same thing. "

    I'm guessing you haven't read the study, as it isn't about weight loss at all.

    The PURE study looks at food consumption (self reported questionnaires) and tries to drag out of the statistics any interaction between the diets of the participants and health outcomes because "The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial"

    The study found that
    Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12–1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

    but it is important to note that the range of fat and carbohydrate intake reported was limited - the lowest carbohydrate intake quintile was 46% and the highest fat 35%. In part this is because the study is specifcally trying to avoid being dominated by US / European data and hence has a lot of high carb low fat Asian population data in it. The highest carb quintile is 77% and the lowest fat 11% (all median values).

    So what PURE tells us is that within those ranges of consumption there's a modest trend to see more deaths (from any cause) in people eating 77% carbs compared to 46% and fewer deaths in people eating more fat (which is really just the same thing as if carbs go up fat comes down). The fact that these high carb consumers are in China and the lower carb ones in the USA may of course be an influence on the outcomes.

    It didn't find any indication of fat consumption causing mortality, cardiovascular disease, or stroke - in fact stroke reduced with increasing sat fat consumption in this population but again the high sat fat consumers would be Western.

    I don't see how anyone can recommend a particular diet based on PURE, that is just them restating their own beliefs having been given a platform.

    Yea there are many confounding factors; overall mortality is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. Did they control for socioeconomic status, one of the biggest predictors of mortality (due to healthcare access and malnutrition etc)?

    To the people who designed and carried out the study: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. For the last time.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2017
    timtam163 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    TheSunAndTheRainfall wrote: »
    Whenever people find out someone is trying to lose weight, I've noticed a common question is, "Oh, what diet are you on?"

    As if there has to be a label. A fad. A title. A certain method, maybe involving apple cider vinegar or activated almonds. Something, ANYTHING to avoid the boring, prosaic truths contained in that study, and in the countless other studies that say the same thing. "

    I'm guessing you haven't read the study, as it isn't about weight loss at all.

    The PURE study looks at food consumption (self reported questionnaires) and tries to drag out of the statistics any interaction between the diets of the participants and health outcomes because "The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial"

    The study found that
    Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12–1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

    but it is important to note that the range of fat and carbohydrate intake reported was limited - the lowest carbohydrate intake quintile was 46% and the highest fat 35%. In part this is because the study is specifcally trying to avoid being dominated by US / European data and hence has a lot of high carb low fat Asian population data in it. The highest carb quintile is 77% and the lowest fat 11% (all median values).

    So what PURE tells us is that within those ranges of consumption there's a modest trend to see more deaths (from any cause) in people eating 77% carbs compared to 46% and fewer deaths in people eating more fat (which is really just the same thing as if carbs go up fat comes down). The fact that these high carb consumers are in China and the lower carb ones in the USA may of course be an influence on the outcomes.

    It didn't find any indication of fat consumption causing mortality, cardiovascular disease, or stroke - in fact stroke reduced with increasing sat fat consumption in this population but again the high sat fat consumers would be Western.

    I don't see how anyone can recommend a particular diet based on PURE, that is just them restating their own beliefs having been given a platform.

    Yea there are many confounding factors; overall mortality is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. Did they control for socioeconomic status, one of the biggest predictors of mortality (due to healthcare access and malnutrition etc)?

    To the people who designed and carried out the study: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. For the last time.

    Overall mortality was a lot higher among people who were poor and on high carb diets for subsistence.

    Shocking, I know.

    The statistical aggregation model they used lumped a lot of things together that when you broke down the data was far more... meh. Nothing new to be gleaned. It's not a ringing endorsement for low carb. At all.
  • timtam163
    timtam163 Posts: 500 Member
    rfrenkel77 wrote: »
    Looks like overweight people are clearly not maintaining a calorie deficit. After being overweight for a while they develop pre diabetes and type 2. Then loosing weight while eating carbs and having insulin resistance becomes near impossible for them. Introducing high fat low carb ketogenic lifestyle. It works for healthy people by simply reducing food cravings, and it works for diabetics and pre diabetics by also reducing insulin spikes. Win win. I'm coaching/cooking for my wife on this plan, and I'm on it myself. It's totally sustainable. She went from 167 to 151 in 3.5 month. Yes of course she is eating less calories, but for first time in her life she is not binge eating and not craving. It's an awesome tool.

    Interesting point: I take away from this that maybe when our bodies are more insulin resistant due to years of certain dietary habits, a low-carb diet may be extra effective especially in undoing the damage, especially in the short run.

    This would be consistent with studies that show that mortality risk remains the same in people who lose weight for I think a decade or so after they are no longer overweight/obese; our bodies take years to recover from system stressors such as excess weight, and short-term diets may help reset some of our systems.

    What I said is mostly speculative, but I'm gonna look into this!
  • SafioraLinnea
    SafioraLinnea Posts: 628 Member
    rfrenkel77 wrote: »
    Can't believe people who are trying to lose weight still talking about eating 55% carbs. How's that working for everyone? Look around.

    I eat that many almost every day and I've lost 62 pounds in 10 months. I'd say plenty of people can eat 50% of their intake as carbs provided their total calorie intake creates a deficit.
  • timtam163
    timtam163 Posts: 500 Member
    edited September 2017
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    timtam163 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    TheSunAndTheRainfall wrote: »
    Whenever people find out someone is trying to lose weight, I've noticed a common question is, "Oh, what diet are you on?"

    As if there has to be a label. A fad. A title. A certain method, maybe involving apple cider vinegar or activated almonds. Something, ANYTHING to avoid the boring, prosaic truths contained in that study, and in the countless other studies that say the same thing. "

    I'm guessing you haven't read the study, as it isn't about weight loss at all.

    The PURE study looks at food consumption (self reported questionnaires) and tries to drag out of the statistics any interaction between the diets of the participants and health outcomes because "The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial"

    The study found that
    Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12–1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

    but it is important to note that the range of fat and carbohydrate intake reported was limited - the lowest carbohydrate intake quintile was 46% and the highest fat 35%. In part this is because the study is specifcally trying to avoid being dominated by US / European data and hence has a lot of high carb low fat Asian population data in it. The highest carb quintile is 77% and the lowest fat 11% (all median values).

    So what PURE tells us is that within those ranges of consumption there's a modest trend to see more deaths (from any cause) in people eating 77% carbs compared to 46% and fewer deaths in people eating more fat (which is really just the same thing as if carbs go up fat comes down). The fact that these high carb consumers are in China and the lower carb ones in the USA may of course be an influence on the outcomes.

    It didn't find any indication of fat consumption causing mortality, cardiovascular disease, or stroke - in fact stroke reduced with increasing sat fat consumption in this population but again the high sat fat consumers would be Western.

    I don't see how anyone can recommend a particular diet based on PURE, that is just them restating their own beliefs having been given a platform.

    Yea there are many confounding factors; overall mortality is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. Did they control for socioeconomic status, one of the biggest predictors of mortality (due to healthcare access and malnutrition etc)?

    To the people who designed and carried out the study: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. For the last time.

    Overall mortality was a lot higher among people who were poor and on high carb diets for subsistence.

    Shocking, I know.

    The statistical aggregation model they used lumped a lot of things together that when you broke down the data was far more... meh. Nothing new to be gleaned. It's not a ringing endorsement for low carb. At all.

    But it sure is a ringing endorsement for poverty reduction, which doesn't sell people diets etc because rich people don't want to hear "you're rich so you're gonna be just fine", even though that's just truth. Nor do they want to feel bad for being rich. Nor do they care about poverty reduction when they're reading an article about the latest diet craze. :)
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    timtam163 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    TheSunAndTheRainfall wrote: »
    Whenever people find out someone is trying to lose weight, I've noticed a common question is, "Oh, what diet are you on?"

    As if there has to be a label. A fad. A title. A certain method, maybe involving apple cider vinegar or activated almonds. Something, ANYTHING to avoid the boring, prosaic truths contained in that study, and in the countless other studies that say the same thing. "

    I'm guessing you haven't read the study, as it isn't about weight loss at all.

    The PURE study looks at food consumption (self reported questionnaires) and tries to drag out of the statistics any interaction between the diets of the participants and health outcomes because "The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial"

    The study found that
    Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12–1·46], ptrend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

    but it is important to note that the range of fat and carbohydrate intake reported was limited - the lowest carbohydrate intake quintile was 46% and the highest fat 35%. In part this is because the study is specifcally trying to avoid being dominated by US / European data and hence has a lot of high carb low fat Asian population data in it. The highest carb quintile is 77% and the lowest fat 11% (all median values).

    So what PURE tells us is that within those ranges of consumption there's a modest trend to see more deaths (from any cause) in people eating 77% carbs compared to 46% and fewer deaths in people eating more fat (which is really just the same thing as if carbs go up fat comes down). The fact that these high carb consumers are in China and the lower carb ones in the USA may of course be an influence on the outcomes.

    It didn't find any indication of fat consumption causing mortality, cardiovascular disease, or stroke - in fact stroke reduced with increasing sat fat consumption in this population but again the high sat fat consumers would be Western.

    I don't see how anyone can recommend a particular diet based on PURE, that is just them restating their own beliefs having been given a platform.

    Yea there are many confounding factors; overall mortality is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. Did they control for socioeconomic status, one of the biggest predictors of mortality (due to healthcare access and malnutrition etc)?

    To the people who designed and carried out the study: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. For the last time.

    "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION" Thank you! This was crying out to be said!

    People's health gets better if they lose weight on a low carb diet mostly BECAUSE THEY LOSE WEIGHT! Not because of HOW they lost weight.

Categories