Carbs can kill you

farmers_daughter

TavistockToad wrote: »

So can rhinos, so don't eat a whole one!

I was told that if you believe in yourself you can do anything. soooooo...... yeah. LOL!!!

duskyjewel

Two things:

F***

and

You

Now pass the pasta and garlic bread.

beccapax

This is an interesting study. I know people here are making fun of it, but I find it compelling.

This is a large (135,335 participants) cohort study, meaning the subjects were followed over a period of years - in this case, 10 years. This lends to the validity of this study, as opposed to a small, brief study with little time allowed for follow-up.

The point of this study was to assess the relationship between carbohydrates and fats, and cardiovascular disease and mortality across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Thus, 18 different countries of a variety of income levels were studied. Prior studies seemed to mainly include high-income countries such as the US and Canada. Therefore, socioeconomic factors were considered in this study and WERE adjusted for.

Dietary recall data were collected, along with physical activity levels and health/socioeconomic history. The data collection of food intake went like this (https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2113864408/2084408033/mmc1.pdf):

"Participants were asked 'during the past year, on average, how often have you consumed the following foods or drinks' and the list of food items was given." The options "ranged from never to more than 6 times/day... To compute daily nutrient intake, country-specific food databases listing nutrient values for each food item listed in the [questionnaire] were constructed." From there, estimated daily intakes for each participant were formulated. Data regarding health events and mortality rates were also collected.

The study found that "a high carbohydrate intake was associated with an adverse impact on total mortality, whereas fats including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids were associated with lower risk of total mortality and stroke. We did not observe any detrimental effect of fat intakes on cardiovascular disease events." Here are graphs of the data: https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2113864408/2084408029/gr1.jpg

Under the "Acknowledgement" section, you can see who funded the study. It does not appear to have been biased in any direction.

As with any study, there are limitations. Many studies are completed via questionnaire, and a limitation here is always that you are relying on patient recall and honesty for your data.

It's a well-done study, though. However, I am but a lowly nurse practitioner student and I'm sure there are other experts out there who can provide more insight. In any case, it is very interesting. Thank you for sharing, OP.

Lillymoo01

nvmomketo wrote: »

I think LCHF seems protective as does HCLF. It's the inbetween of higher carbs (mainly refined and highly processed) AND higher levels of fat that seems to be the cause of the (health and weight) problem for many... mainly those who are not active.

I don't think it comes down to NO carbs or no fat, but keeping one or the other below around 10% seems helpful, ie. Ornish or Atkins

JMO

I should just keel over and die then with my macro split of moderate carbs, fat and protein (40%, 35% & 25%). It is amazing that I am in great health according to my bloods as I am not low or high in anything.

nvmomketo

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I think LCHF seems protective as does HCLF. It's the inbetween of higher carbs (mainly refined and highly processed) AND higher levels of fat that seems to be the cause of the (health and weight) problem for many... mainly those who are not active.

I don't think it comes down to NO carbs or no fat, but keeping one or the other below around 10% seems helpful, ie. Ornish or Atkins

JMO

I should just keel over and die then with my macro split of moderate carbs, fat and protein (40%, 35% & 25%). It is amazing that I am in great health according to my bloods as I am not low or high in anything.

So you eat a diet high in refined and highly processed carbs and high fats - that would imply lower protein - and are not active, eh?

Or you could be lucky.

DX2JX2

I got a cheese doodle caught in my throat once. Almost choked. Can confirm post subject.

AmyOutOfControl

beccapax wrote: »

This is an interesting study. I know people here are making fun of it, but I find it compelling.

This is a large (135,335 participants) cohort study, meaning the subjects were followed over a period of years - in this case, 10 years. This lends to the validity of this study, as opposed to a small, brief study with little time allowed for follow-up.

The point of this study was to assess the relationship between carbohydrates and fats, and cardiovascular disease and mortality across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Thus, 18 different countries of a variety of income levels were studied. Prior studies seemed to mainly include high-income countries such as the US and Canada. Therefore, socioeconomic factors were considered in this study and WERE adjusted for.

Dietary recall data were collected, along with physical activity levels and health/socioeconomic history. The data collection of food intake went like this (https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2113864408/2084408033/mmc1.pdf):

"Participants were asked 'during the past year, on average, how often have you consumed the following foods or drinks' and the list of food items was given." The options "ranged from never to more than 6 times/day... To compute daily nutrient intake, country-specific food databases listing nutrient values for each food item listed in the [questionnaire] were constructed." From there, estimated daily intakes for each participant were formulated. Data regarding health events and mortality rates were also collected.

The study found that "a high carbohydrate intake was associated with an adverse impact on total mortality, whereas fats including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids were associated with lower risk of total mortality and stroke. We did not observe any detrimental effect of fat intakes on cardiovascular disease events." Here are graphs of the data: https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2113864408/2084408029/gr1.jpg

Under the "Acknowledgement" section, you can see who funded the study. It does not appear to have been biased in any direction.

As with any study, there are limitations. Many studies are completed via questionnaire, and a limitation here is always that you are relying on patient recall and honesty for your data.

It's a well-done study, though. However, I am but a lowly nurse practitioner student and I'm sure there are other experts out there who can provide more insight. In any case, it is very interesting. Thank you for sharing, OP.

@beccapax The research was accurate. The conclusion was misleading. There were too many factors that were not taken into consideration. Hence my statement, "correlation does not equal causation". Many of the study participants lived in impoverished countries. For example, some of the participants studied lived in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has extremely high rates of poverty, malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. The study also does not take into account living / working conditions, education level, access to healthcare, and environmental pollution. All of these factors have an effect on a persons total health.

Lillymoo01

nvmomketo wrote: »

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I think LCHF seems protective as does HCLF. It's the inbetween of higher carbs (mainly refined and highly processed) AND higher levels of fat that seems to be the cause of the (health and weight) problem for many... mainly those who are not active.

I don't think it comes down to NO carbs or no fat, but keeping one or the other below around 10% seems helpful, ie. Ornish or Atkins

JMO

I should just keel over and die then with my macro split of moderate carbs, fat and protein (40%, 35% & 25%). It is amazing that I am in great health according to my bloods as I am not low or high in anything.

So you eat a diet high in refined and highly processed carbs and high fats - that would imply lower protein - and are not active, eh?

Or you could be lucky.

I think averaging over 20,00 steps a day, consuming more than a 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight, consuming hardly any refined carbs (fruit, vegetable and wholegrains is mostly it), and a diet low in saturated fats while being high in unsaturated fats indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me and my lifestyle.

nvmomketo

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I think LCHF seems protective as does HCLF. It's the inbetween of higher carbs (mainly refined and highly processed) AND higher levels of fat that seems to be the cause of the (health and weight) problem for many... mainly those who are not active.

I don't think it comes down to NO carbs or no fat, but keeping one or the other below around 10% seems helpful, ie. Ornish or Atkins

JMO

I should just keel over and die then with my macro split of moderate carbs, fat and protein (40%, 35% & 25%). It is amazing that I am in great health according to my bloods as I am not low or high in anything.

So you eat a diet high in refined and highly processed carbs and high fats - that would imply lower protein - and are not active, eh?

Or you could be lucky.

I think averaging over 20,00 steps a day, consuming more than a 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight, consuming hardly any refined carbs (fruit, vegetable and wholegrains is mostly it), and a diet low in saturated fats while being high in unsaturated fats indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me and my lifestyle.

That's what I meant... you are not high refined and processed carb, high fat and lower protein, nor are you inactive. You don't fit the population that I was referring to at all, so giving yourself as an example to prove it incorrect does not fit.

inertiastrength

isn't that the same journal that published vaccines causing autism? lol

beccapax

amymoreorless wrote: »

@beccapax The research was accurate. The conclusion was misleading. There were too many factors that were not taken into consideration. Hence my statement, "correlation does not equal causation". Many of the study participants lived in impoverished countries. For example, some of the participants studied lived in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has extremely high rates of poverty, malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. The study also does not take into account living / working conditions, education level, access to healthcare, and environmental pollution. All of these factors have an effect on a persons total health.

@amymoreorless They adjusted for "age, sex, education, waist hip ratio, smoking, physical activity, urban/rural, diabetes, regions, and energy intake" as well as "household income, household wealth, and economic level of the country" (https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2113864408/2084408033/mmc1.pdf). Urban and rural settings are adjusted for (which includes, for example, the increased environmental pollution associated with living in an urban setting, and the remoteness of rural settings resulting in lower access to health care facilities). I read the correspondence raising questions regarding some of the conclusions of the study, and I think that's fair. We don't know all the answers yet, and certainly cardiovascular disease is multifactorial, even though the study did adjust for most of those factors.

Of course correlation does not imply causation; I did not challenge that statement. This study presents some compelling associations that I do not feel should be dismissed without consideration. Whether they are causative or not is worth looking into. Is it possible that people in countries who rely largely on a cereal-based diet (such as those in Bangladesh) do so in detriment to their cardiovascular health? Would eating more fat and less carbohydrates be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health? I think they're good questions.

nickssweetheart

We all must die of something. I'm with the spaghetti and garlic bread person. If it kills me, at least I'll go happy. (I literally ate half a pound of pasta tonight for dinner, came in under my calorie target and hit my protein goal. So eff the haters.)