Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

It's official. MFP says "Eating carbs in moderation may help you live longer"

24

Replies

  • mmapagsmmapags Posts: 7,609Member Member Posts: 7,609Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    "This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."

    I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.

    I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.

    It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.

    No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.

    Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.

    I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.

    There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.

    Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.

    Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.

    I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.

    I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.

    Seems credible based on what evidence other than your n=1 experience and that of others you've talked to or are familiar with? What studies or other form of actual evidence back up this seeming credible?
  • Gisel2015Gisel2015 Posts: 2,448Member Member Posts: 2,448Member Member
    The Lancet research found the risks of premature death were minimized when filling up on complex carbs from fruits, vegetables and whole grains
    The important caveat.

    I would like somebody to define "premature death" in actual age/years. Is is dying in the 30s, or 50s, or maybe 70s? And the causation for dying (besides no breathing and the heart no pumping...).

    I didn't read that clarification in the article, so if I missed it please point me in the right direction.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,021Member Member Posts: 12,021Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    @nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.

    As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different. :neutral:

    Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.

    So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.

    (I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Posts: 2,755Member Member Posts: 2,755Member Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    This 'study' has been debunked by everybody in the nutrition sciences except the authors... there are more flaws in the study than there are valid conclusions.

    Do you have any links for the debunking articles? I’d be interested in reading them.
  • PackerjohnPackerjohn Posts: 4,859Member Member Posts: 4,859Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    @nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.

    As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different. :neutral:

    Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.

    So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.

    (I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)

    USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.
Sign In or Register to comment.