Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meta analysis of Keto diets. Frontiers in Nutrition, July, 2021
Options
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Are you looking at the link in the OP? As stated upthread, there are 123 studies at the end of the article, above the comments.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
No other links in this thread were to a meta analysis - the other articles had no need to cite studies.
This was a press release that links to the study:
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/most-comprehensive-review-yet-keto-diets-finds-heart-risks-cancer-risk-dangers
Those are what in other contexts are referred to footnotes. They are meant as the source or evidence for various statements in the article. The ones toward the beginning of the article cover things like how a keto diet should be defined. Some are to the studies they cite to support their argument, but others are not.
As for the statement that no other links in this thread were to a meta analysis:In a 2020 meta-analysis of 38 studies lasting 6–12 months and including 6,499 participants, low-carbohydrate diets, defined here as <40% of energy from carbohydrate, led to a small weight loss, compared with low-fat diets, defined as <30% of energy from fat (mean difference −1.30 kg; 95% CI, −2.02 to −0.57), with considerable variability between individuals and between studies. More than half of included studies met criteria for a general ketogenic diet, as defined in Table 1, for part or all of the low-carbohydrate intervention (24).
A 2013 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials testing very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (≤50 g carbohydrate/day or ≤10% kcal from carbohydrates) against diets based on modest reductions in fat intake (<30% kcal from fat) for at least 1 year found that ketogenic diets led to marginally more weight loss than reduced-fat diets (weighted mean difference: −0.91 kg; 95% CI, −1.65 kg to −0.17 kg, p = 0.02). However, no statistically significant difference in amount of weight lost was seen between the 2 diets in trials following people for at least 2 years (3).
A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 trials echoed these findings. In studies <12 months long, low-carbohydrate diets (<130 g carbohydrate/day or <26% kcal from carbohydrates) were seen to lead to greater weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes relative to normal- or high-carbohydrate control diets (weighted mean difference: −1.18 kg; 95% CI, −2.32 kg to −0.04 kg; p = 0.04). No advantage was seen relative to control diets in studies of longer duration (weighted mean difference: −0.24 kg; 95% CI, −2.18 kg to 1.7 kg; p = 0.81) (32).
A recent meta-analysis showed that reductions in hemoglobin A1c achieved with carbohydrate-restricted diets typically wane after a few months and that such diets are not more effective than other diets (47).
A recent meta-analysis of 5 studies showed that, in individuals with type 2 diabetes, ketogenic diets led to, on average, no substantial change in LDL-C (96).
Treatment-induced HDL-C elevations were examined in a meta-analysis of 108 studies including 299,310 participants, which found no associated reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary disease mortality, or total mortality (102).
There are many more such references, but I don't see any point to making this longer than it already is.
Edited to fix the coding for the quotes.1 -
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure the base article referenced in the OP qualifies as a meta-analysis. It seems more like a literature survey.3
-
neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument (agenda) to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
The original post was not the pcrm opinion piece.
2 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
The original post was not the pcrm opinion piece.
There are 7 authors at the top of the article. Beside their names are numbers that identify their affiliations. 5 of the 7 have ties with pcrm with Barnard being it's founder and Shivam Joshi is an MD of plant based medicine. Who did you think wrote this?5 -
neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
The original post was not the pcrm opinion piece.
There are 7 authors at the top of the article. Beside their names are numbers that identify their affiliations. 5 of the 7 have ties with pcrm with Barnard being it's founder and Shivam Joshi is an MD of plant based medicine. Who did you think wrote this?
Who do you think did the peer review on the paper in the OP?
Surely it wasn’t the authors. Or all members of some nefarious vegan PHD cabal?3 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
The original post was not the pcrm opinion piece.
There are 7 authors at the top of the article. Beside their names are numbers that identify their affiliations. 5 of the 7 have ties with pcrm with Barnard being it's founder and Shivam Joshi is an MD of plant based medicine. Who did you think wrote this?
Who do you think did the peer review on the paper in the OP?
Surely it wasn’t the authors. Or all members of some nefarious vegan PHD cabal?
This is near the bottom if your interested.
Author Contributions
LC and NDB contributed to the organization of the manuscript, reviewed, and approved the submitted version. LC composed the outline and drafted the manuscript. LC, BD, SJ, MJ, JP, MN, and NDB wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors had full access to data and revised and approved the manuscript for publication.
Funding
This work was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Conflict of Interest
LC is an employee of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, DC, a non-profit organization providing educational, research, and medical services related to nutrition. LC also declares that a trust for her benefit previously held stock in 3M, Abbot Labs, AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Mondelez, Nestle, and Walgreens; she is the author of a food and nutrition blog, Veggie Quest; and she is former publications editor and current chair for the Women's Health Dietetic Practice Group within the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. MJ and JP received compensation from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine while working on this manuscript. MN is an employee of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. NDB is an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. He serves without compensation as president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Barnard Medical Center in Washington, DC, non-profit organizations providing educational, research, and medical services related to nutrition. He writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
The original post was not the pcrm opinion piece.
There are 7 authors at the top of the article. Beside their names are numbers that identify their affiliations. 5 of the 7 have ties with pcrm with Barnard being it's founder and Shivam Joshi is an MD of plant based medicine. Who did you think wrote this?
Who do you think did the peer review on the paper in the OP?
Surely it wasn’t the authors. Or all members of some nefarious vegan PHD cabal?
This is near the bottom if your interested.
Author Contributions
LC and NDB contributed to the organization of the manuscript, reviewed, and approved the submitted version. LC composed the outline and drafted the manuscript. LC, BD, SJ, MJ, JP, MN, and NDB wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors had full access to data and revised and approved the manuscript for publication.
Funding
This work was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Conflict of Interest
LC is an employee of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, DC, a non-profit organization providing educational, research, and medical services related to nutrition. LC also declares that a trust for her benefit previously held stock in 3M, Abbot Labs, AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Mondelez, Nestle, and Walgreens; she is the author of a food and nutrition blog, Veggie Quest; and she is former publications editor and current chair for the Women's Health Dietetic Practice Group within the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. MJ and JP received compensation from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine while working on this manuscript. MN is an employee of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. NDB is an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. He serves without compensation as president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Barnard Medical Center in Washington, DC, non-profit organizations providing educational, research, and medical services related to nutrition. He writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources.
OK. Cool.
Using your logic anyone who promotes keto and makes money off doing so (cough cough Atkins) is also suspect.
5 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument (agenda) to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
When I looked at it I saw that the first author was affiliated with PCRM, the others appeared to be affiliated with what seems to be various reputable medical schools and public health departments etc - I didn't realize that they also had affiliations to PCRM. Some deep digging you did there! Thanks.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
Yes, they put their argument (agenda) to paper, then used the references to support their argument. That is not a meta analysis that is just opinion. This article was written by pcrm which is a vegan and animal rights activist organization. The AMA doesn't recognize them and calls them a fringe group. Their agenda is well known and it's always good to do research other than just look at headlines and click bait. imo
When I looked at it I saw that the first author was affiliated with PCRM, the others appeared to be affiliated with what seems to be various reputable medical schools and public health departments etc - I didn't realize that they also had affiliations to PCRM. Some deep digging you did there! Thanks.
Thanks but it actually wasn't deep digging it was in plain view all along. Regardless of that fact if someone was to read the text it would or should immediately become suspicious based on their logic. Nutrition and the science behind it is a mind field and understanding the science makes it easier to navigate. The big problem is trying not to become biased and take a stance because you will be reading science that will contradict most if not all of those beliefs.2 -
The study is biased, and YES, if Atkins did a study saying low carb was awesome, I would laugh at that as well.
How about just find yourself a diet which you can actually reach a healthy weight at.. and get tested to make sure your health improves too, and then just eat that diet, and let's stop acting as if what works for us, is the only solution, and everyone else's diet is going to kill us.
To start, don't trust ANY study about diet, unless the results show the OPPOSITE of what the funder believes.
If Atkins did a study showing grains were the secret to a long healthy, life, I would give it some credence. Same if these guys were saying.. eat more fatty meats!!
but that never happens, because there are NO unbiased studies.. the person paying has a bias. If a study did show their ideas to be wrong, they simply wouldn't release that study. It would go in the shredder. The people doing the study would never be used again.. it's a system set up to confirm what people want. These people are simply buying papers which say what they want to hear.
Trust your results. Do the diets, see the weight results, talk it over with your doctor, see the test results.. how does it affect your health? Then pick what's healthiest for YOU.1 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »The study is biased, and YES, if Atkins did a study saying low carb was awesome, I would laugh at that as well.
How about just find yourself a diet which you can actually reach a healthy weight at.. and get tested to make sure your health improves too, and then just eat that diet, and let's stop acting as if what works for us, is the only solution, and everyone else's diet is going to kill us.
To start, don't trust ANY study about diet, unless the results show the OPPOSITE of what the funder believes.
If Atkins did a study showing grains were the secret to a long healthy, life, I would give it some credence. Same if these guys were saying.. eat more fatty meats!!
but that never happens, because there are NO unbiased studies.. the person paying has a bias. If a study did show their ideas to be wrong, they simply wouldn't release that study. It would go in the shredder. The people doing the study would never be used again.. it's a system set up to confirm what people want. These people are simply buying papers which say what they want to hear.
Trust your results. Do the diets, see the weight results, talk it over with your doctor, see the test results.. how does it affect your health? Then pick what's healthiest for YOU.
Conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories everywhere. Can you really really trust your Doctor though, that is the question. just kidding with you.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions