Review finds low-carb eating benefits health markers

Acg67

i like how the author talks about the meta analysis by Kreiger et al. Has he read Kreiger's current stance on the meta analysis he did?

Scroll down to the section "A Note About Scientific Integrity"

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Good one.

I see what he says about the faults in the study.
I don't understand this statement "I treated protein and carbohydrate as independent variables in my analysis. However, because low carbohydrate diets are usually high in protein, the two are not truly independent" since during the 2004 study he kept it flat at 115 so therefore increasing protein more in low carb should give a bigger benefit?

The biggest downfall I see in the study is self reporting of calories consumed. I think this is key.

"The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake"

He didn't do the study you're referencing. He did the meta analysis on low carb diets, the study you are referencing was done in 1971

onikonor

He didn't do the study you're referencing. He did the meta analysis on low carb diets, the study you are referencing was done in 1971

My bad.

AlabasterVerve

The research on nutrition is terrible. NuSi sounds really positive so I hope it gets off the ground and they get the necessary funding to do the tightly controlled studies they're looking to do to answer these questions once and for all. Maybe just the existence of NuSi will prompt better research -- it has to be embarrassing when a journalist is telling you how to do your job.

http://eatingacademy.com/personal/update-on-the-ancestral-health-symposium-and-nusi
http://garytaubes.com/2012/08/metabolism-diet-and-disease-conference-update-and-a-job-posting/

Acg67

The research on nutrition is terrible. NuSi sounds really positive so I hope it gets off the ground and they get the necessary funding to do the tightly controlled studies they're looking to do to answer these questions once and for all. Maybe just the existence of NuSi will prompt better research -- it has to be embarrassing when a journalist is telling you how to do your job.

http://eatingacademy.com/personal/update-on-the-ancestral-health-symposium-and-nusi
http://garytaubes.com/2012/08/metabolism-diet-and-disease-conference-update-and-a-job-posting/

lolTaubes, it's funny how he glossed over many well designed and controlled studies when writing his books, that just so happen to disagree with his entire hypothesis

AlabasterVerve

The research on nutrition is terrible. NuSi sounds really positive so I hope it gets off the ground and they get the necessary funding to do the tightly controlled studies they're looking to do to answer these questions once and for all. Maybe just the existence of NuSi will prompt better research -- it has to be embarrassing when a journalist is telling you how to do your job.

http://eatingacademy.com/personal/update-on-the-ancestral-health-symposium-and-nusi
http://garytaubes.com/2012/08/metabolism-diet-and-disease-conference-update-and-a-job-posting/

lolTaubes, it's funny how he glossed over many well designed and controlled studies when writing his books, that just so happen to disagree with his entire hypothesis

lol

AnvilHead

How about an article by Lyle McDonald, who wrote the book The Ketogenic Diet?:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-4.html

In the article, he says:

My opinion on ketogenic diets is this: ketogenic diets are one of many (ok, three) dietary approaches available. They have advantages and disadvantages (like all diets). They are appropriate under some circumstances, relatively neutral under others, and entirely inappropriate under still other circumstances. They are not magic but they work tremendously well for some people and absolutely horribly for other. There are still questions regarding their long-term effects.

Lyle is considered an authority in regards to Ketogenic/CKD diets. He authored a series of articles a number of years back (around 1996-97) detailing his use of Dan Duchaine's BodyOpus diet, and his experience and research led him to write The Ketogenic Diet. He has also written several other books, one of them being The Stubborn Fat Solution, which specifically addresses using a CKD in the process of cutting to low bodyfat levels. With that said, even Lyle himself posits that while Ketogenic/CKD is one possible solution, it's not the "be all and end-all" of dieting, nor is it "magic".

I'm not pro- or anti- low carb/keto. I've used a ketogenic diet before and had success with it. I just don't trust fanatics of any persuasion who insist that their way is the one-size-fits-all best way for everybody.

AlabasterVerve

How about an article by Lyle McDonald, who wrote the book The Ketogenic Diet?:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-4.html

In the article, he says:

My opinion on ketogenic diets is this: ketogenic diets are one of many (ok, three) dietary approaches available. They have advantages and disadvantages (like all diets). They are appropriate under some circumstances, relatively neutral under others, and entirely inappropriate under still other circumstances. They are not magic but they work tremendously well for some people and absolutely horribly for other. There are still questions regarding their long-term effects.

Lyle is considered an authority in regards to Ketogenic/CKD diets. He authored a series of articles a number of years back (around 1996-97) detailing his use of Dan Duchaine's BodyOpus diet, and his experience and research led him to write The Ketogenic Diet. He has also written several other books, one of them being The Stubborn Fat Solution, which specifically addresses using a CKD in the process of cutting to low bodyfat levels. With that said, even Lyle himself posits that while Ketogenic/CKD is one possible solution, it's not the "be all and end-all" of dieting, nor is it "magic".

I'm not pro- or anti- low carb/keto. I've used a ketogenic diet before and had success with it. I just don't trust fanatics of any persuasion who insist that their way is the one-size-fits-all best way for everybody.

I read that and a lot of others when I was first looking into a low carb diet and wondering if keeping my carbs low enough for ketosis offered any benefits I couldn't get just by reducing my carbs -- it's definitely worth reading.

I just got done watching an interview that was posted today with Peter Attia (ketogenic endurance athlete among other things) and that was a part of the discussion -- who a ketogenic diet is appropriate for. I thought it was a great interview.

Very Low Carb Performance with Peter Attia
http://www.dietdoctor.com/very-low-carb-performance-with-peter-attia

Acg67

How about an article by Lyle McDonald, who wrote the book The Ketogenic Diet?:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-4.html

In the article, he says:

My opinion on ketogenic diets is this: ketogenic diets are one of many (ok, three) dietary approaches available. They have advantages and disadvantages (like all diets). They are appropriate under some circumstances, relatively neutral under others, and entirely inappropriate under still other circumstances. They are not magic but they work tremendously well for some people and absolutely horribly for other. There are still questions regarding their long-term effects.

Lyle is considered an authority in regards to Ketogenic/CKD diets. He authored a series of articles a number of years back (around 1996-97) detailing his use of Dan Duchaine's BodyOpus diet, and his experience and research led him to write The Ketogenic Diet. He has also written several other books, one of them being The Stubborn Fat Solution, which specifically addresses using a CKD in the process of cutting to low bodyfat levels. With that said, even Lyle himself posits that while Ketogenic/CKD is one possible solution, it's not the "be all and end-all" of dieting, nor is it "magic".

I'm not pro- or anti- low carb/keto. I've used a ketogenic diet before and had success with it. I just don't trust fanatics of any persuasion who insist that their way is the one-size-fits-all best way for everybody.

I read that and a lot of others when I was first looking into a low carb diet and wondering if keeping my carbs low enough for ketosis offered any benefits I couldn't get just by reducing my carbs -- it's definitely worth reading.

I just got done watching an interview that was posted today with Peter Attia (ketogenic endurance athlete among other things) and that was a part of the discussion -- who a ketogenic diet is appropriate for. I thought it was a great interview.

Very Low Carb Performance with Peter Attia
http://www.dietdoctor.com/very-low-carb-performance-with-peter-attia

Do some research on fat adaptation for endurance athletes