Is a Low-Carb Diet for You? Most Likely Not.

Options
123578

Replies

  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    Even elite bodybuilders will incorporate a keto diet into their training when competition is getting closer.

    The longest study in that post was 9 weeks. Yet, you have some people that will tell you they have been on a keto diet for years. Where is the study that shows the long term effects of these diets? What about the results after someone stops this way of eating? How much weight might be gained at that point?

    The weight that is regained by reintroducing carbs comes from your body replenishing its muscle glycogen stores. From my recent experience of recarbing, I can tell you that's about 9-10 pounds for me personally (I literally woke up 9 lbs heavier than the previous morning a few weeks ago). For some people, it's probably more and for some people I'm sure it's less. Of course, this is entirely water weight so it's not undoing any progress made while cutting (and has the added bonus of making your muscles appear fuller/larger).

    Of course, all bets are off if someone starts eating a caloric surplus at that point.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    Options
    Even elite bodybuilders will incorporate a keto diet into their training when competition is getting closer.

    The longest study in that post was 9 weeks. Yet, you have some people that will tell you they have been on a keto diet for years. Where is the study that shows the long term effects of these diets? What about the results after someone stops this way of eating? How much weight might be gained at that point?

    The weight that is regained by reintroducing carbs comes from your body replenishing its muscle glycogen stores. From my recent experience of recarbing, I can tell you that's about 9-10 pounds for me personally (I literally woke up 9 lbs heavier than the previous morning a few weeks ago). For some people, it's probably more and for some people I'm sure it's less. Of course, this is entirely water weight so it's not undoing any progress made while cutting (and has the added bonus of making your muscles appear fuller/larger).

    Of course, all bets are off if someone starts eating a caloric surplus at that point.

    I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?
  • GiGiBeans
    GiGiBeans Posts: 1,062 Member
    Options
    Low carb worked for me as far as weight loss but after upping my carbs to 35-40% I saw how much the lack of carbs was impacting my strength training and running. Suddenly I was progressing at a much faster rate than ever, whereas before gains were slow and like watching paint dry. I just thought it was my body and age that my progress was slow.

    When I began a low carb diet I was pretty inactive and became more active as I lost weight. I think low carbers who exercise regularly might also benefit from adding more carbs in and ignore the initial 5 lb water weight gain. A 10% increase didn't do much but 20%+ did big time.

    Needs can change especially if your activity level does.
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

    1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
    2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
    3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

    I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

    Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

    It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

    That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:
    When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

    So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

    I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.
    I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

    For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.
  • MamaGraff
    MamaGraff Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    Low carb is really a choice. I personally love it but my husband could never do it. I still go to the gym but I do low impact workouts compared to before. I always have a protein shake right after my workout to protect my muscles.
    If people experience headaches, fatigue and nausea, its either because they are new to the low carb or it just isnt right for them.
    My typical day is a eggs, protein shakes, veggies and lean meat or shellfish. I have never felt so good. I have so much energy and have lost interest in sugary foods.
    I personally think people have to make their own choice what works for them. Low- carb living works for me but I agree that it isnt for everyone. I think its a matter of listening to your body.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,017 Member
    Options
    I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

    1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
    2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
    3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

    I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

    Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

    It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

    That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:
    When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

    So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

    I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.
    Muscle mass and muscle fiber are two totally different things......we would need to took at studies further out to see if very low carb leads to muscle catabolism when adequate protein is consumed. Short term studies (weeks) can show loss of LBM but when we deplete glycogen stores we decrease LMB and when carbs are consumed coming off a very low carb diet glycogen is replenished adding to LBM overnight. Glycogen isn't water weight it adds mass to muscle. This is always confused people. Actual muscle fiber is a totally different kettle of fish.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    Options
    Insulin: a SATIETY hormone? Really? Insulin regulates glucose in the blood stream and store the excess energy as fat. LEPTIN is the satiety hormone.

    Yes it's a rat study, but not reason to discredit just because you don't like it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7972417
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

    1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
    2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
    3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

    I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

    Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

    It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

    That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:
    When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

    So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

    I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.
    I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

    For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

    I'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be. Yay for your success and all that, but it doesn't really matter to me. As it happens, going low carb (below 120ish g/day for me) makes me feel awful. It really does affect my performance at the gym, but I don't expect you to care about that either. I don't really think it's important to the discussion even, except as an example of information that's irrelevant. Looking back the comments we can see people who like it and people who don't; it's kind of wash on that front.

    As I said initially, there's some definite tone issues going on. I don't see the same conclusive statements that you do. I'm guessing that this because you're having such an extreme reaction to the bias. You want something that this blog post isn't trying to be at all. If you think something needs to be a comprehensive analysis of a topic and otherwise it's an attempt at deception by definition, then we just see things differently.

    You can throw around terms like "cherry picked" and "poorly supported." I would go so far as to say that it's welcome....if you want to provide the information to counter it that will add to the discussion. Something at least. So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    It comes across both not terribly helpful and shrill.

    EDIT: Looking at: http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf I fail to see much here. Mostly the benefits seem to cover either issues of satiety or the benefits of LC diets as therapy for various metabolic disorders. I don't know why anyone really bothers looking at satiety this way. I'll determine when I'm sated regardless. I see no reason for the blog to cover dietary options for people with diabetes; they're not doctors. Mostly the study seems to be about comparing LC diets to low fat diets and dunking previously held myths...but I don't see those myths in the OP blog post. In short, I don't really see the benefits they're talking about, and I would have preferred if they'd talked about the other disadvantages that can be associated with LC diets. I'm sure you can sympathize....
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    presumably advertorial for the Precision Nutrition diet, whatever.
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be.

    Someone asked me personally about my intake and I didn't see a reason to post twice. The comment about my personal carb intake wasn't directed to you, and if you actually look at the quote I included you'll realize that isn't your quote.
    So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    You don't have to read my mind; you could simply read the links I've posted. For that matter though, I'm pretty sure we've had quite a bit of discussion in this thread about muscle loss and low carb diets and how the original article's position that carbs make you buff and the lack of carbs causes muscle loss is nonsense. As for me not providing specific details on the other benefits of such a diet, I don't see the need to reiterate what medical researchers can explain better than I can. A simple citation is sufficient in my eyes.

    My point was simply that the article's author neglected to even mention these and this is a clear sign of bias on his part. I could write an article bashing kale as an unhealthy junk food by focusing only on negative aspects of kale and the overconsumption thereof, without mentioning any of its positive aspects (I've actually seen a humorous post from someone who did precisely this). In short, it's quite easy to vilify something if you only discuss the negative aspects and misrepresent the evidence.
  • Asphere79
    Options
    I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

    1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
    2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
    3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

    I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

    Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

    It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

    That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:
    When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

    So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

    I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.
    I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

    For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

    I'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be. Yay for your success and all that, but it doesn't really matter to me. As it happens, going low carb (below 120ish g/day for me) makes me feel awful. It really does affect my performance at the gym, but I don't expect you to care about that either. I don't really think it's important to the discussion even, except as an example of information that's irrelevant. Looking back the comments we can see people who like it and people who don't; it's kind of wash on that front.

    As I said initially, there's some definite tone issues going on. I don't see the same conclusive statements that you do. I'm guessing that this because you're having such an extreme reaction to the bias. You want something that this blog post isn't trying to be at all. If you think something needs to be a comprehensive analysis of a topic and otherwise it's an attempt at deception by definition, then we just see things differently.

    You can throw around terms like "cherry picked" and "poorly supported." I would go so far as to say that it's welcome....if you want to provide the information to counter it that will add to the discussion. Something at least. So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    It comes across both not terribly helpful and shrill.

    How long did you go low carb for? You WILL feel awful if you go low carb for only a few days to a few weeks. This phase is known as induction or keto flu. It goes away.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    Options
    presumably advertorial for the Precision Nutrition diet, whatever.

    Yep, the end of the article sure does sound like an advertisement:
    KEEP IT SIMPLE

    Don’t overly restrict; don’t over-think it; don’t waste time with “carb math”.
    Enjoy a wide variety of minimally processed, whole and fresh foods.
    Observe how you look, feel, and perform.
    Decide what to do based on the data you collect about yourself, not on what you think you “should” do.
    The only “rules” come from your body and your experience. Don’t follow a dietary prescription for anyone else’s body.
    And above all, for most active people, carbs are your friend!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    MOST PEOPLE DO BEST WITH SOME CARBS.

    About 70% of you will do really well with PN’s standard hand-size portion guidelines. (See our Calorie Control Guide for more.)

    Around 25% of you will do really well increasing or reducing your carb servings by just a little bit. This is what we call eating for your body type, and we outline our recommendations here.

    Advertorial / link bait, been popping up all over the place.

    But it's good to see they give men twice as much to eat as women.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be.

    Someone asked me personally about my intake and I didn't see a reason to post twice. The comment about my personal carb intake wasn't directed to you, and if you actually look at the quote I included you'll realize that isn't your quote.
    So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    You don't have to read my mind; you could simply read the links I've posted. For that matter though, I'm pretty sure we've had quite a bit of discussion in this thread about muscle loss and low carb diets and how the original article's position that carbs make you buff and the lack of carbs causes muscle loss is nonsense. As for me not providing specific details on the other benefits of such a diet, I don't see the need to reiterate what medical researchers can explain better than I can. A simple citation is sufficient in my eyes.

    My point was simply that the article's author neglected to even mention these and this is a clear sign of bias on his part. I could write an article bashing kale as an unhealthy junk food by focusing only on negative aspects of kale and the overconsumption thereof, without mentioning any of its positive aspects (I've actually seen a humorous post from someone who did precisely this). In short, it's quite easy to vilify something if you only discuss the negative aspects and misrepresent the evidence.

    I've edited my previous response to add what I thought about at least one of your citations.

    You're essentially just cherry picking what you find objectionable and discounting everything as result. I assume that's your problem with the Blog's author did, yes?

    No need to restate your point. I understand completely. I just don't think bias is as important as you do. The obvious bias doesn't negate the usefulness of the point. You obviously have a problem with the reference list. Fair enough. I don't agree, but so what?
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    Options
    'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be.

    Someone asked me personally about my intake and I didn't see a reason to post twice. The comment about my personal carb intake wasn't directed to you, and if you actually look at the quote I included you'll realize that isn't your quote.
    So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    You don't have to read my mind; you could simply read the links I've posted. For that matter though, I'm pretty sure we've had quite a bit of discussion in this thread about muscle loss and low carb diets and how the original article's position that carbs make you buff and the lack of carbs causes muscle loss is nonsense. As for me not providing specific details on the other benefits of such a diet, I don't see the need to reiterate what medical researchers can explain better than I can. A simple citation is sufficient in my eyes.

    My point was simply that the article's author neglected to even mention these and this is a clear sign of bias on his part. I could write an article bashing kale as an unhealthy junk food by focusing only on negative aspects of kale and the overconsumption thereof, without mentioning any of its positive aspects (I've actually seen a humorous post from someone who did precisely this). In short, it's quite easy to vilify something if you only discuss the negative aspects and misrepresent the evidence.

    I understand your point and I did post a follow up article that is more balanced, but I'm not ready to discredit Berardi's claims. The reason I won't is because we have yet to set the true meaning of low carb which is actually not mentioned in the article either and there isn't any long term studies that go into hormonal effects of "low carb" diets, whatever that number might be.

    The paper you posted stated low carb being anywhere from 30-130g/day. That could be extremely low for some, but not for others. Total intake, goals, NEAT, and exercise would need to be factored in.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

    1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
    2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
    3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

    I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

    Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

    It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

    That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:
    When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

    So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

    I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.
    I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

    For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

    I'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be. Yay for your success and all that, but it doesn't really matter to me. As it happens, going low carb (below 120ish g/day for me) makes me feel awful. It really does affect my performance at the gym, but I don't expect you to care about that either. I don't really think it's important to the discussion even, except as an example of information that's irrelevant. Looking back the comments we can see people who like it and people who don't; it's kind of wash on that front.

    As I said initially, there's some definite tone issues going on. I don't see the same conclusive statements that you do. I'm guessing that this because you're having such an extreme reaction to the bias. You want something that this blog post isn't trying to be at all. If you think something needs to be a comprehensive analysis of a topic and otherwise it's an attempt at deception by definition, then we just see things differently.

    You can throw around terms like "cherry picked" and "poorly supported." I would go so far as to say that it's welcome....if you want to provide the information to counter it that will add to the discussion. Something at least. So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

    It comes across both not terribly helpful and shrill.

    How long did you go low carb for? You WILL feel awful if you go low carb for only a few days to a few weeks. This phase is known as induction or keto flu. It goes away.

    Roughly 7 weeks, if I recall? 8 possibly. Quite frankly, I saw no reason to continue with something that made miserable for no appreciable benefit; i didn't lose weight at an increased rate, nor did it help with appetite. I was hoping it would with satiety, but no change there either.

    I don't really understand the appeal of acquired tastes either, as far as that goes.
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    You're essentially just cherry picking what you find objectionable and discounting everything as result. I assume that's your problem with the Blog's author did, yes?

    I don't know why you think I'm discounting everything in the article. Just because I'm pointing out certain statements that are, quite simply, wrong (e.g., carbs makes you strong and buff, while low carbs leads to muscle loss) doesn't mean I disagree with absolutely everything the author of the article said. I don't know why you would assume that's the case. My biggest issue (which we've already addressed and I don't think I am disagreeing with the OP at this point) is that a biased article only pointing out certain negatives, ignoring all of the positives and misrepresenting some aspects is not (at least in and of itself) the most useful reading material for someone trying to decide "is a low-carb diet for you?"
  • Asphere79
    Options
    Someone pointed out something that I missed on the blog on the r/keto. The article has the statement:

    "And, after following a low carb diet for just three days, only two of the six participants were able to complete the cycling test! Meanwhile, when following the higher carb diet for three days, all six participants were able to complete the test.""

    Right there that study loses all credibility. Repeat it the study after they have been on a LCHF diet for a month.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    You're essentially just cherry picking what you find objectionable and discounting everything as result. I assume that's your problem with the Blog's author did, yes?

    I don't know why you think I'm discounting everything in the article. Just because I'm pointing out certain statements that are, quite simply, wrong (e.g., carbs makes you strong and buff, while low carbs leads to muscle loss) doesn't mean I disagree with absolutely everything the author of the article said. I don't know why you would assume that's the case. My biggest issue (which we've already addressed and I don't think I am disagreeing with the OP at this point) is that a biased article only pointing out certain negatives, ignoring all of the positives and misrepresenting some aspects is not (at least in and of itself) the most useful reading material for someone trying to decide "is a low-carb diet for you?"

    Where you see some bias (and possibly deception?) I just see poor style. The point kind meanders and it could use a different title . I don't really consider that a misrepresentation of data as a function of bias. Nor do I really care about the bias one way or the other. It's a blog. Big shock. They're mostly editorial. I think elsewhere in the site, they categorically dismiss the idea of counting calories at all as being unsustainable. At least that was my impression. It doesn't much matter.

    I really don't see anything wrong with the premise of the article as it's supported. The rest isn't all that important given the context.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    Options
    I think there is a huge misunderstanding in the community on what "low-carb" actually means. Even in this post I've seen someone state they eat 30% carbs and someone stating that is low. IMO, I don't see that as being low.

    I think we are all aware of the low-fat/fat free movement in the 80's. What resulted from that was the companies taking advantage of the situation and marketing products as fat free. From there, people had the mindset that they could eat as much of the "fat-free" food as they wanted and they would be fine. Most of the products were usually snack type foods which were high in carbs and had very little nutritional value. As a result, the obesity trend continued.

    From there, research established that too many carbs were being consumed and that would be the cause of obesity. This generated from the highly processed, fat-free snacks people ate freely. So, the suggestion of lowering carbs was then introduced. In doing so, other macronutrients would then be added to compensate for the remaining calories needed. Protein and fat were then increased and people's health markers began to improve. Hence, lower carbs led to better health.

    But, isn't this really false data? Wasn't the problem the poor diets to begin with which were extremely heavy on carbs and potentially void of fats and/or protein? So, is it really low carb or just eating food with better nutritional values? Is the switch to a perceived "low carb" diet really just a lowering from where it had gotten out of hand?