“food can be the most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison”
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.
No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)
It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.
Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
0 -
I can see why the article may not have been linked, since the tiny excerpt doesn't reflect the whole article. There is this about the Mediterranean Diet, which is a pretty high carb diet.
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes. In comparison with an American Heart Association recommended ‘low fat’ diet, a Mediterranean diet post myocardial infarction is a more powerful coronary intervention tool for mortality than aspirin, statins, or coronary stents, but without any significant difference in total cholesterol, triglycerides or HDL between the two groups.9 It is the abundant α-linoleic acid, polyphenols and Ω-3 fatty acids found in nuts, olive oil, oily fish and vegetables, that rapidly exert positive health effects by attenuating inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis.10 Conversely, the consumption of trans-fats commonly found in fast food can rapidly increase C reactive protein and other inflammatory markers within weeks.110 -
Throughout human history, most people have survived and thrived on carbohydrate-based diets. What has not happened for most people is the excess of calorie consumption that we have today. Carbohydrate restriction is undoubtedly a fantastic tool to treat metabolic disorders (the article referenced a study in which some patients on a calorie unrestricted diet were able to stop taking diabetes medication), but as prevention of these diseases in the first place? I'm unconvinced.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.
It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)
But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.
I'll just say ^THIS. A million times.
Have you had popcorn with Parmesan cheese? I like it with that and freshly cracked black pepper. And plenty of salt.
0 -
Gluten free! I'm in!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
You can keep speaking for me. I have a birthday cheesecake to make.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
The title of the article is "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality", you may be reading something else? My apologies for the missing link in op.0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »When a claim refutes all other science and it's a simple editorial I'm pretty much likely to disregard. Good attempt though.
What other science does the article refute?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
I think you are reading the wrong article. Despite the excerpt that the OP chose to copy, the article is not about diabetics or promoting low carb/keto diets.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
The title of the article is "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality", you may be reading something else? My apologies for the missing link in op.
Weird. I searched words from the first post and came up with: http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
It's in Nutrition, so seemed to be what was referred to, and that's what I was discussing. (I think I misread the OP as about the Nutrition review, when really it's a BMJ article that references that review.)
The other doesn't seem to be about low carb, as Needs2Exercise pointed out.
(Anyway, I imagine you will like the one I linked here.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I can see why the article may not have been linked, since the tiny excerpt doesn't reflect the whole article. There is this about the Mediterranean Diet, which is a pretty high carb diet.
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes. In comparison with an American Heart Association recommended ‘low fat’ diet, a Mediterranean diet post myocardial infarction is a more powerful coronary intervention tool for mortality than aspirin, statins, or coronary stents, but without any significant difference in total cholesterol, triglycerides or HDL between the two groups.9 It is the abundant α-linoleic acid, polyphenols and Ω-3 fatty acids found in nuts, olive oil, oily fish and vegetables, that rapidly exert positive health effects by attenuating inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis.10 Conversely, the consumption of trans-fats commonly found in fast food can rapidly increase C reactive protein and other inflammatory markers within weeks.11
Links: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/849251, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/847304
There is no specific mention of macronutrients ratios. However, at the CURRENT moment, a mix of the Mediterranean + DASH diet is the most promising diet according to the mainstream medical community (not specific to 1 disease state in isolation) for preventing Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) and cognitive decline.
Throw away any notion of specific diets because they are designed for ultra specific conditions...I.e. Total cholesterol < 200mg/day, < 30% kcals of fats, etc. for the "Atherogenic diet" aimed to lower cholesterol; ADA's Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT): < 200g carbohydrates, 14g fiber/1,000kcals, etc.; Epilepsy & Alzheimer's diets centered around Keto; Parkinson's Disease diet centered around protein restriction and bolusing (d/t interference with L-dopa), etc.; IBS FODMAP diet (rather interesting concept); the list goes on and on!
There's no way to combine any of the above if the concepts are slightly different...they all look ideal in isolation.
There is no way to have a RCT involving diet (please think about it in terms of methodology flaws compared to drug trials). One is not better than the other for an individual; however, the above is the most generalizable to the vast majority based on all cause mortality (MACE, Cancer).
0 -
i saw it on sky news.
when the presenter said that sugar is poison and that counting calories is causing obesity i broke my eye balls from rolling them so hard0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I can see why the article may not have been linked, since the tiny excerpt doesn't reflect the whole article. There is this about the Mediterranean Diet, which is a pretty high carb diet.
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes. In comparison with an American Heart Association recommended ‘low fat’ diet, a Mediterranean diet post myocardial infarction is a more powerful coronary intervention tool for mortality than aspirin, statins, or coronary stents, but without any significant difference in total cholesterol, triglycerides or HDL between the two groups.9 It is the abundant α-linoleic acid, polyphenols and Ω-3 fatty acids found in nuts, olive oil, oily fish and vegetables, that rapidly exert positive health effects by attenuating inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis.10 Conversely, the consumption of trans-fats commonly found in fast food can rapidly increase C reactive protein and other inflammatory markers within weeks.11
Links: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/849251, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/847304
There is no specific mention of macronutrients ratios. However, at the CURRENT moment, a mix of the Mediterranean + DASH diet is the most promising diet according to the mainstream medical community (not specific to 1 disease state in isolation) for preventing Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) and cognitive decline.
Throw away any notion of specific diets because they are designed for ultra specific conditions...I.e. Total cholesterol < 200mg/day, < 30% kcals of fats, etc. for the "Atherogenic diet" aimed to lower cholesterol; ADA's Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT): < 200g carbohydrates, 14g fiber/1,000kcals, etc.; Epilepsy & Alzheimer's diets centered around Keto; Parkinson's Disease diet centered around protein restriction and bolusing (d/t interference with L-dopa), etc.; IBS FODMAP diet (rather interesting concept); the list goes on and on!
There's no way to combine any of the above if the concepts are slightly different...they all look ideal in isolation.
There is no way to have a RCT involving diet (please think about it in terms of methodology flaws compared to drug trials). One is not better than the other for an individual; however, the above is the most generalizable to the vast majority based on all cause mortality (MACE, Cancer).
Here's one approach that seems focused on finding similarities: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
The title of the article is "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality", you may be reading something else? My apologies for the missing link in op.
Weird. I searched words from the first post and came up with: http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
It's in Nutrition, so seemed to be what was referred to, and that's what I was discussing. (I think I misread the OP as about the Nutrition review, when really it's a BMJ article that references that review.)
The other doesn't seem to be about low carb, as Needs2Exercise pointed out.
(Anyway, I imagine you will like the one I linked here.)
Sorry, my fault - was trying to post while getting ready for work and missed the link.
The nutrition article was gratifying, but I'm totally pleased about the BMJ article even more so.
I know there are plenty of folks who tolerate high carb eating OK, but there are also many people who would benefit (understatement!) from a no drugs, no cost, no surgery method like ketogenic diet who are not yet getting the information or support needed to do it successfully.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is essentially an argument against current recommendations. Given the existence of the current recommendations, it is obviously disagreed with by many.
It's about people with diabetes (and contrary to the apparent opinion of some, not everyone has diabetes).
No, it is about people with diabetes, pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, obesity and those who have risk factors for those issues. Metabolic syndrome includes increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels.
I read it. It's repeatedly focusing on people WITH diabetes.
It starts: "Reduction in dietary carbohydrate as a therapy for diabetes has a checkered history. Before and, to a large extent, after the discovery of insulin, it was the preferred therapeutic approach [2]. Only total reduction in energy intake was comparable as an effective dietary intervention. The rationale was that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes represent disruptions in carbohydrate metabolism. The most salient feature of both diseases is hyperglycemia and the intuitive idea that reducing carbohydrate would ameliorate this symptom is borne out by experiment with no significant exceptions. Two factors probably contributed to changes in the standard approach. The ascendancy of the low-fat paradigm meant that the fat that would replace the carbohydrate that was removed was now perceived as a greater threat, admittedly long term, than the immediate benefit from improvement in glycemia. The discovery of insulin may have also cast diabetes—at least type 1—as a hormone-deficiency disease where insulin (or more recent drugs) were assumed to be a given and dietary considerations were secondary. For these and other reasons, dietary carbohydrate holds an ambiguous position as a therapy."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes that people with diabetes can't (or are unlikely to) lose weight.No it doesn't. It does acknowledge the reality of weight loss & regain, but does focus on the speed of dietary changes vs the slower fix of losing weight.
Yes, it does. It acknowledges that losing weight is therapeutic but seems to dismiss the ability to do that (at least with conventional diets). "Given the difficulties that most people have losing weight, this factor alone provides an obvious advantage to low-carbohydrate diets."lemurcat12 wrote: »It assumes (and this is one of the more controversial parts that I think demonstrates bias given the variety of studies I know of) that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight. (The main evidence relied on for this are studies that have been discussed here before, in which the successes with the low carb diet lost substantially less than I or many others at MFP did without going low carb.)It absolutely does not say low carb is more effective in losing weight as this article is really focused on 'quality' of diet interventions rather than pounds, although they probably could have talked about some of the ways low carb assists in losing.
It repeatedly claims this: "Point 4. Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss" and "The previous point emphasizes that low-carbohydrate diets provide benefit in the absence of weight loss. Nonetheless, such diets consistently outperform low-fat diets for whatever time period they are compared..."lemurcat12 wrote: »But, hey, there's never enough low carb evangelism on MFP, so why not.
I prefer my popcorn without butter, though -- butter makes it soggy.Its hard when new data is emerging, you sound like you are focused of the 'fad' part that happens with new science, the overall 'trend' is actually what I would focus on. Peeps will go in a hundred silly directions with any new science, but the 'tell' will be how it is adopted by the mainstream over a longer time period.
I don't think low carb is a fad. I think it's a fine way to diet or maintain weight. I get tired of people trying to claim it's the best of all possible diets or that we all should be doing it or that it's superior in some way or -- especially -- that sugar (including in fruit and vegetables) is bad for us or that eating carbs means that you have an unhealthy diet.
The title of the article is "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality", you may be reading something else? My apologies for the missing link in op.
That right there is enough to make it hogwash. Counting calories is what helps people lose weight, which substantially and rapidly reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Stopping that will result in stoppage of weight loss and more cardiac death. Low-carb diets are but one way to reduce calories, that's why they work. It's not about quality, it's about quantity. That being said, no one is saying people should eat all one type of food (carbs). Who does that? No one I know. Even people eating McD's every day are getting protein and fat with their carb bun and fries.0
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