Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are low-carb diets unhealthy? - Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Replies
-
But don't omnivores have a significantly higher cluster of cardiovascular risk factors compared with vegetarians, including increased body mass index, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, plasma total cholesterol (TC), triacylglycerol and LDL-C levels, serum lipoprotein(a) concentration, plasma factor VII activity, ratios of TC/HDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C and TAG/HDL-C, and serum ferritin levels?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204526
Doubtfully accurate quote - a statement made in an abstract without reference.
At the same weight and activity level these factors are relatively small.
A general statement like " low-carb diets [are] lacking in nutritional value" just doesn't make sense.5 -
I commented on this when it was posted in the main forum earlier today, but it seems to be gone now. Basically my thoughts are this - Dr. Campbell has a huge vested interest in promoting his own woo woo ultra low fat, plant based, vegan hokum. Of course he wants people to think LC diets are "dangerous", his livelihood depends upon it. And it's called the daily fail for a reason. That said, in reading the article it is obvious that Dr. Campbell is seriously behind the times wrt nutrition science. We know that dietary cholesterol has an insignificant impact on blood levels of cholesterol and we also know that total cholesterol is rather meaningless in determining CVD risk, yet Dr. Campbell clings to his pet theories on dietary cholesterol being a driving factor in blood cholesterol levels, and still seems to be under the delusion that total cholesterol levels determine... well.... anything. Since he is a doctor, I have to imagine that this is willful ignorance. Anything that contradicts his notions, which are held with religious zeal, will be dismissed. It is rather sad that in 2016, a person who deliberately clings to outdated ideas can be allowed to hold the title "Doctor".
The article was good for nothing more than a hearty laugh.2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »I commented on this when it was posted in the main forum earlier today, but it seems to be gone now. Basically my thoughts are this - Dr. Campbell has a huge vested interest in promoting his own woo woo ultra low fat, plant based, vegan hokum. Of course he wants people to think LC diets are "dangerous", his livelihood depends upon it...
But didn't Dr. Atkins have a similar vested interest in promoting his diet? And Dr. Barry Sears a similar vested interest in his Zone Diet? And Mercola and Taubes in promoting theirs? Each of them had books/products to sell based upon their interpretations of research, whether it was valid or not.6 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »I commented on this when it was posted in the main forum earlier today, but it seems to be gone now. Basically my thoughts are this - Dr. Campbell has a huge vested interest in promoting his own woo woo ultra low fat, plant based, vegan hokum. Of course he wants people to think LC diets are "dangerous", his livelihood depends upon it...
But didn't Dr. Atkins have a similar vested interest in promoting his diet? And Dr. Barry Sears a similar vested interest in his Zone Diet? And Mercola and Taubes in promoting theirs? Each of them had books/products to sell based upon their interpretations of research, whether it was valid or not.
And? We should always be suspect of fantastical claims made by people selling things. This is (or should be, lol) obvious. I know you've said you have no dog in this fight and don't care either way if LC is dangerous or not. But unless you have actual peer reviewed studies, preferably RCTs, not weak epidemiological "studies" (that can only show possible correlations) or studies based on food frequency questionnaires (notoriously inaccurate), or worse yet, opinion pieces "published" in the daily fail, then we really can't say whether a given diet is dangerous. From what I've seen, the real studies that have been done on low carb diets show them to be a perfectly viable option in terms of safety and nutrition. If you have found any real research that contradicts that, I'd be happy to look at it.
3 -
I like the Daily Mail, it hones my critical thinking skills. I think this is the point of this OP.2
-
Just a fascinating choice.
Again, nothing in this thread has anything to do with my opinion, feelings or beliefs. Simply offering it up as a topic for discussion in the spirit and context of the Debate forum.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I seem to remember that you've posted several times in the pants dismissing Campbell's work. Perhaps I've remembered wrong.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
Again, nothing in this thread has anything to do with my opinion, feelings or beliefs. Simply offering it up as a topic for discussion in the spirit and context of the Debate forum.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I seem to remember that you've posted several times in the pants dismissing Campbell's work. Perhaps I've remembered wrong.
Oh ok. You posted when i was writing my above reply. I'll move on now
Ditto.0 -
The China Study is really interesting. How you interpret it is even more interesting. One indepth analysis is here: https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/
There is also a fair amount of research that fructose and fructans are implicated in weight gain (but not some of the other starches, like rice). So it gets more subtle than just "carbs". Some carbs may in fact be very bad for you, while others work fine for most of the world.0 -
DiamondAge wrote: »The China Study is really interesting. How you interpret it is even more interesting. One indepth analysis is here: https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/
There is also a fair amount of research that fructose and fructans are implicated in weight gain (but not some of the other starches, like rice). So it gets more subtle than just "carbs". Some carbs may in fact be very bad for you, while others work fine for most of the world.
http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html0 -
My boyfriend and I listen to a ton of podcasts by top name health/nutrition and fitness experts, some of which are PHD's in nutritional science (Chris Masterjohn is one name I know off the top of my head), among other highly educated degrees. There is a lot of science that backs up low carb and ketogenic diets. However, most top name experts will fully admit it is not for every person in ever circumstance. Most will educate you on metabolic flexibility.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Having a doctorate and being a medical doctor are two different things. I've known enough of both in my life that I'm particularly impressed by either.
My doctor (medical) works with a lot of cardio patients like myself, and he switched his patients to low carb rather than low fat after a lot of research. All their measures of cardio health improved. I did low carb for quite a while, but for me it's not sustainable as a permanent lifestyle - I make different choices now (more veggies and fruits, unrefined grains, less red meat) and I have what I suppose I'd call a moderate carb lifestyle. You'll get different opinions depending on what medical persons you talk to. Oz and Mercola are "doctors" but I wouldn't listen to their advice if they were the last sawbones on earth.
Anytime someone here or anywhere else says they have the Magic Bullet for health or weight loss, run the other way.5 -
It would seem to me that extremism in anything is likely to have negative consequences at some point...I don't think diet is immune to this.7
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?Everything in some shape form or fashion causes something or is a precursor to something or something else.
I could say "well not wearing a seat belt is just one of a thousand things that can lead to an early grave" but none of us are that foolish in practice. Instead, we all prefer to stack the deck in our favor.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?Everything in some shape form or fashion causes something or is a precursor to something or something else.
I could say "well not wearing a seat belt is just one of a thousand things that can lead to an early grave" but none of us are that foolish in practice. Instead, we all prefer to stack the deck in our favor.
That's when you check how big the chance of something is. I don't usually walk through my neighborhood in fear of a mountain lion attacking for example.0 -
To over simplify, Dr. Campbell thinks too much protein is unhealthy. Therefor he would think LC diets to be unhealthy because they are high in protein, regardless if he is trying to sell you something. However, he is right about it is unhealthy when cutting out a majority of vegetables and fruit.
Medical Doctors do not equal scientist. They may read a great deal of studies, but that doesn't mean they are good at the scientific method or gathering empirical evidence. I don't see where Dr. Campbell gets his data, and why he's not on the forefront for research on this subject.
I support plant based diets, but I have been unimpressed with the facts Dr. Campbell gives against protein. It seems like wishful thinking to support an idea. Given that his ideas on protein are why he thinks LC diets are unhealthy; his reasons don't seem valid.
I do think Low Carb is basically a fad diet. I think most people on them correlate the diet with weight lose and don't look at the facts. I think low carb cuts out alot of junk food, processed foods and refined sugars. Also it helps with calorie restriction. I think anyone that eats this way is going to lose weight and eat healthier. I also think a LC diet is unhealthy if you cut out alot of nutritious and fibrous foods like vegetables and fruits. I think alot of people don't eat enough fiber and that is more important to focus on than protein (Because I think people easily get enough protein).
If Dr. Campbell had approached his view from the potential lack of fiber in a LC diet he would of made a more valid point. Since fiber:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber/appears to reduce the risk of developing various conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, diverticular disease, and constipation.
3 -
fibre is overrated...3
-
rI need to be on low carb for digestive problems. I have never felt better. There are always going to be critics on any diet, so to each their own.
Eating very low carb for 9 months, I am much improved in health, energy, shape, looks and people admire my almost wrinkle free heathy skin, shiny hair and increasingly trim shape. (I'm 63, with total Hashimoto's thyroid failure, metabolic syndrome, 3 heart attacks and used to have tiredness, bloating, diarrhoea and gas when I ate carby foods, especially baked goods. I've never had 'keto flu or bad breath, which can happen if you make a rapid drop in carbs and don't drink lots of water (clean your teeth too!). Important point - Some people feel much better on a low carb diet, which 'fixes' their many health problems, improves their appearance and makes gradual weight loss possible at last! Yes, those are issues that the majority of people take for granted because with healthy eating and exercise they CAN lose weigh but those with severe hormonal metabolic problems CANNOT, unless they gradually adapt their bodies to low carb eating.
5 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
^^^ this.
Everything in some shape form or fashion causes something or is a precursor to something or something else.
Or at least a study can be conducted that comes to the conclusion that anything is correlated to cancer risk, which will then be repeated with zero discussion on the local nightly news and people will worry about for about a month and then forget they heard it.1 -
The key thing to keep in mind here is the term low carb applies to so many types of diets. Keto is classified as low carb, but it is also high healthy fats with moderate protein and its research has been around for many many decades. This diet has been a major player in saving countless lives and improving lives that are affected by epilepsy and various other diseases that are resistant to drugs. Paleo is low carb, but again there is more to the traditional Paleo diet than just limited carbs. You also have to take into account people who follow an actual low carb high fat protocol diet have blood panels that are amazing with rapid turnarounds in those panels.
Where people go off target with "low carb" is they look at eating as just that, limit or eliminate carbs with no thought to it. Real low carb diets do not get rid of the carbs, they adjust the eating to get the necessary carbs from leafy green veggies, nuts, etc.
I never try to put down a diet that has been through countless independent research studies, but I always come back to Alaska when I hear people discounting low carb. Eskimos have existed for generations with little to no carbs and have little to no heart disease, high cholesterol, strokes, high blood pressure, etc. You literally have an entire culture of people that didn't have access (until recently and even now fruits and veggies are very expensive) to carbs as we know it and live extremely long and healthy lives.2 -
Actually, it is open to debate whether or not the Inuit and Yupik peoples had heart disease risk factors and heart disease before they were introduced to a Western-style diet. There was one Danish researcher who made that claim, based on what he knew about indigenous people in Greenland. But it seems he probably did not have very good sources of information.2
-
Vegetables are healthy. You can even be LCHF vegan! Humans are capable of surviving on a variety of diets, I am sure someone who eats the SAD can have healthy bloodwork just as I have healthy bloodwork on Ketogenic eating. Before I even decided to dedicate myself to this eating style, I did some Googling in scholarly works to see what the hubbub was about.
Fat is essential to many processes in the body, especially hormone production and blood sugar regulation. I learned that even though unsaturated fats are touted as super amazing, they actually increased the risk of heart disease. While people from all walks of life can subsist healthily on LCHF, the people best suited for it are usually people with Insulin resistance, diabetic or pre-diabetic, and people with cholesterol issues and hormone imbalance.
I don't put much stock into a person, PhD or not, that skews results because they want to push their own eating style as "the best".1 -
fibre is overrated...
You're right. It's so overrated that it's been linked to improved cholesterol and improved health. It's so overrated that every health organization recognizes the benefits of it. But sure, keep thinking that. Instead, lets replace fiber with SFA because that would be good for health.11 -
fibre is overrated...
You're right. It's so overrated that it's been linked to improved cholesterol and improved health. It's so overrated that every health organization recognizes the benefits of it. But sure, keep thinking that. Instead, lets replace fiber with SFA because that would be good for health.
"linked to" does not a causal relationship make.
high fiber diets have been "linked" to both a higher and a lower risk of colon cancer. there are indications that a diet high in fibers has a detrimental effect on gut bacteria, and contributes to conditions such as diverticulitis.3 -
fibre is overrated...
You're right. It's so overrated that it's been linked to improved cholesterol and improved health. It's so overrated that every health organization recognizes the benefits of it. But sure, keep thinking that. Instead, lets replace fiber with SFA because that would be good for health.
"linked to" does not a causal relationship make.
high fiber diets have been "linked" to both a higher and a lower risk of colon cancer. there are indications that a diet high in fibers has a detrimental effect on gut bacteria, and contributes to conditions such as diverticulitis.
The treatment of diverticulitis is a lot different than the cause. It is actually believed that a low fiber diet and overall poor diets contributes to the acute inflammation of the sacs in the large intestine causing an infection. And that people should be eating 20-25g of fiber or more to help prevent this, according to Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and every doctor my wife has discussed this with (about 20 different doctors. Additionally, it is also currently believed that there is a large genetic component to this. Additionally, this generally occurs in people who are over 40. And after 3-4 flare ups, they have to get a colon recession.
So you can believe, based on you own perceptions, that fiber is over rated, but I would suggest you show any health organization that would promote a low fiber diet for everyone?7 -
fibre is overrated...
You're right. It's so overrated that it's been linked to improved cholesterol and improved health. It's so overrated that every health organization recognizes the benefits of it. But sure, keep thinking that. Instead, lets replace fiber with SFA because that would be good for health.
"linked to" does not a causal relationship make.
high fiber diets have been "linked" to both a higher and a lower risk of colon cancer. there are indications that a diet high in fibers has a detrimental effect on gut bacteria, and contributes to conditions such as diverticulitis.
Most scientist are aware of the correlation vs causation factor in research. That's why they use a causal modeling method to reach their conclusions for the Fiber studies. There is too much data over a long period of time that supports fiber as being healthy and needed for the body.
I too would like to see any evidence from a respected health organization that supports a low fiber diet.2 -
...So you can believe, based on you own perceptions, that fiber is over rated, but I would suggest you show any health organization that would promote a low fiber diet for everyone?...I too would like to see any evidence from a respected health organization that supports a low fiber diet.
I'm more than willing to wager that any "evidence" provided will come from a LCHF/keto blog or propaganda website. I have yet to see any respectable health organization advocate for a low-fiber diet, or say that fiber is "overrated".2 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »...So you can believe, based on you own perceptions, that fiber is over rated, but I would suggest you show any health organization that would promote a low fiber diet for everyone?...I too would like to see any evidence from a respected health organization that supports a low fiber diet.
I'm more than willing to wager that any "evidence" provided will come from a LCHF/keto blog or propaganda website. I have yet to see any respectable health organization advocate for a low-fiber diet, or say that fiber is "overrated".
I would say that this fiber sub-debate is "overrated".
A typical non ketogenic low carb diet (around 100g total carbs) -where starches are usually avoided and fruits are limited- will easily hit the recommended fiber intake.
More difficult on a ketogenic diet (below 50g net carbs), but still doable with smart choices:
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »...So you can believe, based on you own perceptions, that fiber is over rated, but I would suggest you show any health organization that would promote a low fiber diet for everyone?...I too would like to see any evidence from a respected health organization that supports a low fiber diet.
I'm more than willing to wager that any "evidence" provided will come from a LCHF/keto blog or propaganda website. I have yet to see any respectable health organization advocate for a low-fiber diet, or say that fiber is "overrated".
I would say that this fiber sub-debate is "overrated".
A typical non ketogenic low carb diet (around 100g total carbs) -where starches are usually avoided and fruits are limited- will easily hit the recommended fiber intake.
More difficult on a ketogenic diet (below 50g net carbs), but still doable with smart choices:
No one is actually arguing that though (and many of us would agree that on a low carb diet or even a keto diet that you can get adequate fiber). We are arguing the ridiculous claim that fiber is over-rated. It's one of the only things that every health organization agrees upon, regardless of dietary preference. It's correlated to lower cholesterol, increase satiety, increased health, lowers the risk of many health diseases and more. It literally, has NO scientific backing.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions