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.
It's official. MFP says "Eating carbs in moderation may help you live longer"
Orphia
Posts: 7,097 Member
in Debate Club
At the top of my MFP app feed today from the MFP blog:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eating-carbs-in-moderation-may-help-you-live-longer/
It's saying low carb is a fad diet and increases your risk of death.
Debate over, methinks.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eating-carbs-in-moderation-may-help-you-live-longer/
While a low-carb diet might be beneficial for weight loss — a 2018 study found overweight dieters who cut their carbohydrate intake lost an average of 13 pounds — cutting carbs could also cut years from your life.
THE LATEST RESEARCH
Two new studies found connections between low-carb diets and premature death. In a study published in The Lancet, researchers followed 15,428 adults and found a connection between carbohydrate consumption and the risk of dying during the 25-year study period.
Moreover, research presented at the 2018 European Society of Cardiology conference reviewed the results of seven studies with 447,506 participants over 15 years and found an association between low-carb diets (defined as fewer than 26% of daily calories from carbohydrates) and an increased risk of premature death, including death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Dr. Maciej Banach, professor at the Medical University in Poland explains, “The reduced intake of fiber and fruits and increased intake of animal protein, cholesterol and saturated fat with these diets may play a role [in increased mortality risk].”
THE BIGGEST RISK
The participants who adopted low-carb diets and replaced carbs with animal proteins and fat were at the greatest risk of premature death. In other words, cutting out bread and pasta but eating beef and pork instead is a recipe for health issues.
That’s because it’s not just about adding unhealthy foods but cutting those that are full of nutrients. Joan Salge Blake, RD, clinical associate professor of nutrition at Boston University and author of “Nutrition & You” believes the potential for weight loss leads a lot of dieters to cut carbs but warns, “You end up eliminating a lot of foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, beans and dairy products — all carbohydrates — that are part of a healthy diet.”
HOW MUCH AND WHAT TYPES OF CARBS SHOULD YOU AIM FOR?
You should get between 45–65% of your daily calories from carbohydrates, according to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. In fact, in a 16-week study, increasing carbohydrate intake helped participants lower their body mass index, weight, fat mass and insulin resistance.
The Lancet research found the risks of premature death were minimized when filling up on complex carbs from fruits, vegetables and whole grains. “Fad diets often lead people to fear carbohydrates. But the research continues to show healthy carbohydrates are the healthiest fuel for our bodies,” Dr. Hana Kahleova, study author and director of clinical research for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine explained in a statement.
THE BOTTOM LINE
“A low-carb diet might help you lose weight in the beginning but, over the long-term, there is no benefit and there might even be significant risks,” Blake says. Instead, Blake recommends eating everything in moderation, including carbohydrates, and making sure to opt for complex over refined sources.
It's saying low carb is a fad diet and increases your risk of death.
Debate over, methinks.
22
Replies
-
For the life of me, I have not been able to work out how significantly restricting most fruit, many vegetables and whole grains can be beneficial long term unless there is a medical reason to do so, especially if replaced with high levels of saturated fats. An interesting study but I'll be even more interested in what evolves with this in the future.
I suppose though that you have to weigh up the risks of being overweight and the risks of keto, if this is the most successful way for you to lose weight. I am sure long term obesity you pose the higher of the two risks.24 -
A very low carber's response
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201809/latest-low-carb-study-all-politics-no-science
That article has created little response among low carbers that I have seen. A common response seems to be "whatever". It's just not very believable to the long term low carbers (which is under 100-150g, usually well below a third of all calories) who stick with the diet because of the health benefits they are experiencing. It's like being told that you may feel way better now, and your health may have improved (for now), but low carb will kill you in the end... Yeah, right. That makes sense.
It's just more old and inaccurate epidemiological studies being recycled to protect the dying dogma that low fat is best for all. IMO
31 -
This 'study' has been debunked by everybody in the nutrition sciences except the authors... there are more flaws in the study than there are valid conclusions.22
-
Aren't we lucky that our ancestors didn't know that a zillion years ago...14
-
While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
27 -
Is there a population of 100 yr old low carbers somewhere that I'm not aware of ?23
-
"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.9 -
happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
That's comparing two seprate things, IMO. Apples and oranges.
People arguing that the average low carbers will not die sooner than the average person on a higher carb diet does not negate the fact that some of the longest lived people live in the blue zones, nor that those people may live the longest due to a variety of factors (not just diet).
2 -
happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the side of 'yes this does happen.'11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
That's comparing two seprate things, IMO. Apples and oranges.
People arguing that the average low carbers will not die sooner than the average person on a higher carb diet does not negate the fact that some of the longest lived people live in the blue zones, nor that those people may live the longest due to a variety of factors (not just diet).
I'm not sure what you're rebutting since I pretty much laid out they were two different things. I'm simply pointing out that longevity seems to correlate with higher carb consumption, among other factors.
I wasn't trying to imply that Blue Zones had anything to do with showing that low carbing led to people dying sooner, I was just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be evidence that low carbing leads to longevity.
17 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.16 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
That's comparing two seprate things, IMO. Apples and oranges.
People arguing that the average low carbers will not die sooner than the average person on a higher carb diet does not negate the fact that some of the longest lived people live in the blue zones, nor that those people may live the longest due to a variety of factors (not just diet).
I'm not sure what you're rebutting since I pretty much laid out they were two different things. I'm simply pointing out that longevity seems to correlate with higher carb consumption, among other factors.
I wasn't trying to imply that Blue Zones had anything to do with showing that low carbing led to people dying sooner, I was just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be evidence that low carbing leads to longevity.
I guess I did not follow your change of topic, from the study referenced in the Op's linked blog to the unrelated fact that people in the blue zones live the longest.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
That's comparing two seprate things, IMO. Apples and oranges.
People arguing that the average low carbers will not die sooner than the average person on a higher carb diet does not negate the fact that some of the longest lived people live in the blue zones, nor that those people may live the longest due to a variety of factors (not just diet).
I'm not sure what you're rebutting since I pretty much laid out they were two different things. I'm simply pointing out that longevity seems to correlate with higher carb consumption, among other factors.
I wasn't trying to imply that Blue Zones had anything to do with showing that low carbing led to people dying sooner, I was just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be evidence that low carbing leads to longevity.
I guess I did not follow your change of topic, from the study referenced in the Op's linked blog to the unrelated fact that people in the blue zones live the longest.
I wasn't changing the topics. The topics are tangential.8 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While some might debate this study saying you die sooner with low carb, there are the Blue Zones showing that the longest living populations in the world all have a higher carb intake.
That's comparing two seprate things, IMO. Apples and oranges.
People arguing that the average low carbers will not die sooner than the average person on a higher carb diet does not negate the fact that some of the longest lived people live in the blue zones, nor that those people may live the longest due to a variety of factors (not just diet).
I'm not sure what you're rebutting since I pretty much laid out they were two different things. I'm simply pointing out that longevity seems to correlate with higher carb consumption, among other factors.
I wasn't trying to imply that Blue Zones had anything to do with showing that low carbing led to people dying sooner, I was just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be evidence that low carbing leads to longevity.
I guess I did not follow your change of topic, from the study referenced in the Op's linked blog to the unrelated fact that people in the blue zones live the longest.
I wasn't changing the topics. The topics are tangential.
IDK, if it's two different things, then it's a different topic IMO... It was JMO. YMMV11 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.
Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.
I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.
I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.7 -
A very low carber's response
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201809/latest-low-carb-study-all-politics-no-science
That article has created little response among low carbers that I have seen. A common response seems to be "whatever". It's just not very believable to the long term low carbers (which is under 100-150g, usually well below a third of all calories) who stick with the diet because of the health benefits they are experiencing. It's like being told that you may feel way better now, and your health may have improved (for now), but low carb will kill you in the end... Yeah, right. That makes sense.
Low carber zealots ignoring facts is business as usual, yes.It's just more old and inaccurate epidemiological studies being recycled to protect the dying dogma that low fat is best for all. IMO
Sorry, but you're fighting a straw man.
Nowhere does it say "low fat is best for all".
You'd like that to be true so it looks like you've rebutted something, but you haven't.
24 -
I'm not even arguing low carb vs moderate carb vs high carb... I'm arguing that the study is completely flawed and meaningless. Go read the study - they did 2 food questionairres across a 20-30 year period and did not cover the last 10-15 years for the people included in the study. Based on those 2 forms they assumed that people ate the exact same way for their entire lives - this is problem 1 with the study. The second major problem is that they did not account for outside life factors that could have greatly influenced the results of the study. Any conclusions that they could draw are highly suspect.18
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions