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"
Replies
-
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.
Uh-oh! That’s generally me. Because I try for more protein. Wasn’t trying to be “low-carb” or “moderate carb,” was just going for higher protein. And had to swap out calories somewhere.
I would like my tombstone to read: “She saw it on Instagram.”
2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
The article derives from 7 studies.
I'm personally on the lower end of the 45-65% of calories from carbs the mentioned in the article as the government recommendation.
Me, too. My carbs are usually veggies, berries, and whole grains like quinoa, and wheat tortillas. And the occasional donut, cake, and pie.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.
As low as 10%? Wow. I wonder why they recommend so low?0 -
I couldn’t sit through reading the entire article, but have personal/health reasons to disagree. I am “very diabetic,” if that makes sense, so even looking at something containing carbs (be it otherwise “healthy” or not) will kill me pretty quickly, if not instantly.4
-
I couldn’t sit through reading the entire article, but have personal/health reasons to disagree. I am “very diabetic,” if that makes sense, so even looking at something containing carbs (be it otherwise “healthy” or not) will kill me pretty quickly, if not instantly.
No one is disputing that some people have valid medical reasons for severely limiting carb intake. But for the general population, it's not an issue.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.
As low as 10%? Wow. I wonder why they recommend so low?
I'd say it's because you have to take the daily calories into consideration. If someone was a 100-110 poind endurance athlete eating 4000 calories, 400 cal for 100g of protein a day may be fine. For someone on a 1200 calorie a day diet 30g of protein is not enough.3 -
Yeah, there are two problems with the MFP article. The first is that it's not a well designed study, and the second is that even at that, if you read the study itself, it doesn't say what the article indicates it says.
More moderate and science based responses to the study have noted that it's not low carbs which seem to be the issue, but the foods which typically replace the carbs. Those people in the study who replaced carbs with plant-based proteins didn't see the same effects as those who replaced them with meat. It's difficult to separate out culture in a study, and it seems the majority of people in the study who ate low carb were also eating a diet that wasn't nutritionally ideal in other ways. The study didn't seek out health nuts eating Paleo purposefully and compare them to other health nuts eating a different diet, it just asked regular people what they ate. Picture the people you know who love steak and avoid fruit and vegetables.
On the opposite side of the coin is the recent study which found that diets consisting of 75% or more calories from carbs were bad. The problem with thatstudy was that the majority of people they followed who met that criterion were extremely poor people who couldn't afford anything other than staples. Therefore it's not surprising that the extremely poor don't live as long as other people.
Like the study which was reported to say that nuts are a magic elixir of life, this study isn't quite what it claims to be. People who eat lots of nuts in our culture tend to do other healthy things. People who eat mostly meat in our culture tend to do other unhealthy things.11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.
As low as 10%? Wow. I wonder why they recommend so low?
I'd say it's because you have to take the daily calories into consideration. If someone was a 100-110 poind endurance athlete eating 4000 calories, 400 cal for 100g of protein a day may be fine. For someone on a 1200 calorie a day diet 30g of protein is not enough.
That's probably correct. Seems risky though. I can imagine someone on a 1200 kcal diet only eating 10%. That would be 120 kcal or 30g. Yikes.
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Yeah, there are two problems with the MFP article. The first is that it's not a well designed study, and the second is that even at that, if you read the study itself, it doesn't say what the article indicates it says.
More moderate and science based responses to the study have noted that it's not low carbs which seem to be the issue, but the foods which typically replace the carbs. Those people in the study who replaced carbs with plant-based proteins didn't see the same effects as those who replaced them with meat. It's difficult to separate out culture in a study, and it seems the majority of people in the study who ate low carb were also eating a diet that wasn't nutritionally ideal in other ways. The study didn't seek out health nuts eating Paleo purposefully and compare them to other health nuts eating a different diet, it just asked regular people what they ate. Picture the people you know who love steak and avoid fruit and vegetables.
Again, the MFP article referenced 7 studies, not one. Cheers.rheddmobile wrote: »On the opposite side of the coin is the recent study which found that diets consisting of 75% or more calories from carbs were bad. The problem with thatstudy was that the majority of people they followed who met that criterion were extremely poor people who couldn't afford anything other than staples. Therefore it's not surprising that the extremely poor don't live as long as other people.
However, the article and studies didn't say 75% carbs was good. I agree that's bad, particularly if it's mostly donuts and French fries.
The article and studies said eat carbs "in moderation"... "45% to 65%". The good old Healthy Food Pyramid.
MFP Blog has been posting some rational things in pretty simple language lately I would think aimed at people struggling with following diet fads.
They also had one two days ago recommending diet breaks during the weight loss process, which is the science that's emerging, and helpful to those who might be dieting unsustainably.
5 -
Its interesting that 75% carbs is considered 'bad'. I live in an 'underdeveloped' country (it used to be politically correct to say 3erd world country).
The US, France, UK and Italy eat on average below 50% carbs a day according to a list of average carbohydrate consumption by country easily googled. The country I live in eats an average of 72% carbohydrates a day. Partly this is because people don't use cutlery to eat with, they dip bread into food and eat with their hands. Bread is baked three times a day and over half of the people don't have cars so there is always, 7 days a week, bread available in every block, along with basics like milk, fresh veg, dried beans, and some fruit. Meat isn't eaten much, beans or poultry more often and in smaller quantities.
Although life span is less in countries like this, the reasons aren't necessarily diet related, there are a lot of other causes for early death.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.
As low as 10%? Wow. I wonder why they recommend so low?
I'd say it's because you have to take the daily calories into consideration. If someone was a 100-110 poind endurance athlete eating 4000 calories, 400 cal for 100g of protein a day may be fine. For someone on a 1200 calorie a day diet 30g of protein is not enough.
That's probably correct. Seems risky though. I can imagine someone on a 1200 kcal diet only eating 10%. That would be 120 kcal or 30g. Yikes.
I would agree. Unless some special medical circumstances wouldn't want a loved one that low. There is a pretty nice calculator out there that gives Dietary Reference Intakes ("DRI is the general term for a set of reference values used to plan and assess nutrient intakes of healthy people. These values, which vary by age and gender, include:
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.
Adequate Intake (AI): established when evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy.
Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL): maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects.for many nutrients")
https://fnic.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/index.php
Part of sample input/output
0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Yeah, there are two problems with the MFP article. The first is that it's not a well designed study, and the second is that even at that, if you read the study itself, it doesn't say what the article indicates it says.
More moderate and science based responses to the study have noted that it's not low carbs which seem to be the issue, but the foods which typically replace the carbs. Those people in the study who replaced carbs with plant-based proteins didn't see the same effects as those who replaced them with meat. It's difficult to separate out culture in a study, and it seems the majority of people in the study who ate low carb were also eating a diet that wasn't nutritionally ideal in other ways. The study didn't seek out health nuts eating Paleo purposefully and compare them to other health nuts eating a different diet, it just asked regular people what they ate. Picture the people you know who love steak and avoid fruit and vegetables.
Again, the MFP article referenced 7 studies, not one. Cheers.rheddmobile wrote: »On the opposite side of the coin is the recent study which found that diets consisting of 75% or more calories from carbs were bad. The problem with thatstudy was that the majority of people they followed who met that criterion were extremely poor people who couldn't afford anything other than staples. Therefore it's not surprising that the extremely poor don't live as long as other people.
However, the article and studies didn't say 75% carbs was good. I agree that's bad, particularly if it's mostly donuts and French fries.
The article and studies said eat carbs "in moderation"... "45% to 65%". The good old Healthy Food Pyramid.
MFP Blog has been posting some rational things in pretty simple language lately I would think aimed at people struggling with following diet fads.
They also had one two days ago recommending diet breaks during the weight loss process, which is the science that's emerging, and helpful to those who might be dieting unsustainably.
That's not quite valid. If you click through on the links given in the MFP article, you will see that there was one study, plus a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies picked by the same group doing the original study. That's quite different from seven studies.
Again, the actual data they got were somewhat different than they have reported in their abstract, which has been pointed out by the more scientifically-minded to the press. But "not quite as clear as all that" doesn't make a good headline.7 -
The stress of worrying exactly where my carb intake sits on a daily basis would probably kill me waaaay before the potential benefit of nailing it...16
-
AlexanderLannister wrote: »I believe there is a lot of dispute due to misunderstanding biology and terminology. We ought to start with the term carbohydrates (carbs), then move onto their purpose, then which ones are good or bad.
Defining
Carbohydrates: any of a class of organic compounds that are polyhydroxy aldehydes or polyhydroxy ketones, or change to such substances on simple chemical transformations, as hydrolysis, oxidation, or reduction, and that form the supporting tissues of plants and are important food for animals and people.
- simply put, it is the substance needed with food to support our body function.
Purpose: giving energy for the day/moment, depending on the carbohydrate eaten, and stored as fat if not used.
Complex — whole grains, cereals, brown rice, fruits, veggies. — GOOD
Simple — white bread, white rice, enriched flour, refined sugars. — BAD
Here’s the fact, your good carbs ought to be a big part of your diet IN THE MORNING to give you long lasting energy. They are not meant for the rest of the day. They need to be used throughout. The more active you are, the more you’ll need in the morning. The less active, the less you’ll need.
Also, measure your serving sizes, and STAY AWAY from simple carbohydrates.
Your proteins, veggies, and some fruits can be eaten through the day.
Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Study the truth for yourself. Don’t take their word for it because they look good or have a title. You want health and wellness.
Did simple and complex carbs get "re-defined" somewhere out there on the internet?
Please cite your quote. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/carbohydrates7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Yeah, there are two problems with the MFP article. The first is that it's not a well designed study, and the second is that even at that, if you read the study itself, it doesn't say what the article indicates it says.
More moderate and science based responses to the study have noted that it's not low carbs which seem to be the issue, but the foods which typically replace the carbs. Those people in the study who replaced carbs with plant-based proteins didn't see the same effects as those who replaced them with meat. It's difficult to separate out culture in a study, and it seems the majority of people in the study who ate low carb were also eating a diet that wasn't nutritionally ideal in other ways. The study didn't seek out health nuts eating Paleo purposefully and compare them to other health nuts eating a different diet, it just asked regular people what they ate. Picture the people you know who love steak and avoid fruit and vegetables.
Again, the MFP article referenced 7 studies, not one. Cheers.rheddmobile wrote: »On the opposite side of the coin is the recent study which found that diets consisting of 75% or more calories from carbs were bad. The problem with thatstudy was that the majority of people they followed who met that criterion were extremely poor people who couldn't afford anything other than staples. Therefore it's not surprising that the extremely poor don't live as long as other people.
However, the article and studies didn't say 75% carbs was good. I agree that's bad, particularly if it's mostly donuts and French fries.
The article and studies said eat carbs "in moderation"... "45% to 65%". The good old Healthy Food Pyramid.
MFP Blog has been posting some rational things in pretty simple language lately I would think aimed at people struggling with following diet fads.
They also had one two days ago recommending diet breaks during the weight loss process, which is the science that's emerging, and helpful to those who might be dieting unsustainably.
That's not quite valid. If you click through on the links given in the MFP article, you will see that there was one study, plus a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies picked by the same group doing the original study. That's quite different from seven studies.
Again, the actual data they got were somewhat different than they have reported in their abstract, which has been pointed out by the more scientifically-minded to the press. But "not quite as clear as all that" doesn't make a good headline.
So it was two studies, but one study was a metaanalysis of 7 cohort studies.
Could you provide a link to the criticism you're referring to?4 -
This is an Atkins response to the article:
https://uk.atkins.com/blog/is-your-low-carb-diet-shortening-your-life-no!2/
7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Yeah, there are two problems with the MFP article. The first is that it's not a well designed study, and the second is that even at that, if you read the study itself, it doesn't say what the article indicates it says.
More moderate and science based responses to the study have noted that it's not low carbs which seem to be the issue, but the foods which typically replace the carbs. Those people in the study who replaced carbs with plant-based proteins didn't see the same effects as those who replaced them with meat. It's difficult to separate out culture in a study, and it seems the majority of people in the study who ate low carb were also eating a diet that wasn't nutritionally ideal in other ways. The study didn't seek out health nuts eating Paleo purposefully and compare them to other health nuts eating a different diet, it just asked regular people what they ate. Picture the people you know who love steak and avoid fruit and vegetables.
Again, the MFP article referenced 7 studies, not one. Cheers.rheddmobile wrote: »On the opposite side of the coin is the recent study which found that diets consisting of 75% or more calories from carbs were bad. The problem with thatstudy was that the majority of people they followed who met that criterion were extremely poor people who couldn't afford anything other than staples. Therefore it's not surprising that the extremely poor don't live as long as other people.
However, the article and studies didn't say 75% carbs was good. I agree that's bad, particularly if it's mostly donuts and French fries.
The article and studies said eat carbs "in moderation"... "45% to 65%". The good old Healthy Food Pyramid.
MFP Blog has been posting some rational things in pretty simple language lately I would think aimed at people struggling with following diet fads.
They also had one two days ago recommending diet breaks during the weight loss process, which is the science that's emerging, and helpful to those who might be dieting unsustainably.
That's not quite valid. If you click through on the links given in the MFP article, you will see that there was one study, plus a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies picked by the same group doing the original study. That's quite different from seven studies.
Again, the actual data they got were somewhat different than they have reported in their abstract, which has been pointed out by the more scientifically-minded to the press. But "not quite as clear as all that" doesn't make a good headline.
So it was two studies, but one study was a metaanalysis of 7 cohort studies.
Could you provide a link to the criticism you're referring to?
Just from a level of evidence perspective, for trials evaluating diet, there is no way to blind or randomize a trial for obvious reasons. High level of evidence trials with diet are not possible; best of the best would be cohort studies. Meta-analysis can be misleading/very flawed if not done in a sound manner & ideally should be made up of DB RCTs (just the fact that a study is a meta analysis does not mean the level of evidence is high). Much grains of salt are needed when drawing conclusions about trials for diets (not clear cut & dry as DB RCTs)
4 -
Moderation and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime IMO.
I looked into the article and it was published in THE LANCET - which is a bi-weekly, widely respected, PEER REVIEWED journal. This means, to me, the article is credible.
I have published about 10 times. Magazines are very easy to publish in. Technical notes, a bit more difficult, but still relatively easy. Peer reviewed journals - very difficult.
7 -
Moderation and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime IMO.
I looked into the article and it was published in THE LANCET - which is a bi-weekly, widely respected, PEER REVIEWED journal. This means, to me, the article is credible.
I have published about 10 times. Magazines are very easy to publish in. Technical notes, a bit more difficult, but still relatively easy. Peer reviewed journals - very difficult.
really?!?!?
https://www.google.com/search?q=peer+reviewed+nonsense&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS664US665&oq=peer+reviewed+nonsense&aqs=chrome..69i57.9987j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-83 -
Moderation and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime IMO.
I looked into the article and it was published in THE LANCET - which is a bi-weekly, widely respected, PEER REVIEWED journal. This means, to me, the article is credible.
I have published about 10 times. Magazines are very easy to publish in. Technical notes, a bit more difficult, but still relatively easy. Peer reviewed journals - very difficult.
really?!?!?
https://www.google.com/search?q=peer+reviewed+nonsense&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS664US665&oq=peer+reviewed+nonsense&aqs=chrome..69i57.9987j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes. Really.
While I do not disagree with the results I saw on your Google search, each profession will have the preeminent, prestigious peer reviewed journal or technical publication. We all know what those are in our respective fields (mine happens to be in engineering). Then there are the less prestigious journals where the standards are much less stringent. When I get turned down by the most prestigious journal, I know I can always publish in the less prestigious or obscure journal who are always hungry for articles - but I would never do that because my rejection by the best means my article simply needs more work or should be dumped in the round file.
I also agree that fake data is out there as well as bad theories or even worse, bad analyses. Beware of any data presented on a log-log graph.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K 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
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions