Evidence debunking low sodium diet

[SpecterGT260]

Oh, this is a known phenomenon. If you look on pubmed, there's lots of articles.

Here's the first one on a cursory search:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22094846

Here's one that looks at a diverse US population:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644544

On that note, good day/night to you all

Wait... so... if too many carbs are bad, and too much protein is bad, and too many fats are bad..... wait! What if (bear w me this is gunna sound crazy) we ate them all but in moderation?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CaptainSSO]

Oh, this is a known phenomenon. If you look on pubmed, there's lots of articles.

Here's the first one on a cursory search:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22094846

Here's one that looks at a diverse US population:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644544

On that note, good day/night to you all

I would want to see refined carb consumption for that same demographic. My gut instinct is that it could be a confounder here.

Looks as if the second paper was not adjusted for cigarettes and BMI??

 

[SpecterGT260]

I would want to see refined carb consumption for that same demographic.

Looks as if the second paper was not adjusted for cigarettes and BMI??

Your issue with refined carbs is not supported by the expensive tissue theory

 

[Perrotfish]

I never said the AMA is king... They describe it as a disease. I think it is a disease of willpower, with some genetics, upbringing and environment mixed in..

This is the misconception that is causing the obesity epidemic. This is an argument that assumes that hunger is, more or less, a constant, and our modern obesity epidemic is a failure of willpower. The truth is people have always, always eaten until they are full. What is causing the obesity epidemic is that our modern diet is destroying our ability to regulate our appetites. A morbidly obese diabetic who eats a balanced diet will feel more or less how you would feel if you ate 200 calories a day. Miserable, sick even. Their mesenchyme derived tissue has utterly lost the ability to percieve the insulin that is supposed to promote glucose uptake and staity unless they have 10 time as much of it as they need. To feel full they need to do absolutely things that are terrible for them like dumping hundreds of calories of pure sugar into their bodies. If they eat a healthy diet their bodies will go into low energy mode: they'll feel slugish, weak, irritable, just like you feel when you miss multiple meals. If their diet is so low that they're starving yes, they'll lose weight, but they'll also be basically non-functional for the duration of the weight loss. Which is why almost no one sustains a low cal diet.

I'm always surprised that physicians continue to believe that behavior is the main problem with weight gain even after they see the effects of modern pharmacology on weight gain. When you see people on SSRIs all gain 30 lbs, and people on clozaril all gain 100 lbs, and everyone on metformin loses weight, how do you sustain the belief that this is primarily a behavior driven process?

agree completely that the american diet demonstrates abuse of a system.
While this is getting slightly silly, you can tank your kidneys by overeating
protein or even kill yourself by drinking too much water. That carbs are a
slightly easier way to do damage than these in no way supports this
evolution-based theory.

Just an FYI, if you have healthy kidneys to start with no amount of protein you can eat will damage them.

 

[Perrotfish]

Oh, this is a known phenomenon. If you look on pubmed, there's lots of articles.

Here's the first one on a cursory search:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22094846

Here's one that looks at a diverse US population:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644544

On that note, good day/night to you all

Its an interesting point. Obviously I think that obesity is a much bigger, less preventable killer than colon cancer. I also believe we could make do without both in our diets, and I generally feel much less bad about eating a fish than a cow, but I'm not sure the US would put up that restrictive a diet.

 

[SpecterGT260]

This is the misconception that is causing the obesity epidemic. This is an argument that assumes that hunger is, more or less, a constant, and our modern obesity epidemic is a failure of willpower. The truth is people have always, always eaten until they are full. What is causing the obesity epidemic is that our modern diet is destroying our ability to regulate our appetites. A morbidly obese diabetic who eats a balanced diet will feel more or less how you would feel if you ate 200 calories a day. Miserable, sick even. Their mesenchyme derived tissue has utterly lost the ability to percieve the insulin that is supposed to promote glucose uptake and staity unless they have 10 time as much of it as they need. To feel full they need to do absolutely things that are terrible for them like dumping hundreds of calories of pure sugar into their bodies. If they eat a healthy diet their bodies will go into low energy mode: they'll feel slugish, weak, irritable, just like you feel when you miss multiple meals. If their diet is so low that they're starving yes, they'll lose weight, but they'll also be basically non-functional for the duration of the weight loss. Which is why almost no one sustains a low cal diet.

I'm always surprised that physicians continue to believe that behavior is the main problem with weight gain even after they see the effects of modern pharmacology on weight gain. When you see people on SSRIs all gain 30 lbs, and people on clozaril all gain 100 lbs, and everyone on metformin loses weight, how do you sustain the belief that this is primarily a behavior driven process?



Just an FYI, if you have healthy kidneys to start with no amount of protein you can eat will damage them.

People have always eaten until full if they had the option. That isn't an option in most of the current world outside the USA and in all of the ancient world. They also had to work a hell of a lot harder to get food back in the day.

 

[Perrotfish]

Wait... so... if too many carbs are bad, and too much protein is bad, and too many fats are bad..... wait! What if (bear w me this is gunna sound crazy) we ate them all but in moderation?

Too many fats are not bad. To much protein is not bad. At least not according to any good published research that you've linked. Too much red meat as a source of protein and fats may be a cause of a specific type of cancer that's easily preventable/treatable with routine screening, but that's not an argument for more moderate carb consumption.

 

[Perrotfish]

People have always eaten until full if they had the option. That isn't an option in most of the current world outside the USA and in all of the ancient world. They also had to work a hell of a lot harder to get food back in the day.

Then why is our richest, most sedentary population our thinest population? Why are poor blacks and hispanics, who have the least practical accesss to food, the fattest populations in this country? For that matter why are people who actually do physical labor (calories out) drastically more likely to be fat than office white collar office workers? Its not like the rich kids don't have equal access to candy bars and cokes.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Too many fats are not bad. To much protein is not bad. At least not according to any good published research that you've linked. Too much red meat as a source of protein and fats may be a cause of a specific type of cancer that's easily preventable/treatable with routine screening, but that's not an argument for more moderate carb consumption.

So gross overeating of processed carbs with issues is a valid argument, but the same thing with a specific protein source and its out the window? Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[SpecterGT260]

The point is not that low Carb is bad.... you're doing the same thing facetguy was doing earlier..... you are rejecting moderation and portion control in favor of an argument that depends on the validity of the assumption that evolution dictates paleo as the appropriate diet and anything else is damaging. However the source you use for this would not consider processed carbs to be excluded via the rationale that more easily digestible foods (which carbs are) promote the human physiology.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Then why is our richest, most sedentary population our thinest population? Why are poor blacks and hispanics, who have the least practical accesss to food, the fattest populations in this country? For that matter why are people who actually do physical labor (calories out) drastically more likely to be fat than office white collar office workers? Its not like the rich kids don't have equal access to candy bars and cokes.

Seriously? Those who go hungry are not fat. There are some grossly poor dietary decisions that get made in lower SES communities. That doesn't in any way confirm your point that the hunter-gatherers ate their fill every night
Have you ever been to a third world country? Any idea what hunger looks like? At risk of sounding like a bleeding heart idealist.... your comments here seem to suggest that food just grows on trees.... ok bad example but you get my point

 

[CaptainSSO]

The point is not that low Carb is bad.... you're doing the same thing facetguy was doing earlier..... you are rejecting moderation and portion control in favor of an argument that depends on the validity of the assumption that evolution dictates paleo as the appropriate diet and anything else is damaging. However the source you use for this would not consider processed carbs to be excluded via the rationale that more easily digestible foods (which carbs are) promote the human physiology.

You are missing the point here (I'm not that surprised)...

None of us are saying low calorie is not an option, or that it doesn't work.

It works fine, IF someone can do it. And that's the whole problem--fighting hunger. Clearly a significant percentage of the population has trouble with it. And eating a high carb diet exacerbates the problem, due to insulin resistance, and then an increased appetite due to that insulin resistance, and it compounds itself.

There is an easier way, and that easier way is low-carb/paleo.

Clearly "moderation" and "portion control" aren't working very well, or 1/3 of our population wouldn't be obese.

Maybe I should write this in a way that will make it easier for you to understand:

Moderation is not working for a large portion of the population. We think that refined carbs are negatively impacting their metabolism in such a way that moderation becomes exceedingly more difficult as they continue to eat a diet heavy in refined carbs. Once this cycle is initiated, it propagates. Over time, this leads to obesity and disease. As moderation of refined carbs is not working for said percentage of the population, we believe abstaining will. There is simply not a need for refined carbohydrates in the diet. There's just not.

 

[Slade]

As moderation of refined carbs is not working for said percentage of the population, we believe abstaining will. There is simply not a need for refined carbohydrates in the diet. There's just not.

Herein lies the fundamental conflict in our theories: You think eating no carbs is easier than eating less carbs. I think eating less carbs is easier than eating no carbs. There is no point in discussing this further since the basis for our opinions is based on opposite beliefs. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[Perrotfish]

Herein lies the fundamental conflict in our theories: You think eating no carbs is easier than eating less carbs. I think eating less carbs is easier than eating no carbs. There is no point in discussing this further since the basis for our opinions is based on opposite beliefs. Let us agree to disagree.

This is the A TO Z (atkins, tradiational, Ornish, and Zone diet) study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916

It compared the 4 popular diets in a prospective, randomized fashion. The Zone diet is, basically, less carbs (30-40-30). The Atkins diet is no carbs. While all diets resulted in some weight loss, atkins resulted in significantly more than the rest, which strongly implies a higher adherence than the zone diet. In other words, no carbs is easier than fewer carbs.

Opposing moral beliefs are sometimes irreconcilable. Howeve for things that can be objectively measured the word 'belief', at least in the hard sciences, should be synonymous with 'hypothesis'. And a good scientist doesn't continue to believe in a hypothesis when the evidence refutes it. Right now the evidence strongly suggests that an atkins diet is superior to a balanced diet, at least in terms of weight loss and ease of adherence.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You are missing the point here (I'm not that surprised)...
.

I see what you did there the irony is fantastic haha. I'll do a multi quote rundown for you here shortly to explain to you why your post here is inaccurate

 

[facetguy]

Timely article from Scientific American about calories:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

This speaks mostly to the issue of food quality, which is sorely lacking in the typical American diet.

 

[Miss Alyssa]

Why are people so resistant to low-carb diets?

-It works
-you arent hungry so you dont have to supress a drive to eat more
-less sugar (which all seem to agree is positive)
-allows for fiber and vegetables (you get the vitamins and retain colon health)

whats the problem?

For anyone interested in keeping tabs on the latest evidence & studies regarding paleo and low carb, follow @CavemanDoctor on twitter. I think he's a rads resident at Jeff, but is very plugged into the literature and actively posts nutrition studies as they come out. He has an interest in all things glucose, so you'll see some glucose --> alzheimer's and glucose --> cancer studies, as well. Just fyi.

thanks!

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why are people so resistant to low-carb diets?

-It works
-you arent hungry so you dont have to supress a drive to eat more
-less sugar (which all seem to agree is positive)
-allows for fiber and vegetables (you get the vitamins and retain colon health)

whats the problem?




thanks!

Who is opposed to it?

 

[Miss Alyssa]

Who is opposed to it?

The people who seem resistant are the ones still proposing a moderation diet or a ¨balanced¨ diet when it can be seen that the general population finds this difficult, impossible, intolerable, etc.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The people who seem resistant are the ones still proposing a moderation diet or a ¨balanced¨ diet when it can be seen that the general population finds this difficult, impossible, intolerable, etc.

So suggesting a speed limit means I am opposed to SUVs. Got it


Moderation is no more difficult than low Carb. Both require personal sacrifice that many people are unwilling to do.This isn't an education or information issue. These people will continue to not exercise moderation while also not eating a low Carb diet. This wasn't about compliance. It was about the rationale and logic used in promoting one diet strategy over another.

 

[Miss Alyssa]

So suggesting a speed limit means I am opposed to SUVs. Got it


Moderation is no more difficult than low Carb. This isn't an education or information issue. These people will continue to not exercise moderation while also not eating a low Carb diet. This wasn't about compliance. It was about the rationale and logic used in promoting one diet strategy.

How do you know that moderation is no more difficult than low carb? and how do you know its not an education issue? With the prevailing thought being that people get fat because they eat too much and dont move enough and to stop getting fat you need to eat less and move more... how many people know that the second option is to decrease carbohydrates and increase fat and protein?

I haven´t done or seen any studies relating to this but I think a no-hunger diet is easier to maintain than a hunger diet.

 

[SpecterGT260]

How do you know that moderation is no more difficult than low carb? and how do you know its not an education issue? With the prevailing thought being that people get fat because they eat too much and dont move enough and to stop getting fat you need to eat less and move more... how many people know that the second option is to decrease carbohydrates and increase fat and protein?

I haven´t done or seen any studies relating to this but I think a no-hunger diet is easier to maintain than a hunger diet.

To do low Carb you have to sacrifice those foods. Most people going ketogenic will actually gain weight like mad without strict adherence to the diet.


But please note, because you are now the third person to be guilty of this, defending moderation is not condemning low Carb. Disagreeing when people condemn moderation in favor of low Carb is not equivalent to condemning low Carb. This is getting ridiculous and it is impossible to have a discussion with you "if you aren't with us you're against us" types. That thinking is faulty and embarrassing.


I eat whenever I am hungry in ~200 Cal increments. Perfectly easy. It may not be so for obese, but at this point it may be hard to get satiety without a sugar spike or overeating. I think it is interesting that you automatically equate moderation with hunger and low Carb with satiety.

 

[facetguy]

Looks like an interesting article, published last month, over 30 pages.
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...7773&fulltextType=RV&fileId=S0954422412000017

Anyone have access to full-text?

 

[facetguy]

Hitler learns he's gained body fat on a low-carb diet. This is funny!

[YOUTUBE]773hzYEq22s[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Slade]

How do you know that moderation is no more difficult than low carb? and how do you know its not an education issue? With the prevailing thought being that people get fat because they eat too much and dont move enough and to stop getting fat you need to eat less and move more... how many people know that the second option is to decrease carbohydrates and increase fat and protein?

I haven´t done or seen any studies relating to this but I think a no-hunger diet is easier to maintain than a hunger diet.

There's different ways to reduce portion size without inducing hunger. One of the problems of the American diet is that people eat at incredible speeds.

If you eat small portions more frequently, and most importantly, eat slowly and chew each bite, you will feel stuffed the entire day, while still practicing moderation (without hunger). Plus, eating constantly causes constant stimulation of metabolism, avoiding the "starvation mode" in between meals.

 

[Slade]

This is the A TO Z (atkins, tradiational, Ornish, and Zone diet) study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916

It compared the 4 popular diets in a prospective, randomized fashion. The Zone diet is, basically, less carbs (30-40-30). The Atkins diet is no carbs. While all diets resulted in some weight loss, atkins resulted in significantly more than the rest, which strongly implies a higher adherence than the zone diet. In other words, no carbs is easier than fewer carbs.

Opposing moral beliefs are sometimes irreconcilable. Howeve for things that can be objectively measured the word 'belief', at least in the hard sciences, should be synonymous with 'hypothesis'. And a good scientist doesn't continue to believe in a hypothesis when the evidence refutes it. Right now the evidence strongly suggests that an atkins diet is superior to a balanced diet, at least in terms of weight loss and ease of adherence.

For every study you find that promotes the no-carb diet, I can show you one that shows no difference if the calories counts are the same:

[Wikipedia, I'm too tired to look up the individual source, but it's cited right there in the article]
"In a comparison study by Dansinger and colleagues (2005), the goal was to compare popular diets like Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone for the amount of weight lost and a heart disease risk reduction. In the study there were 247 individuals and it lasted for 1 year. All the subjects were overweight at baseline, and had an increased risk for cardiac diseases. One of the diets was assigned to each person.[52] The Atkins diet group ate 20g of CHO (carbohydrate) a day, with a gradual increase toward 50 g daily. But according to Table 2 of the study, increased to well over 130g after the second month and up do 190g by the sixth month. At this point, the Atkins diet group were eating carbohydrates equivalent to the other three groups. The Zone group ate a 40-30-30 % diet of carbohydrates, fats and proteins respectively. The Weight Watchers group was to keep the "points" of their food in a determined range, based on their weight. The Ornish group ate a vegetarian diet with 10% of calories coming from fats. The weight, waist size, blood pressure, and a blood sample were taken, at the beginning, after 2 months, 6 months and 12 months. All four diets resulted in weight loss with no significant difference between the diets.[52]"

 

[facetguy]

For every study you find that promotes the no-carb diet, I can show you one that shows no difference if the calories counts are the same:

[Wikipedia, I'm too tired to look up the individual source, but it's cited right there in the article]
"In a comparison study by Dansinger and colleagues (2005), the goal was to compare popular diets like Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone for the amount of weight lost and a heart disease risk reduction. In the study there were 247 individuals and it lasted for 1 year. All the subjects were overweight at baseline, and had an increased risk for cardiac diseases. One of the diets was assigned to each person.[52] The Atkins diet group ate 20g of CHO (carbohydrate) a day, with a gradual increase toward 50 g daily. But according to Table 2 of the study, increased to well over 130g after the second month and up do 190g by the sixth month. At this point, the Atkins diet group were eating carbohydrates equivalent to the other three groups. The Zone group ate a 40-30-30 % diet of carbohydrates, fats and proteins respectively. The Weight Watchers group was to keep the "points" of their food in a determined range, based on their weight. The Ornish group ate a vegetarian diet with 10% of calories coming from fats. The weight, waist size, blood pressure, and a blood sample were taken, at the beginning, after 2 months, 6 months and 12 months. All four diets resulted in weight loss with no significant difference between the diets.[52]"

Speaking of studies, I just saw this earlier today. Haven't reviewed it but might be of some use. The 21 or so low-carb RCTs:
http://www.kriskris.com/low-carb-vs-low-fat/

(Spect, there's graphs!!)

 

[Miss Alyssa]

There's different ways to reduce portion size without inducing hunger. One of the problems of the American diet is that people eat at incredible speeds.

If you eat small portions more frequently, and most importantly, eat slowly and chew each bite, you will feel stuffed the entire day, while still practicing moderation (without hunger). Plus, eating constantly causes constant stimulation of metabolism, avoiding the "starvation mode" in between meals.

A prof of mine once noted that the better food tastes, the less time it spends on your tongue. Its funny when u think about whole long it takes to get down something that tastes bad

What about people that can´t graze throughout the day because of time/work constraints, such as retracting in surgery for 6 hours. Eating many small meals a day, eating slowly, and portion control have been made clear for years and years. People either arent hearing the message, ignoring it, or it doesn´t actually work.

Does anyone know what the basis for the current food guide is? like how was it decided what portion of foods we should be eating and what balanced actually is?

 

[SpecterGT260]

A prof of mine once noted that the better food tastes, the less time it spends on your tongue. Its funny when u think about whole long it takes to get down something that tastes bad

What about people that can´t graze throughout the day because of time/work constraints, such as retracting in surgery for 6 hours. Eating many small meals a day, eating slowly, and portion control have been made clear for years and years. People either arent hearing the message, ignoring it, or it doesn´t actually work.

Does anyone know what the basis for the current food guide is? like how was it decided what portion of foods we should be eating and what balanced actually is?

You act like fresh meats, veggies, nuts, and fruits are an obvious choice but some times and for some families (many... many many) buying things cheaply in bulk that can be stored for long periods may be the only reasonable way to support themselves. More often than not these are the high carb, sugar sweetened, canned, grain based, or preserved foods that you scoff at.

Again, nobody is saying that low-carb is a bad thing. But those of you who are acting like it is 1) an evolutionary imperative or 2) so easy and obvious that there is literally no reason not to are either naive or deluded or some inexcusable combination of the two.
and... once again - the reason for stating these arguments is not to show low carb as bad (and if anyone is gathering that from these posts you are either high or not paying attention) but rather to show that some of the arguments made for low-carb are simple fantasy or at least an inappropriate jump to a conclusion.

 

[Miss Alyssa]

You act like fresh meats, veggies, nuts, and fruits are an obvious choice but some times and for some families (many... many many) buying things cheaply in bulk that can be stored for long periods may be the only reasonable way to support themselves. More often than not these are the high carb, sugar sweetened, canned, grain based, or preserved foods that you scoff at.

Again, nobody is saying that low-carb is a bad thing. But those of you who are acting like it is 1) an evolutionary imperative or 2) so easy and obvious that there is literally no reason not to are either naive or deluded or some inexcusable combination of the two.
and... once again - the reason for stating these arguments is not to show low carb as bad (and if anyone is gathering that from these posts you are either high or not paying attention) but rather to show that some of the arguments made for low-carb are simple fantasy or at least an inappropriate jump to a conclusion.

Gosh, you like putting words in my mouth and lumping my supposed views with other posters.

I do think that low-carb is important for health, beyond losing weight. I also think it would be difficult for certain groups of people. For those who can´t or don´t want to do low cal, they should be made aware of other options.

Poor people - who can´t afford top quality meat products. (who also suffer difficulty with low cal diets for similar reasons of food price and availability). It would probably take a lot of education and creativity to find affordable alternatives. ie, if eating fast food go for the chicken with salad, perhaps the burger with no bun, in terms of snack food, pepperoni sticks and jerky are probably as accessible as potato chips... I do think if the culture changes to a high protein diet, the food industry would also change so they can continue to market to the masses.

Vegans - low carb diets seem to center on animal fat and meat.

Kidney disease - I don´t know what can be done with patients who already have kidney failure from HTN or DM. Also other causes of kidney disease

Gout - ?

Bread and pasta lovers - Atkins claims that cravings stop during the induction phase. I don´t know how true this is. There´s a large selection of sugar free desserts for the sweet tooths out there, but I don´t know what there is for people that crave bread, potatoes, or pasta.

People who can´t/don´t cook- It can be difficult to order food that doesn´t have starches included. If you choose not to eat the starch, you´ve now paid for something you arent eatting.

Eating on the go- sandwiches and wraps are so easy and portable.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Gosh, you like putting words in my mouth and lumping my supposed views with other posters.

You need to be aware of the context of the discussion when you weigh in. that is how conversations work... otherwise you are just that crazy girl talking to yourself

 

[SpecterGT260]

Gosh, you like putting words in my mouth and lumping my supposed views with other posters.

I do think that low-carb is important for health, beyond losing weight. I also think it would be difficult for certain groups of people. For those who can´t or don´t want to do low cal, they should be made aware of other options.

Poor people - who can´t afford top quality meat products. (who also suffer difficulty with low cal diets for similar reasons of food price and availability). It would probably take a lot of education and creativity to find affordable alternatives. ie, if eating fast food go for the chicken with salad, perhaps the burger with no bun, in terms of snack food, pepperoni sticks and jerky are probably as accessible as potato chips... I do think if the culture changes to a high protein diet, the food industry would also change so they can continue to market to the masses.

Vegans - low carb diets seem to center on animal fat and meat.

Kidney disease - I don´t know what can be done with patients who already have kidney failure from HTN or DM. Also other causes of kidney disease

Gout - ?

Bread and pasta lovers - Atkins claims that cravings stop during the induction phase. I don´t know how true this is. There´s a large selection of sugar free desserts for the sweet tooths out there, but I don´t know what there is for people that crave bread, potatoes, or pasta.

People who can´t/don´t cook- It can be difficult to order food that doesn´t have starches included. If you choose not to eat the starch, you´ve now paid for something you arent eatting.

Eating on the go- sandwiches and wraps are so easy and portable.

why do you keep repeating these things? They are not being contested. If you understand that the various low carb diets arent practical for everyone, and understand that if you can do it and struggle with portion control that it is a viable option, then there is nothing more to be said. But to come out and say that portion control meals unilaterally fail and then cite specific hypothetical and vague individuals who cant eat often is a pretty crappy argument. We can come up with any number of situations where one or the other doesnt work so these hypothetical do nothing for either argument. The moral of the story: some people are going to remain fat You might as well share your plan for peace in the middle east while you are strategizing these low carb angles.

 

[Miss Alyssa]

You need to be aware of the context of the discussion when you weigh in. that is how conversations work... otherwise you are just that crazy girl talking to yourself

you need to be a little less hypersensitive and actually read what people are posting instead arguing against points that weren´t even made. All you´re doing is distracting from real conversation. If I don´t respond its because you´re trying to take the conversation off on another silly tangent that i´m not interested in.

 

[SpecterGT260]

that isnt what being hypersensitive is.... (yes I am aware that is another tangent.... )

where exactly are you trying to take the convo then? the low carb thing is already a tangent and it isnt being combated..... I don't see any purpose to your posts if they arent standing as counterpoints to the discussing that was already being had. If you are just musing to yourself about low carb dieting without attempting to engage the points made by other posters you might as well just tweet it and save us the confusion.

 

[notbobtrustme]

For every study you find that promotes the no-carb diet, I can show you one that shows no difference if the calories counts are the same:

[Wikipedia, I'm too tired to look up the individual source, but it's cited right there in the article]
"In a comparison study by Dansinger and colleagues (2005), the goal was to compare popular diets like Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone for the amount of weight lost and a heart disease risk reduction. In the study there were 247 individuals and it lasted for 1 year. All the subjects were overweight at baseline, and had an increased risk for cardiac diseases. One of the diets was assigned to each person.[52] The Atkins diet group ate 20g of CHO (carbohydrate) a day, with a gradual increase toward 50 g daily. But according to Table 2 of the study, increased to well over 130g after the second month and up do 190g by the sixth month. At this point, the Atkins diet group were eating carbohydrates equivalent to the other three groups. The Zone group ate a 40-30-30 % diet of carbohydrates, fats and proteins respectively. The Weight Watchers group was to keep the “points” of their food in a determined range, based on their weight. The Ornish group ate a vegetarian diet with 10% of calories coming from fats. The weight, waist size, blood pressure, and a blood sample were taken, at the beginning, after 2 months, 6 months and 12 months. All four diets resulted in weight loss with no significant difference between the diets.[52]"

That's the problem with nutrition research. Half the research in nutrition is basically asking "what did you eat for the last 6 months?" and the other half is "eat this diet for 6 months and report back your weight gain/loss". There are seriously some studies out there that count a pepperoni pizza as a red meat meal, the same as eating a porterhouse steak even though the two are nowhere near related.

Bottom-line is that we need some sort of double-crossover, metabolic ward studies to definitely answer questions of nutrition.

 

[facetguy]

That's the problem with nutrition research. Half the research in nutrition is basically asking "what did you eat for the last 6 months?" and the other half is "eat this diet for 6 months and report back your weight gain/loss". There are seriously some studies out there that count a pepperoni pizza as a red meat meal, the same as eating a porterhouse steak even though the two are nowhere near related.

Bottom-line is that we need some sort of double-crossover, metabolic ward studies to definitely answer questions of nutrition.

The NuSI project I mentioned earlier hopes to get to the bottom of some of these issues.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The NuSI project I mentioned earlier hopes to get to the bottom of some of these issues.

I think another problem with the nutritional research is they take a pseudoscientific approach to their work. They start with their fad or gimmick diet and set out to prove its validity, rather than extract it from a data set. These studies are unavoidably poorly controlled.

 

[facetguy]

I think another problem with the nutritional research is they take a pseudoscientific approach to their work. They start with their fad or gimmick diet and set out to prove its validity, rather than extract it from a data set. These studies are unavoidably poorly controlled.

"They" can be a very broad brush. I'm sure there are plenty of nutrition scientists that take their work very seriously.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"They" can be a very broad brush. I'm sure there are plenty of nutrition scientists that take their work very seriously.

lets not split hairs. You can take work seriously and still not do it right.

I haven't seen nutritional research that demonstrates sound conclusions towards any 1 specific diet plan. Those that do tend to make wild assumptions and do not properly control their data (like the expensive tissue hypothesis) - such papers seem to have a conclusion in mind before they start testing which makes some arguments appear very weak if you actually take time to think about them - i.e. sounds good on paper, but doesnt stand up to scrutiny.


Applicable - "creationist" can be subbed as seems appropriate for this thread.

 

[facetguy]

lets not split hairs. You can take work seriously and still not do it right.

I haven't seen nutritional research that demonstrates sound conclusions towards any 1 specific diet plan. Those that do tend to make wild assumptions and do not properly control their data (like the expensive tissue hypothesis) - such papers seem to have a conclusion in mind before they start testing which makes some arguments appear very weak if you actually take time to think about them - i.e. sounds good on paper, but doesnt stand up to scrutiny.


Applicable - "creationist" can be subbed as seems appropriate for this thread.

That doesn't speak too highly of the peer-review process. And I still disagree that ALL nutritional studies are done this way (now if we were talking about pharma studies, I might be with you ). In fact, the author of the A-to-Z trial (which has been mentioned in this thread several times) is a lifelong vegetarian and admits to how surprised he was at the results, i.e. how well the Atkins subjects did.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That doesn't speak too highly of the peer-review process. And I still disagree that ALL nutritional studies are done this way (now if we were talking about pharma studies, I might be with you ). In fact, the author of the A-to-Z trial (which has been mentioned in this thread several times) is a lifelong vegetarian and admits to how surprised he was at the results, i.e. how well the Atkins subjects did.

I didn't say all. I said any that I have seen which are focused on specific fad diets. I've seen plenty of work done that is scientifically sound - they just aren't in the limelight of the naturalistic crowd because the conclusions aren't very spectacular.

 

[facetguy]

I didn't say all. I said any that I have seen which are focused on specific fad diets. I've seen plenty of work done that is scientifically sound - they just aren't in the limelight of the naturalistic crowd because the conclusions aren't very spectacular.

I don't know, the low-carb studies pretty much hold their own. And many have been published in what could be considered good journals (NEJM, JAMA, AJCN, Annals of Internal Med, etc.). The most recent was a systematic review published last week in Obesity Reviews (did we talk about that one already in this thread?...lost track).

[Note: I'm not saying you hate low-carb diets. Please don't say that again.]

 

[facetguy]

Looks like an interesting article, published last month, over 30 pages.
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...7773&fulltextType=RV&fileId=S0954422412000017

Anyone have access to full-text?

Here's the full-text:
http://humanoriginsleiden.org/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/Kuipers%20et%20al%202012.pdf
A multidisciplinary reconstruction of Palaeolithic nutrition that holds promise

for the prevention and treatment of diseases of civilisation

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't know, the low-carb studies pretty much hold their own. And many have been published in what could be considered good journals (NEJM, JAMA, AJCN, Annals of Internal Med, etc.). The most recent was a systematic review published last week in Obesity Reviews (did we talk about that one already in this thread?...lost track).

[Note: I'm not saying you hate low-carb diets. Please don't say that again.]

What I was saying was that the conclusions don't represent the facts. Demonstrating that the ab master doesn't result in spontaneous decapitation isn't the same thing as showing that it cures cancer (or some other nonsense). It works. But any and all other extensions therein are false

 

[facetguy]

What I was saying was that the conclusions don't represent the facts. Demonstrating that the ab master doesn't result in spontaneous decapitation isn't the same thing as showing that it cures cancer (or some other nonsense). It works. But any and all other extensions therein are false

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If, say, a low-carb diet is shown to improve cardiovascular risk factors, how is that conclusion false? Or if Diet A is shown to result in more weight loss than Diet B after 6 months, is that conclusion false? Straighten me out here.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No that is a direct conclusion and is logically sound. However stating that health benefits are evidence of the evolutionary model is an inappropriate leap

 

[CaptainSSO]

lets not split hairs. You can take work seriously and still not do it right.

I haven't seen nutritional research that demonstrates sound conclusions towards any 1 specific diet plan. Those that do tend to make wild assumptions and do not properly control their data (like the expensive tissue hypothesis) - such papers seem to have a conclusion in mind before they start testing which makes some arguments appear very weak if you actually take time to think about them - i.e. sounds good on paper, but doesnt stand up to scrutiny.


Applicable - "creationist" can be subbed as seems appropriate for this thread.

You missed the point of me posting that paper.

The expensive tissue hypothesis was a hypothesis that the their was metabolic trade off b/w gut and brain. The paper you posted said it wasn't the gut but was probably muscle or something else. That's fine. But we still ate meat. That was my point. Evolutionarily, we ate meat. Our bodies did not evolve to eat high carb diets. Historically you can see that diseases of civilization are rare UNTIL refined carbohydrates have been introduced to a population. Introducing refined carbs has been like pouring sugar into a gas tank. If you would read good cals, bad cals, he gives example after example after example of diseases of civilization appearing right after the introduction of refined carbs to a population. You can't seem to get that through your head. Look at the article facetguy posted.

Your cartoon is ironically what Keys did in the 40s and is what led us down this road of high carb diets to begin with.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You missed the point of me posting that paper.

The expensive tissue hypothesis was a hypothesis that the their was metabolic trade off b/w gut and brain. The paper you posted said it wasn't the gut but was probably muscle or something else. That's fine. But we still ate meat. That was my point. Evolutionarily, we ate meat. Our bodies did not evolve to eat high carb diets. You can't seem to get that through your head. Look at the article facetguy posted.

Your cartoon is ironically what Keys did in the 40s and is what led us down this road of high carb diets to begin with.

then you misunderstood your own source....

The expensive tissue hypothesis states that in order to support a large brain that advances in diet were necessary which is why humans have a gut more reminiscent of higher order predators than true omnivores. The paper you posted states that the smaller gut was a secondary result of the diet that was an evolutionary imperative to sustain a large brain (I can quote you the exact parts if you don't believe me....)

The paper I posted discusses tissue trade offs not involving the gut - which means that diet (or more specifically - the CHANGE in diet) need not play a role in development of specialized tissues. A tissue trade off can be achieved with no nutritional alterations.


but seriously.... I am giving you every benefit of the doubt here... This discussion is not about if high carb diets are good, bad, evil, or will give your puppy AIDS.... if you [can] recall, I posted earlier "Please dont use the evolution argument. it is stupid and I hate your face" or something like that. THAT is what we have been discussing and what you have been defending irrationally for the last page or so (I dont actually hate your face - I am sure it is a perfectly fine face ). So lets get this out of the way first and then realize we all agree about the effect of low carb diets (because we do) but when you cap off your argument as you did here I have to assume the thoughts are linked and you still somehow assume I am pro-high carb... and if you assume that... (remember i am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt) I kinda have to assume I have been picking on a special person for the last few days and that would make me sad.

p.s. didnt we talk earlier in this thread about disease and death rates in early societies? I remember looking it up awhile back. It is simply untrue that people were disease-free, relatively or otherwise, before carbs and any data I have seen on the subject doesn't link carbs in a causal manner. Who is to say that the easy energy access that carbs gave didnt increase the life expectancy to a point where illness became more apparent. Without proper calorie levels people who get sick just tend to die off ( just musing here). But even today wiht the horrendous diets we keep - the majority of the health concerns are in people in their 40s and beyond (and no, a link to a 26 year old 600lbs man does not change where the averages lay.... just because I knew that was coming). The health effects associated with a high carb diet don't even really start to take people until at or well after when people were dying anyways a few hundred years ago.

 

[CaptainSSO]

then you misunderstood your own source....

The expensive tissue hypothesis states that in order to support a large brain that advances in diet were necessary which is why humans have a gut more reminiscent of higher order predators than true omnivores. The paper you posted states that the smaller gut was a secondary result of the diet that was an evolutionary imperative to sustain a large brain (I can quote you the exact parts if you don't believe me....)

The paper I posted discusses tissue trade offs not involving the gut - which means that diet (or more specifically - the CHANGE in diet) need not play a role in development of specialized tissues. A tissue trade off can be achieved with no nutritional alterations.

I can't read either paper, only abstracts.

That's fine. Again, the point is, we switched to a primarily meat based diet. Whether or not that had anything to do with the brain.

 

[SpecterGT260]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...uid=70&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21101004008653

Here, specter. I suggest you buy this article, so you stop looking so ignorant.

I can't read either paper, only abstracts.

That's fine. Again, the point is, we switched to a primarily meat based diet. Whether or not that had anything to do with the brain.

it took me 5 seconds and a google to get the whole article after your little quip here. Do you know what the word ignorant means? What about irony?