3 ms·

You say "Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more your thrive for them, you think you are hungry but you aren't." Most official nutrition guidelines go

You say "Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more your thrive for them, you think you are hungry but you aren't." Most official nutrition guidelines go along the following line: "An optimum diet contains 45 to 60% of energy from carbohydrates per day for all those over two years of age." http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expid/basics-carbohydrates/ http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi... I know the ketogenic diet is popular in some circles but it goes against all the official recommendations. I understand that official recommendations are not always correct, but when there's a consensus in the medical community, I would think twice before blindly following (what I perceive as) a fad.

ihsw 11y ago
There is a fair bit of science behind it: * British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet" * a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology produced an assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol" Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines. The medical community often moves at a snails pace, there was once a time when doctors didn't wash their hands in hospitals because "a gentleman's hands could not be unclean."[3] [1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9016489 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... [2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesity-with-low-carb-high-fat-ketogenic-diet http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...
- itchyouch 11y ago
  The other thing that the keto proponents really don't promote (or know offhand) is that one can still reap the benefits of keto in a mild nutritional ketogenic state. Dr. Terry Wahls in her book, "The Wahls Protocol" points out research that shows that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) manufacture more ketones per calories than other fats. This allows for a higher uptake of carbs & protein, but with the body still generating a mild excess of ketone bodies. MCTs are basically the richest in coconut oil and palm oil, so a MCT Keto Diet tends to be far more adoptable than a fully keto diet.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  Some studies say the opposite. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed." It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current consensus (given by government guidelines). What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically, replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".
  - ehsanu1 11y ago
    But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me, especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here. A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb diet only last a few weeks - whereas it takes a few weeks for humans to adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump before making any conclusions. Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more details, I'd recommend you get the book.
glossyscr 11y ago
> Most official nutrition guidelines [...] http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi.. http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi.... What else do you expect from Eufic? Shall they say that everybody should switch to protein? Imagine everybody would do so where should they get all the protein for all those people? And who should buy all the carb based products (wheat, sugar, ...) from all those subsidized farmers? Recommending high carb nutrition is the best and cheapest way to keep a nation calm and fed. Besides, in Sweden 20% or more of the people are on low carb.
mistermann 11y ago
There may have been consensus on the official guidelines decades ago, but from any of the reading I did back when I was on the diet, it is largely accepted that the various food pyramids are out of date and scientifically incorrect.
pmichaud 11y ago
I think it's reasonable to be modeling the official recommendations as "the scientific and medical consensus," but if you looked a little into how the official guidelines are actually created--who creates them, and how the information is selected--you'd drastically downgrade your trust of them. I did this, and found that the official guidelines have almost nothing to do with any science at all, never mind any scientific consensus.

ihsw 11y ago

There is a fair bit of science behind it: * British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet" * a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology produced an assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol" Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines. The medical community often moves at a snails pace, there was once a time when doctors didn't wash their hands in hospitals because "a gentleman's hands could not be unclean."[3] [1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9016489 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... [2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesity-with-low-carb-high-fat-ketogenic-diet http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...

itchyouch 11y ago
The other thing that the keto proponents really don't promote (or know offhand) is that one can still reap the benefits of keto in a mild nutritional ketogenic state. Dr. Terry Wahls in her book, "The Wahls Protocol" points out research that shows that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) manufacture more ketones per calories than other fats. This allows for a higher uptake of carbs & protein, but with the body still generating a mild excess of ketone bodies. MCTs are basically the richest in coconut oil and palm oil, so a MCT Keto Diet tends to be far more adoptable than a fully keto diet.
yodsanklai 11y ago
Some studies say the opposite. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed." It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current consensus (given by government guidelines). What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically, replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".
- ehsanu1 11y ago
  But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me, especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here. A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb diet only last a few weeks - whereas it takes a few weeks for humans to adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump before making any conclusions. Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more details, I'd recommend you get the book.

glossyscr 11y ago

> Most official nutrition guidelines [...] http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi.. http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi.... What else do you expect from Eufic? Shall they say that everybody should switch to protein? Imagine everybody would do so where should they get all the protein for all those people? And who should buy all the carb based products (wheat, sugar, ...) from all those subsidized farmers? Recommending high carb nutrition is the best and cheapest way to keep a nation calm and fed. Besides, in Sweden 20% or more of the people are on low carb.

mistermann 11y ago

There may have been consensus on the official guidelines decades ago, but from any of the reading I did back when I was on the diet, it is largely accepted that the various food pyramids are out of date and scientifically incorrect.

pmichaud 11y ago

I think it's reasonable to be modeling the official recommendations as "the scientific and medical consensus," but if you looked a little into how the official guidelines are actually created--who creates them, and how the information is selected--you'd drastically downgrade your trust of them. I did this, and found that the official guidelines have almost nothing to do with any science at all, never mind any scientific consensus.