5 ms·
This presentation conveniently forgot to mention the ill effects, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, resulting as a consequence of getting "80% o
by noondip 11y ago
This presentation conveniently forgot to mention the ill effects, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, resulting as a consequence of getting "80% of your calories from fat" and just how unsustainable this way of eating is. I much prefer a high-carb, low-fat vegan diet which has many more benefits and is overall healthier, more sustainable. It's strange people still go for low-carb, ketogenic diets given how much research shows its harms (for example, http://atkinsexposed.org/ http://atkinsexposed.org/). It's also puzzling why one would not prefer the only diet clinically proven to reverse heart disease, the top cause of death in the US.
- e40 11y agoThe only evidence you provide is from a site that has clear biases against a diet which has a heavy non-vegan component. See the the Talk section of the Atkins page on wikipedia (search for the referenced website): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atkins_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atkins_diet EDIT: for those downvoting. Look at the "Expert opinions" section, it has the details that others have given about the referenced site.
- noondip 11y agoSorry, what should I be looking at on there? If you want evidence for eating high-carb vegan over low-carb keto, read dietary guidelines from any non-profit nutritional or health authority. They all uniformly and strongly advise people away from animal products and on to low-fat starchy vegetables and fruit.
- e40 11y agoThe "Expert opinions" section.
- noondip 11y agoA few people discussing the website somehow invalidates it and its thousand-plus cited references? I don't think so.
- hueving 11y agoScience isn't a democracy. If they are wrong, it doesn't matter how many people cited it. Look at what happened with the austerity paper.
- omginternets 11y agoWhat a strange view of science...
- Kinnard 11y agoI don't think it forgot to mention them. I think it's arguing against them. I think the presenter who has an MD and a PhD from the WashU School of Medicine and a BA in Biology from Princeton (Of course I don’t think that having a diploma (or three) from a University makes what you say any more or any less true[0]) is arguing against the lipid hypothesis[1] and for the sugar hypothesis[2]: that sugar is actually the cause of all those ill effects. There doesn't seem to be a consensus, though in the past the consensus seemed to be for the lipid hypothesis though that appears to be rapidly breaking down. [0] Lots of people without degrees of any sort are saying the same thing, they’re all just as right/wrong [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis [2] https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2006/01/05/the-sugar-hypothesis/ https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2006/01/05/the-sugar-hypothe...
- noondip 11y agoI laugh at lipid hypothesis deniers. It's as if several decades worth of research is worth nothing to them. Akin to climate change deniers, they seem to vehemently cling to their beliefs for ideological or financial reasons only.
- ferrari8608 11y agoI recommend you read The Fig Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. You will be quite surprised how completely wrong your view on the subject is.
- noondip 11y agoLikewise, except my recommendation for you is How Not to Die by Michael Greger, or just see http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ghostbrainalpha 11y ago
- vikas5678 11y agoPlease don't link to websites with a clear agenda against Atkins. A search of pubmed will reveal the positive effects of Atkins and similar diets on weight-loss, regulating insulin levels, energy levels, etc.
- noondip 11y agoKindly share such articles here, so we can all have a good laugh at their methodology, sources of funding and obvious biases. I have read many pro-Atkins papers and it would amuse me greatly if you would honor my request. Edit: It's very amusing people would rather angrily downvote than accept my challenge, do the research and have the humility to realize and admit they're being misinformed completely by low-carb nonsense.
- vikas5678 11y agoNot sure if its worth responding to your tone, but here you go. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015695 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015695 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
- noondip 11y agoThank you and I apologize for offending you. Both of those studies are too small and too short. The second article even says, "questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms," so it doesn't address my original concerns. Short-term decreases in blood sugar, cholesterol, and triglycerides are a result of suppression of appetite, followed by semi-starvation, which are the underlying mechanisms of a ketogenic diet, and are not sustainable in the long-term.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoSugar: the Bitter Truth thoroughly deconstructs a lot of what you are saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ
- myztic 11y agoWe know far less about nutrition than we think we do. So if you know about risks and are careful about it, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with trying out various things. Regarding meat though, a lot of it is panic. The problem is that it's very hard to conduct proper studies analysing this. 'Observational studies' are useless, because if I take a randomized group of meat-eaters versus vegans, of course the latter group will be significantly more healthy. Vegans are most likely more concerned about their health in general which means less smoking, less alcohol being consumed, healthier sleep, they buy higher quality food in general, due to lack of choice when out in public they cook more themselves (they won't stop at a fast food restaurant), et cetera ... and then there is the Placebo effect, which is very powerful and should not be under-estimated. The scientific data is not as clear as one might think, and "nutritionists" in general are pseudo-scientists at their best since you can find a study for anything. If not with humans, then with mice, or maybe just some study with some cells. The same with internet sites by the way. And Atkins strictly speaking is not the same as the traditional Ketogenic Diet. Regarding books about nutrition for example, I happen to agree with this reviewer of "The China Study" (not the original one, you'll see) http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3UR35AKTEYW43/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1932100660#R3UR35AKTEYW43 http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3UR35AKTEYW43/ref... If anyone wants to find serious information about nutrition, you should search for meta-studies, for example by the Cochrane Collaboration, and then you should read the abstract very carefully and not insert your wishful thinking into it.
- noondip 11y agoThere is a lot of damning evidence against eating animals and their products, yet none seems present against eating whole food, high-carb vegan. This much seems perfectly clear from scientific literature and has been for decades. The review you agree with has no citations, lacks credibility and makes dubious claims, like "Researchers still have trouble proving high cholesterol is associated with heart disease" which are patently false.
- mingabunga 11y agoAtkins is high protein. Keto is high fat.
- brandonmenc 11y agoHyper-responders. (if anyone more knowledgeable can correct me, by all means do so, because I don't even know if this is true) Supposedly, 1/3 of the population are hyper-responsive to dietary cholesterol - as in, consuming it raises their blood cholesterol. The other 2/3 can eat a high animal fat diet and see little to no change in blood cholesterol. If true, those numbers are probably enough to clinically prove that a high fat diet is, in general, bad, while simultaneously giving millions of people the ability to go keto and say, "see, it's healthy, doctors don't know what they're talking about!" The problem is that most people don't know if they're hyper-responders so promoting a high fat diet as healthy for everyone is irresponsible. I'm just talking about cholesterol here. Avoiding red meat and eating plant fiber seem to provide benefits besides just lowering cholesterol.
- jzig 11y ago> It's also puzzling why one would not prefer the only diet clinically proven to reverse heart disease, the top cause of death in the US. Because bacon is delicious. Mmmmmmmmm.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- omginternets 11y ago>It's also puzzling why one would not prefer the only diet clinically proven to reverse heart disease, the top cause of death in the US. Because it really isn't. The dietary recommendations we get from the USDA are soiled with non-scientific politics (see: http://goo.gl/bjk0Ik http://goo.gl/bjk0Ik). Moreover, the state of nutritional epidemiology is absolutely abysmal -- even worse than social psychology -- so you have to be very careful about which papers you take seriously. The fact that it's still possible to publish studies relying on BMI is a disgrace, as is the fact that they're still applying linear models to body-mass/mortality curves, which are known to be U-shaped. Moreover, if you were to go on pubmed instead of pro-vegan sites, you'd find plenty of papers that raise serious questions as to the link between various types of fat and CHD (not to mention glycemic load and all that other jazz). Here's a good starting point: http://goo.gl/ObRJAx http://goo.gl/ObRJAx Assuming you're serious about health, rather than being vegan for reasons pertaining to animal rights, I encourage you to read both of these papers. In all seriousness, though, I doubt any of this will change your mind, as I strongly suspect you're vegan for other reasons.
- noondip 11y agoPlease, not Gary Taubes - see http://plantpositive.com/1-the-journalist-gary-taubes-1/ http://plantpositive.com/1-the-journalist-gary-taubes-1/ The second paper you've linked, the systematic review, is actually mostly in favor of a vegan diet. How does that raise questions about consuming animal fat and CHD?
- omginternets 11y agoWe can criticize Taubes for his low-carb advocacy, but that article is only indirectly related to low-carb diets: it's about how the USDA standards were determined. Moreover, a rebuttal from a site called "plant positive" hardly stacks up against a peer-reviewed source... just saying... The second paper draws distinctions between several forms of fat hilighting the weak evidentiary link between most fats and CHD. Trans fats are an obvious exception. I posted it in response to the claim that low-fat diets are almost certainly healthier. At the very least, that paper reveals that eating meat isn't incompatible with longevity and good health, contrary to claims you've been making all over this comments section. But since you asked, here's what 5s on sci-hub revealed, clicking literally on the first two links without looking: - http://goo.gl/tWB3LA http://goo.gl/tWB3LA // Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency - http://search.proquest.com.sci-hub.io/docview/197420736?pq-origsite=gscholar http://search.proquest.com.sci-hub.io/docview/197420736?pq-o... // yeah, ok, it's raw-vegan, but the B12 issue applies to all vegans (as noted in the refs of paper 1), especially since many can't seem to distinguish between B12 contents and bioavailable B12 ... To be clear, my claim isn't that vegan diets are unhealthy. Rather, it's that we don't really know much due to the poor state of nutritional epidemiology, and that there's at least some evidence showing that veganism is really hard to get right.
- CountSessine 11y agoInteresting. Just a personal question - have you ever been clinically obese (25% body fat or more) for an extended period of time (2 or more years)?