5 ms·

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 (No difference with carb restrictions vs. fat restrictions) No diffe

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 (No difference with carb restrictions vs. fat restrictions) No difference? "A low-carbohydrate diet, which consisted of limited carbohydrate intake (20 g/d for 3 months) in the form of low-glycemic index vegetables with unrestricted consumption of fat and protein." (emphasis mine) "During the first 6 months, the low-carbohydrate diet group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure, triglyceride levels, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lesser reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and more adverse symptoms than did the low-fat diet group. The low-carbohydrate diet group had greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at all time points, approximating a 23% increase at 2 years." That's a pretty big difference if you ask me. The low-carb group was not calorie-restricted. The low-carb group had more positive changes in the most important heart disease indicators (VLDL and HDL). Notably, the HDL increase is very important.

KirinDave 16y ago
I meant within the context of weight loss and long term results. I did not mean to imply there are no differences, and I welcome a clarification there. And even if I did read a few of them wrong, I'm fine with that. I want people to talk in terms of evidence and fact, not "this very smart doctor's blog" or "this book hawking yet another clever secret diet". That's of far more value to the news.ycomb community, and if it costs me a few bruises to my ego, so be it. These studies are accessible and readable, let's use them.
- rubashov 16y ago
  Unfortunately, simple citations aren't really a way to keep things tied to fact. Most studies are garbage. It really takes a book or two to lay out a case.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    I tried to select large studies from journals with good indexes. Please give examples of why these studies are bad. In particular the last one i cited, as that seemed quite large and the methodology seems sound.
    - rubashov 16y ago
      Actually, I agree the last study looks ok. The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion. It's about MUFA, which nobody is talking about. Fully saturated fat is the recommendation. I don't think there's actually much debate the old recommendation to guzzle olive oil was garbage. The problem is people are still advising against butter and bacon, which is wrong. An issue with the study is they're claiming a diet that's over half carbohydrates is "high fat". No, over 60% fat would be high fat.
      - KirinDave 16y ago
        > The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. While there may be additional effects, the general results strongly suggest that barring pre-existing health conditions, it seems very likely that a modestly restricted diet and regular exercise is the best way to lose weight known to modern science. And keep in mind: specialty diets don't work. So even if we do discover some clever metabolic hacking that lets people lose weight fast, it's not of much value to the discourse at hand about public health. People can't maintain diets.
        rubashov 16y ago
        You don't think there's a difference between downing a cup or two of olive oil a day vs a stick of butter? That's a huge difference. They're chemically very different things. You don't think eating two sticks of butter a day vs one stick of butter plus half a loaf of bread is different? > People can't maintain diets People can easily maintain high saturated fat diets. They can't maintain calorie restricted diets. You'll get zero debate from me there's not really a quick hack and a key component of the obesity epidemic, perhaps the single biggest issue, is that people are lazy and gluttonous. But the fact remains the obesity epidemic exploded immediately after saturated fat as a percentage of calories came way down. Fructose is the other factor; it went way up.
        neild 16y ago
        What does the fifth study cited (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 -- note that the link provided in the original post is wrong) have to do with carbohydrate-restricted diets? Carbohydrate restriction makes no appearance in the study.
- scotje 16y ago
  Good Calories, Bad Calories has a pretty robust bibliography, and the author, Gary Taubes, is a well respected science reporter. It would be a mistake to characterize his book in the way you have. Check it out from the library and read some of it yourself. :)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I tried to read most of Good Calories, Bad Calories, but in the end felt no smarter than before. Yes, he dug up a lot of documents, but I can not verify them myself. Most diet "philosophies" can cite any number of research articles (as Taube himself explains in every chapter - it's just that almost all studies seem to have flaws). It actually made me distrust the book a little bit that it was so badly organized. That is, rather than arguing a point well, it just dumps an insurmountable heap of information on the reader.

KirinDave 16y ago

I meant within the context of weight loss and long term results. I did not mean to imply there are no differences, and I welcome a clarification there. And even if I did read a few of them wrong, I'm fine with that. I want people to talk in terms of evidence and fact, not "this very smart doctor's blog" or "this book hawking yet another clever secret diet". That's of far more value to the news.ycomb community, and if it costs me a few bruises to my ego, so be it. These studies are accessible and readable, let's use them.

rubashov 16y ago
Unfortunately, simple citations aren't really a way to keep things tied to fact. Most studies are garbage. It really takes a book or two to lay out a case.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  I tried to select large studies from journals with good indexes. Please give examples of why these studies are bad. In particular the last one i cited, as that seemed quite large and the methodology seems sound.
  - rubashov 16y ago
    Actually, I agree the last study looks ok. The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion. It's about MUFA, which nobody is talking about. Fully saturated fat is the recommendation. I don't think there's actually much debate the old recommendation to guzzle olive oil was garbage. The problem is people are still advising against butter and bacon, which is wrong. An issue with the study is they're claiming a diet that's over half carbohydrates is "high fat". No, over 60% fat would be high fat.
    - KirinDave 16y ago
      > The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. While there may be additional effects, the general results strongly suggest that barring pre-existing health conditions, it seems very likely that a modestly restricted diet and regular exercise is the best way to lose weight known to modern science. And keep in mind: specialty diets don't work. So even if we do discover some clever metabolic hacking that lets people lose weight fast, it's not of much value to the discourse at hand about public health. People can't maintain diets.
      - rubashov 16y ago
        You don't think there's a difference between downing a cup or two of olive oil a day vs a stick of butter? That's a huge difference. They're chemically very different things. You don't think eating two sticks of butter a day vs one stick of butter plus half a loaf of bread is different? > People can't maintain diets People can easily maintain high saturated fat diets. They can't maintain calorie restricted diets. You'll get zero debate from me there's not really a quick hack and a key component of the obesity epidemic, perhaps the single biggest issue, is that people are lazy and gluttonous. But the fact remains the obesity epidemic exploded immediately after saturated fat as a percentage of calories came way down. Fructose is the other factor; it went way up.
      - neild 16y ago
        What does the fifth study cited (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 -- note that the link provided in the original post is wrong) have to do with carbohydrate-restricted diets? Carbohydrate restriction makes no appearance in the study.
scotje 16y ago
Good Calories, Bad Calories has a pretty robust bibliography, and the author, Gary Taubes, is a well respected science reporter. It would be a mistake to characterize his book in the way you have. Check it out from the library and read some of it yourself. :)
- Tichy 16y ago
  I tried to read most of Good Calories, Bad Calories, but in the end felt no smarter than before. Yes, he dug up a lot of documents, but I can not verify them myself. Most diet "philosophies" can cite any number of research articles (as Taube himself explains in every chapter - it's just that almost all studies seem to have flaws). It actually made me distrust the book a little bit that it was so badly organized. That is, rather than arguing a point well, it just dumps an insurmountable heap of information on the reader.