5 ms·

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.
- neild 16y ago
  Why these studies do not support your conclusion: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 As has been mentioned by other posters, this study demonstrated that carbohydrate restriction was as effective as extreme calorie restriction (as low as 1200kcal/d!) in causing weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction was better at improving just about every indicator of cardiovascular health that exists--triglyceride levels, HDL levels, blood pressure, etc. The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.) 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 This study is dealing with low glycemic index diets, not low-carb diets. It is largely irrelevant to the discussion. (Note that frucose, a carbohydrate, has a very low glycemic index.) 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 This study deals with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), not carbohydrate-restricted diets in general. I note also that the "high fat" diet in this study only included 35-45% of calories from fat, and about 45% of calories from carbohydrates. In other words, this study does not appear to contain any low-carbohydrate diets, and is again irrelevant to the discussion. 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 This study appears to concern the use of the drug orlistat for weight maintenance following weight loss. Orlistat: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 Leaving aside the rather scary warnings about liver damage, it appears that orlistat is used in conjunction with "an individualized low-calorie, low-fat diet". This paper does not appear to have any relevance to a discussion of carbohydrate-restricted diets. (Except, perhaps, as an argument for the scary side effects of the alternatives.) 5. The link for this is wrong. This appears to be the right one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ The "final nail" in the coffin of carbohydrate restriction, as you put it, appears to be a study comparing a fat-restricted/calorie-unrestricted diet with a calorie-restricted diet. Carbohydrate-restricted diets do not make an appearance. End result: Four irrelevant studies, one which supports carbohydrate restriction as a superior alternative to calorie restriction for weight loss and cardiovascular health.

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.
neild 16y ago
Why these studies do not support your conclusion: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 As has been mentioned by other posters, this study demonstrated that carbohydrate restriction was as effective as extreme calorie restriction (as low as 1200kcal/d!) in causing weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction was better at improving just about every indicator of cardiovascular health that exists--triglyceride levels, HDL levels, blood pressure, etc. The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.) 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 This study is dealing with low glycemic index diets, not low-carb diets. It is largely irrelevant to the discussion. (Note that frucose, a carbohydrate, has a very low glycemic index.) 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 This study deals with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), not carbohydrate-restricted diets in general. I note also that the "high fat" diet in this study only included 35-45% of calories from fat, and about 45% of calories from carbohydrates. In other words, this study does not appear to contain any low-carbohydrate diets, and is again irrelevant to the discussion. 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 This study appears to concern the use of the drug orlistat for weight maintenance following weight loss. Orlistat: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 Leaving aside the rather scary warnings about liver damage, it appears that orlistat is used in conjunction with "an individualized low-calorie, low-fat diet". This paper does not appear to have any relevance to a discussion of carbohydrate-restricted diets. (Except, perhaps, as an argument for the scary side effects of the alternatives.) 5. The link for this is wrong. This appears to be the right one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ The "final nail" in the coffin of carbohydrate restriction, as you put it, appears to be a study comparing a fat-restricted/calorie-unrestricted diet with a calorie-restricted diet. Carbohydrate-restricted diets do not make an appearance. End result: Four irrelevant studies, one which supports carbohydrate restriction as a superior alternative to calorie restriction for weight loss and cardiovascular health.