3 ms·

Nod to that. Where I'm going is the possibility of comparing people with "normal" diets and low-carb diets, and thus running the risk of comparing people who do

Nod to that. Where I'm going is the possibility of comparing people with "normal" diets and low-carb diets, and thus running the risk of comparing people who do not feel compelled to lose weight for health reasons and those who do. Same story as the various vitamin supplementation paradoxes, which can also be influenced by the fact that people supplementing are more likely to have some pre-existing cause to worry about their health.

deeviant 6y ago
The studies control for weight and many other health factors. Controlling for weight basically counters your suggestion outright. There are also many diets that aren't keto so the population of people who felt compelled to lose weight but chose not to do a keto diet, but perhaps a low fat diet (which tends to be high carb) are well represented in the study, once again rebuffing your hypothesis. In terms of your vitamins supplementation paradoxes, which is a separate point. I also disagree with with you there (these supplement studies also control for various health factors as well), and feel it's much more the problem of absolutely no regulation and there really is nobody making sure the supplement contains the thing it says it is in the quantities it says it does, with nothing else. Also people tend to over do things, and over supplement with the "if some is good more is better". Taking to much vitamin C for instance, spikes your iron absorption, and iron is the most powerful oxidant in your body, or just taking too much iron outright. I could go on and on about supplements, but I'll spare you.
- astrostl 6y ago
  "Weight" is a poor control. BMI is a better one. Going back over the study, it looks like the controls are listed in table 2. 12/17 appear to adjust for BMI, with the following note from the authors regarding the resolution: "We were unable to perform a subgroup analysis according to the body-mass index because the mean values were not stated or estimable in the majority of the reports." (emphasis mine) This certainly doesn't throw out the results for me, but I still find myself asking the same question. But moreso the protein vs fat ratio question, as in my reply to the subthread above. With only three macronutrients in play, I can't fathom throwing two of them together.
  - deeviant 6y ago
    You are reading way too far into my words when I'm speaking causally, I do not write my comments in the dense and precise language in which studies are written as it's a bit overwrought for casual discourse. I had hoped you would give me the benefit of the doubt that when I said weight you would take that to mean some sort of levelized metric. The people that do these studies aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are nor are the type of confounding variables you are expressing foreign to them. Not even study can get exactly the quality or quantity of date it wants, that's why its a good idea to look at multiple studies and examine large-scale trends and repeatably, which is the type of studies I linked.
    - astrostl 6y ago
      Some of them did only consider weight. It is the conclusion of the meta itself a mean BMI couldn't be determined from the 12/17 that had it. I don't think those running the studies are at all dumb. They are often focused on specific things, and to the exclusion of generalizable conclusions. I do find it odd that even mean BMI wasn't of apparent interest in diet studies, but I haven't gone thru each sub-study to see why or why not. I wouldn't feel comfortable reading too much into this one's conclusion. "Low-carb w/o any additional specificity looks like bad news" seems technically fair to me, but actual diets are going to tend to distinguish fat and protein as well as their sources so that isn't a a very logical stopping point for an actual decision. Including core concerns like fat vs protein and plant vs animal sources can yield different conclusions, as the meta linked in the sub-thread above did.

deeviant 6y ago

The studies control for weight and many other health factors. Controlling for weight basically counters your suggestion outright. There are also many diets that aren't keto so the population of people who felt compelled to lose weight but chose not to do a keto diet, but perhaps a low fat diet (which tends to be high carb) are well represented in the study, once again rebuffing your hypothesis. In terms of your vitamins supplementation paradoxes, which is a separate point. I also disagree with with you there (these supplement studies also control for various health factors as well), and feel it's much more the problem of absolutely no regulation and there really is nobody making sure the supplement contains the thing it says it is in the quantities it says it does, with nothing else. Also people tend to over do things, and over supplement with the "if some is good more is better". Taking to much vitamin C for instance, spikes your iron absorption, and iron is the most powerful oxidant in your body, or just taking too much iron outright. I could go on and on about supplements, but I'll spare you.

astrostl 6y ago
"Weight" is a poor control. BMI is a better one. Going back over the study, it looks like the controls are listed in table 2. 12/17 appear to adjust for BMI, with the following note from the authors regarding the resolution: "We were unable to perform a subgroup analysis according to the body-mass index because the mean values were not stated or estimable in the majority of the reports." (emphasis mine) This certainly doesn't throw out the results for me, but I still find myself asking the same question. But moreso the protein vs fat ratio question, as in my reply to the subthread above. With only three macronutrients in play, I can't fathom throwing two of them together.
- deeviant 6y ago
  You are reading way too far into my words when I'm speaking causally, I do not write my comments in the dense and precise language in which studies are written as it's a bit overwrought for casual discourse. I had hoped you would give me the benefit of the doubt that when I said weight you would take that to mean some sort of levelized metric. The people that do these studies aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are nor are the type of confounding variables you are expressing foreign to them. Not even study can get exactly the quality or quantity of date it wants, that's why its a good idea to look at multiple studies and examine large-scale trends and repeatably, which is the type of studies I linked.
  - astrostl 6y ago
    Some of them did only consider weight. It is the conclusion of the meta itself a mean BMI couldn't be determined from the 12/17 that had it. I don't think those running the studies are at all dumb. They are often focused on specific things, and to the exclusion of generalizable conclusions. I do find it odd that even mean BMI wasn't of apparent interest in diet studies, but I haven't gone thru each sub-study to see why or why not. I wouldn't feel comfortable reading too much into this one's conclusion. "Low-carb w/o any additional specificity looks like bad news" seems technically fair to me, but actual diets are going to tend to distinguish fat and protein as well as their sources so that isn't a a very logical stopping point for an actual decision. Including core concerns like fat vs protein and plant vs animal sources can yield different conclusions, as the meta linked in the sub-thread above did.