Low and high carb diets increase risk of early death, study finds

[dineshb316]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/17/health/low-carb-high-carbohydrate-diet-risk-of-death-intl/index.html

CNN)A low-carb or high-carb diet raises your risk of death, a new study suggests, with people eating the food staple in moderation seeing the greatest benefits to their health.

Less than 40% or more than 70% of your energy -- or calories -- coming from carbohydrates was associated with the greatest risk of mortality. Eating moderate levels between that range offered the best options for a healthy lifespan.
The lowest risk of an early death was seen where carbs made up 50-55% of a person's diet, according to the study published Thursday.
However, the definition of a low-carb diet had some caveats as not all diets were equal.
People on low-carb diets who replaced their carbohydrates with protein and fats from animals, such as with beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese, had a greater risk of mortality than those whose protein and fats came from plant sources, such as vegetables, legumes, and nuts.

"We need to look really carefully at what are the healthy compounds in diets that provide protection" said Dr. Sara Seidelmann -- a clinical and research fellow in cardiovascular medicine from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston -- who led the research.

Seidelmann warned about the widespread popularity of low-carb diets as a weight loss technique, with people giving up foods such as bread, pasta and potatoes.

Although previous studies have shown such diets can be beneficial for short-term weight loss and lower heart risk, the longer-term impact is proving to have more negative consequences, according to the study.

"Our data suggests that animal-based low carbohydrate diets, which are prevalent in North America and Europe, might be associated with shorter overall life span and should be discouraged," Seidelmann said.

"On an 'average' 2,000 kcal-a-day intake, a diet of 30% calories from carbs equates to only 150g a day, with sugars (natural or 'added') contributing around 50g of that total. With a mere 100g of complex carb a day to play with, a lower intake of cereals, grains, and starchy vegetables is inevitable," said Catherine Collins, a dietitian with the UK's National Health Service, who was not involved in the study.

She added that such diets compromise the essentials of a healthy diet -- dietary fiber to prevent constipation, support control of blood sugar and lower blood cholesterol levels.

Government guidelines in countries like the UK already recommend at least a third of the diet should consist of starchy foods.

The findings "will disappoint those who, from professional experience, will continue to defend their low carb cult, but contributes to the overwhelming body of evidence that supports a balanced approach to caloric intake recommended globally by public health bodies," Collins added.

The team studied more than 15,000 people aged between 45-64 years from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds across four regions of the United States. They then calculated average caloric intake and the proportion of calories coming from different food groups based on questionnaires the participants completed outlining the types of food and drink they consumed, portion sizes and how often they ate. They were then followed up for a median of 25 years, during which time, 6,283 people died......

[Slartibartfast]

What they said seems to be correct from my experience. Low carb diets work for short term weight loss. I was on the keto diet for a few months but it was impossible to keep up with. Some days you just feel horrible and nothing could fix it and well, most of T&T on high carb diets because high carb foods are the cheapest and we see how that turning out. More people overweight and obese now than ever.

I want to hear what they say about intermittent fasting. Less frequent eating so easier to stick to a healthy balanced diet when you have less meals to prepare plus it helps with autophagy and cell regeneration so it is supposed to contribute to longevity.

[maj. tom]

Anyone actually read this BS study?

Method:
We studied 15428 adults aged 45–64 years, in four US communities, who completed a dietary questionnaire at enrolment in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (between 1987 and 1989), and who did not report extreme caloric intake <600 kcal or >4200 kcal per day for men and <500 kcal or >3600 kcal per day for women).

Procedures
Participants completed an interview that included a 66-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), modified from a 61-item FFQ designed and validated by Willett and colleagues,16 at Visit 1 (1987–89) and Visit 3 (1993–95). Participants reported the frequency with which they consumed particular foods and beverages in nine standard frequency categories (extending from never or less than one time per month, to six or more times per day). Standard portion sizes were provided as a reference for intake estimation, and pictures and food models were shown to the participants by the interviewer at each examination. We used the Harvard Nutrient Database to derive nutrient intakes from the FFQ
responses.

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPd ... %2930135-X

*jesus christ facepalm for science*
Oh so scientific. What's bad is that this is reported in MSM, so how will people who will never read the paper, or has no medical scientific background, understand how flawed this study is from the start? This isn't a medical experiment, this is a survey. And people never lie on surveys, or they always know exactly what the questions are asking. They knew exactly how much caloric intake they had in one single day that they took the questionnaire in 1987, and apparently that always held true until their death, where they correlated their mortality rate 25 years later. In only 4 US communities. Apparently their genetics were so diverse and amazing that it also holds true for every genetic variation of the entire population on earth. Surveys are the best method of science

[meccalli]

You secrete amylase in both your salivary glands and pancreas, it's common sense to eat starches. Your body runs on it, the problem is people who want to eat like athletes and live like sloths. The study is wrong as evidenced by real world observation, high carbohydrate diets are the staple of blue zones, the longest living peoples around the world eat primarily starches. Keto has it's use and place, comparison for the sake of weight loss show no real difference, aside from things like satiety. Keto is neuroprotective in the case of impaired glycolysis, but that's not the average person. It bolsters what we always knew about it, it's a useful diet for treating diseases and persons with impaired energy metabolic pathways.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874681/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/

I was on the keto diet for a few months but it was impossible to keep up with.

Kevin Rose is a big keto proponent, developed alot of great apps for it. Even he stopped it recently.

[Miktay]

Anyone actually read this BS study?

Method:
We studied 15428 adults aged 45–64 years, in four US communities, who completed a dietary questionnaire at enrolment in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (between 1987 and 1989), and who did not report extreme caloric intake <600 kcal or >4200 kcal per day for men and <500 kcal or >3600 kcal per day for women).

Procedures
Participants completed an interview that included a 66-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), modified from a 61-item FFQ designed and validated by Willett and colleagues,16 at Visit 1 (1987–89) and Visit 3 (1993–95). Participants reported the frequency with which they consumed particular foods and beverages in nine standard frequency categories (extending from never or less than one time per month, to six or more times per day). Standard portion sizes were provided as a reference for intake estimation, and pictures and food models were shown to the participants by the interviewer at each examination. We used the Harvard Nutrient Database to derive nutrient intakes from the FFQ
responses.

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPd ... %2930135-X

*jesus christ facepalm for science*
Oh so scientific. What's bad is that this is reported in MSM, so how will people who will never read the paper, or has no medical scientific background, understand how flawed this study is from the start? This isn't a medical experiment, this is a survey. And people never lie on surveys, or they always know exactly what the questions are asking. They knew exactly how much caloric intake they had in one single day that they took the questionnaire in 1987, and apparently that always held true until their death, where they correlated their mortality rate 25 years later. In only 4 US communities. Apparently their genetics were so diverse and amazing that it also holds true for every genetic variation of the entire population on earth. Surveys are the best method of science

Regard everything in MSM with skepticism.