Talk:Low-carb diet/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 December 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, (new)(back)

[edit] Careful what we write

It's also critical that we be very careful of what we are writing, in the sense that we are only giving information - and the best of what is out there, because we cannot advocate a diet that is not generally and widely accepted within the medical community. there are far too many risks associated with a high fat low carb diet. while it "might" be helpful for short periods, we are not medical experts, and we need to keep that carefully in mind.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I, personally, advocate the diet, but no, the rationalWiki page should not. The information provided should be accurate and well supported. Where science supports specific arguments that should be shown. This is not like infectious disease or cancer, areas where the medical community has made great progress and seen incredible success. Doctors barely get any training in diet and nutrition in med school; there's no recognized specialty for obesity, diet or nutrition. Dietitians are not doctors and the fundamental aspects of what dieticians are taught and practice are not supported by good science. If the medical community is wrong about this (as they were wrong about dietary cholesterol) how will this be corrected if to support their position, people are using false and misleading arguments?
The medical community may dispute the value of low-carb diets, but at least they try to do so in a rational way.CarbShark (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of the medical community, just added that the ADA includes low-carb diets in the their recommendations for weight loss.CarbShark (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The ADA recommends a low carb diet for a specific group of people,
Yes. Obese people with T2Diabetes.
just like other medical groups recommend a high carb diet for people with cancer.
Can you verify that? Since many cancer cells are known to be insulin sensitive and cancer cells cannot metabolize fat or ketones, but only glucose, a high-carb diet doesn't make sense.
A diet getting less then 20g of Carbs a day would require you to eat basically no fruits or vegetables.
That is flat out wrong. The instruction for Atkins is less than 20 g per day, most coming from complex carbs. The best source for complex carbs are non-starchy vegetables. People on Atkins eat lots of green leafy vegetables which also provides better fiber than whole grains.
You can debate the value of grains till the end of days, but I can guarantee you you will never find a doctor who will tell you not to eat fruits or vegetables.
I agree, but that's not the low-carb diet. You will find doctors who will tell you to not each starchy veggies and avoid fruit.
Also, for ketosis to be our natural state, we would have to be carnivores.
We are omnivores, but for most of our existence we had nearly zero simple carbs in our diet. We got our nourishment from animal fats and proteins, mostly, along with gathered nuts, plants and, in season, fruits and veggies. That is a ketogenic diet.
Anyone even loosely familiar with Endurance running hypothesis will tell you that the idea of us being carnivores is frankly hilarious.
Another common misconception. The athletes who actually need carbs are not endurance athletes. It's sprinters, boxers, ball players who have the kinds of exertion that need a ready supply of carbs. Endurance athletes can get by just fine on fat and ketones.CarbShark (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

>>>And even simple sugars are important for your body.

Flat out false. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that simple sugars are important for your body. You body does need glucose, but it will make all the glucose you need from fat and protein. You must have fat and protein in your diet to live, but you can survive without any dietary carbs. But, if you eat food with small amounts of carbs (green veggies) that will provide all you need without having to make your own. ----CarbShark (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

>>>It's also worth noting that medical professionals recommend a diet of 30% fat (preferably essential fatty acids like from fish and nuts), 30-40% protein and 30-40% from carbohydrates. A diet that deprived of carbohydrates will not end well for the dieter.

Those percentages don't match the current nutrition guidelines and the figure provided (30 - 40%) is not what the secondary reference (who is not a "medical professional") says. In fact, those are for a reduced carb diet. The current guidelines specify 40 to 65% of calories from carbs. (and those guidelines are wrong, that is not healthy).----CarbShark (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, fuck off already.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous errors in the new information on the page. There are references to sources that aren't even secondary sources to support information that is even further astray from the mainstream than the low-carb high fat diet is. There are also claims made with references, where the reference directly contradicts the claim made. It's not me that's made the page a mess. As far as I can tell, I'm following the RationalWiki guidelines and getting reverted, but what's on there now is truly a mess. The page as it is now is totally irrational.CarbShark (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I frankly don't give a shit about your opinion.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the RationalWiki guidelines? Do you care about those. This page is an embarrassment. These last edits don't agree with the mainstream position they're defending and don't even agree with the sources cited. Rolling back.--CarbShark (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't listen to Andy on evolution, and we wont listen to you on LCD.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that selective listening in the guidelines. --CarbShark (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ask anyone here if they would listen to Andy's opinion on our evolution article.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I don't think anyone should listen to anyone's opinions on this, yours or mine. I think we should follow the science. Not opinion, not authorities, simply the science and the facts. There is a serious debate going on in science and the media about whether the mainstream positions on diet and nutrition are supported and justified by good, science or not. I can very clearly represent the position of the alternate carbohydrate theory, and support that position with good science. What's on the page now, and with these latest edits, isn't just wrong from the low-carb viewpoint, it's wrong from the mainstream viewpoint too. There are numerous factual errors on the page now that are provably wrong and that are not supported with refs or are directly contradicted by the refs listed. And some of the refs are not to experts or primary sources, or even secondary sources, but to pages that quote secondary sources. This page is a joke. And that's a shame because it doesn't have to be. It could be a fair representation of the science behind both positions. If the balance of the science is more persuasive one way or another, then so be it. That seems more inline with the rational wikki guidelines than your vulgar language and dismissive approach.CarbShark (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You continue bitching, and I'll continue not caring.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Shut up for a minute, Hamilton. Scarlet A.pngsshole 07:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
HSPC is probably the best source for this (you have no right to whine about sources if I can't see any of yours, by the way), but it's not entirely backing you up here. In fact, the underlining point is that the entire effect these materials have on the body is complicated. The health recommendation is to base it on the Glycemic Index rather than "simple" or "complex" precisely because the latter is a terribly reductionist interpretation. Scarlet A.pngbomination 07:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure who you are directing you comments to.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Somebody selectively archived parts of this talk page where I had included a number of references. Also in at least one of my edits that was reverted there were numerous references. CarbShark (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Just made a quick pass indicating areas where citation is needed or citation provided doesn't support the point being made.--CarbShark (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit] This is not making us look good.

We seem to have a conflict between two users, one of whom is a single-issue crusader with an opposing point of view who may or may not know what s/he is talking about but who has, at one point provided a boatload of (potentially valid, potentially dubious) citations for his/her edits, the other of whom is a more established user who basically shuts down what the first editor does with less and less discussion. Meanwhile, at least one other competent and established editor has said that there are some fundamental problems with the article above and beyond the edit-warring. Is there anybody competent who can start to take the article apart and fix it? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't consider Andy's opinion on our articles on evolution, and I don't see why we should bother with his opinion on this article. There are a handful of studies in his favor, and some conditions (diabetes) which do best with this type of diet. But, the overwhelming majority of the science, the opinions of diet/exercise professionals and doctors, and our evolution (as mentioned in the article) contradict his opinion. This diet may not be a fad diet per se, but it is still unhealthy, and the opinion of Carbshark remains irrelevant.
If you would like someone who is immensely qualified to talk about this, you would want to try to get ahold of PalMD. And you don't even need to ask him to do a thorough review, just ask him if eating 20 carbs or less a day (what Carbshark has specifically recommended) is a good thing. I can pretty much guarantee you he will say no.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In sheer terms of weightloss, yes, low-carb diets work. But only because the body uses carbohydrates to store water. Lower levels of carbohydrates in you will decrease your concentration gradient, causing you to store less water, and thus lose mass. You will still store calories, though. So, this article should take into account that while low-carb diets (with calorie limits, naturally) are effective, they are not as effective as balanced low calorie diets combined with exercise.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, there are some risks posed by a high-fat diet. But remember that low-carb doesn't necessarily mean high-fat.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clear; I have no dog in this fight. I don't know, nor do I really care, what low-carb, high-carb, low-fat, or high-fat diets do. I am leaving behind a good-looking corpse, and that's all I care about. I just want the edit-warring to stop and for the project to look as good as I do. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If we get some good input, I can expand/clarify as needed. Any screw ups in the article as it stands are largely my fault anyways. I had this in my sandbox, forgot about it, and decided to publish it without the thorough, indepth review I would have liked.
I would like to apologise for any fuck ups in the article as it stands.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I just looked over the article, and I'm not impressed. If I weren't so lazy, I'd be cleaning it up right now. Just bear in mind a few things:
  1. yes, low-carb diets help you lose weight, but cutting down on carbs alone won't make you more fit, just more slim
  2. Yes, exclusively eating large amounts of fatty foods is bad for you, but low-carb diets don't advocate that (not the ones that don't get shut down by the FDA, at least)
  3. The body will metabolize sugars from lipids if it needs to
--"Shut up, Brx." 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, low-carb diets aren't more effective than low calorie diets--"Shut up, Brx." 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>We seem to have a conflict between two users, one of whom is a single-issue crusader with an opposing point of view who may or may not know what s/he is talking about
I think that's a good summation...--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>provided a boatload of (potentially valid, potentially dubious) citations for his/her edits
In some cases those citations were for RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals, accessible through pubmed. In other cases they were in answer to a specific claim that Atkins did not use science to support it's claims or, and the links were to the Atkins pages demonstrating the opposite.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>Meanwhile, at least one other competent and established editor has said that there are some fundamental problems with the article above and beyond the edit-warring.
This page is a mess no matter what side of the debate you are on. --CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>But, the overwhelming majority of the science, the opinions of diet/exercise professionals and doctors, and our evolution (as mentioned in the article) contradict his opinion. [citation needed]This diet may not be a fad diet per se, but it is still unhealthy[citation needed], and the opinion of Carbshark remains irrelevant.
I agree that my opinion is irrelevant, as is yours or anyone else's. There is a generally broad agreement on the facts in the scientific community, and the biggest differences are on the interpretation of the facts, and the best way to proceed. --CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>If you would like someone who is immensely qualified to talk about this, you would want to try to get ahold of PalMD. And you don't even need to ask him to do a thorough review, just ask him if eating 20 carbs or less a day (what Carbshark has specifically recommended) is a good thing. I can pretty much guarantee you he will say no.
That is an argument from authority (or an argument from what you predict an authority would say.) His opinion is just as irrelevant as mine if he doesn't support it with evidence.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As a point of order; it's not a fallacious argument from authority. In fact, it's a very validone. PalMD is a qualified, actual, medical doctor and researcher with a good track record of discussing health. He's not a major contributor to RW at the moment, but he still has the reputation both here and in the wider blogging world. The only reason to complain about this as an argument from authority would be if you were actively scared that someone highly qualified to read and assess trial data would look it up and call bullshit on it. I'm not saying that is the case, but jumping the gun and accusing people of pulling a fallacious argument before anyone has even spoken is one of those heuristics that suggest it might be the case. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the context of the discussion (x's opinion is not relevant, y's opinion is) then it is an argument from authority, even if the authority is a qualified doctor, researcher, with an outstanding reputation, etc. An argument from a good authority is still an argument from authority. I would say that whether or not that person agreed or disagreed with my position. Of course, if arguments, positions and opinions are backed up by good evidence, then that's different. (This topic, has not been studied as thouroughly as many assume, and many of the mainstream positions are based on very weak science and discredited science.)--CarbShark (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that the man in question is a a trained and acknowledged medical expert who has a proven and documented track record of issuing reliable analyses on medical issues and explaining them in an accessible way, and you are just some guy on the internet who throws up references with no substantial analysis or interpretation thereof, I have a good sense of whose opinion I would take more seriously. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 14:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Just keep in mind there is a fine line between relying on an expert's interpretation of evidence and relying on an argument from authority (same with ad hominem). Because I'm always skeptical, I try to look directly at the evidence, rather than the conclusions. If an expert can't back up his arguments with evidence, his arguments are no better than arguments of "some guy on the internet" not backed up by evidence, and not as good as arguments that are supported by good evidence. Also, in this field in particular, I caution against relying on medical experts whose expertise is not in the field of diet and nutrition. For one thing, diet and nutrition are barely taught in med school, the medical guidelines on the topic are not very helpful, and the state of science in this field is poor. If you're assuming that the mainstream position on x is the best because the mainstream position on a,b,c... is correct, you may be in for a big surprise. The mainstream positions on diet and nutrition is not backed up by the same amount or quality of science as the mainstream positions in nearly any other medical field.--CarbShark (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
>>In sheer terms of weightloss, yes, low-carb diets work. But only because the body uses carbohydrates to store water. [citation needed]
You're a little confused here. Muscles and other tissues store glycogen, whose molecules store water. When you first go on a LCHF diet your body releases its glycogen stores which provides energy and releases water. So some of the initial weight loss on a LCHF diet is due to water. The bulk of the weight loss on a LCHF diet is due to release and metabolism of stored fat.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>Also, there are some risks posed by a high-fat diet. [citation needed] But remember that low-carb doesn't necessarily mean high-fat.
Low-carb necessarily means one of three things: high-fat; high protein or calorie restriction. Atkins and other low-carb diets are low-carb high-fat. LCHF diets have not been proven to pose any health risks, but the opposite. And the science that suggests that high fat diets do pose health risks is very weak.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>Just bear in mind a few things: yes, low-carb diets help you lose weight, but cutting down on carbs alone won't make you more fit, just more slim
The studies I linked to indicate that LCHF diets improve your body composition (lean/fat ratio). So on a LCHF diet you will metabolize stored fat while preserving or building lean tissue, better than any other diet tested.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exclusively eating large amounts of fatty foods is bad for you,[citation needed] but low-carb diets don't advocate that (not the ones that don't get shut down by the FDA, at least)
That's exactly what Atkins and LCHF diets advocate, and, no, they don't get shut down by the FDA.--CarbShark (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
>>The body will metabolize sugars from lipids if it needs to
Not exactly. The body makes glucose (neoglucogenesis) from proteins, and glycerol. The glycerol can come from the breakdown of triglycerides (stored fat).CarbShark (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support