Talk:Low-carb diet/Archive4

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.Godot 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)

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)

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:
 * yes, low-carb diets help you lose weight, but cutting down on carbs alone won't make you more fit, just more slim
 * 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)
 * 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. This diet may not be a fad diet per se, but it is still unhealthy, 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."
 * 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. 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, 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)

Ketosis -- this is wrong
Here is a good example of the kind of edit I think is needed:
 * Ketosis, while safe in the short term, carries serious risks in any long term situation --http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180858.php --

The problem is first, no where in the linked article does it support the statement that ketosis "carries serious risks in any long term situation." In fact, it simply recognizes there is some doubt. Second, this is an old article (2008), but to this date there has not been one single study showing that ketosis "carries serious risks" or that LCHF diets do, for that matter. I suggest the following:
 * Ketosis is safe in the short term and there is no evidence it causes harm in the long term.

I think that's reasonable.--CarbShark (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the article, but nice try.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only did I read the article, but I also followed the links in the article, read those and looked up claims on pub-med. (did you?) If this article is considered support for the claim that ketosis is bad, or carries risks, then that's a symptom of a bigger problem.
 * This graph: "Long-term low-carb diets have been associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis, especially among postmenopausal women" is odd because if you read the page its linked to it does not mention low carb diets or ketosis at all. (This is one reason why I don't rely on secondary sources.) Instead, the page reference high protein diets, and even then, more recent studies found those diets to be preventative of osteoperosis.
 * Protein intake and bone health. [Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22139564
 * There is no evidence that high protein intake per se would be detrimental for bone mass and strength. Nevertheless, it appears reasonable to avoid very high protein diets (i. e. more than 2.0 g/kg body weight/day) when associated with low calcium intake (i. e. less than 600 mg/day). In the elderly, taking into account the attenuated anabolic response to dietary protein with ageing, there is concern that the current dietary protein recommended allowance (RDA), as set at 0.8 g/kg body weight/day, might be too low for the primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures.
 * Acid diet (high-meat protein)... [Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20717017
 * On the basis of recent findings, consuming protein (including that from meat) higher than current Recommended Dietary Allowance for protein is beneficial to calcium utilization and bone health, especially in the elderly. A high-protein diet with adequate calcium and fruits and vegetables is important for bone health and osteoporosis prevention.
 * [Ketogenic diets: additional benefits to ... [Arch Latinoam Nutr. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19368291
 * It is also necessary to emphasize that as well as the weight loss, ketogenic diets are healthier because they promote a non-atherogenic lipid profile, lower blood pressure and diminish resistance to insulin with an improvement in blood levels of glucose and insulin. Such diets also have antineoplastic benefits, do not alter renal or liver functions, do not produce metabolic acidosis by Ketosis, have many neurological benefits in central nervous system, do not produce osteoporosis and could increase the perfomance in aerobic sports.
 * --CarbShark (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Macronutrients, this is nonsense
This first section ("Carb, protein, fat") is nonsense. This is one area where I think that experts on both sides of this argument pretty much agree on what macronutrients are and what they do, but what's here is just flat out wrong. “Finally is carbohydrates, protein, and fat. These are macronutrients and they give your body calories. ... Each one plays a different role in your body ...The short version is that fat is used by your body to maintain things like your skin, hair, fingernails and teeth, protein is used to build and maintain muscles, some internal organs, and the like. Normally, carbohydrates are used to fuel everything else, especially your nervous system and your brain. ... There's a huge and technical listing of things that each one does and how they function, and their relation to each other and every other element of your nutrition, especially when you start talking about the different kinds of carbohydrates, protein, and fat. ...Remember: There are actually different kinds of each of these, each one does a different, more specific thing in your body.” This is all nonsense. Fat provides energy in the form of free fatty acids or ketone bodies. Muscles, organs and the brain can all directly metabolize free fatty acids and/or ketone bodies. Plus, if you buy the calorie is a calorie model, then this is even more absurd. Fat and carbs provide energy that can be metabolized or stored. Protein can also provide energy, or the amino acids can be used for nutrition.

Also the information provided in references is also wrong:

"“Even though it isn't a macronutrient, alcohol also gives calories, specifically 7 per gram of alcohol”"

Alcohol is carbohydrate.

Also I question the quality of this reference "The Fighters Body, Loren W. Christensen and Wim Demeere" Seriously? A martial arts book as a source for the science of diet and nutrition?

I am going to replace this section with well referenced fact based description that experts on both sides can agree on.--CarbShark (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Recommended macronutrient distribution ranges
Hey all. Great work on the article so far ! One particular statement that concerns me is the following
 * ''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

under the section 'The basic low-carb theory', reference given to a Livestrong article.  These provided ranges for carbohydrate and protein are actually significantly'' outside the macronutrient recommendations of mainstream health authorities (as well as those given in the article the original author referenced) -- notably, the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR), published by the Institute of Medicine and utilized by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the licensing organization for registered dieticians [RDs]) and the recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO). Additionally fat intake is usually expressed as a range and not a single percentage target of 30 % (perhaps the original author meant this as an upper limit of intake, as this would be in line with recommendations from the aforementioned authorities, but ideally should be explicitly listed as an upper limit or preferably as a range of acceptable intake):


 * The AMDR is recognized by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics as tool for RDs to plan diets for members of the general population, particularly their energy distribution with regards to macronutrients
 * American Dietetic Association offers guide to help dietetics professionals use Dietary Reference Intakes to help people plan nutritious diets


 * IOM's DRI for macronutrients -- the AMDR. Specifically 45 to 65 % of the diet from carbohydrate, 20 to 35 % from fat and 10 to 35 % from protein
 * Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes: Macronutrients

The recommendations of the World Health Organization are roughly similar to those of the IOM:
 * Fifty percent of dietary energy minimum derived from carbohydrate
 * European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - FAO/WHO Scientific Update on carbohydrates in human nutrition: conclusions


 * Twenty to thirty percent of dietary energy from fatty acids for sedentary to moderately active individuals, up to 35 percent for very active individuals
 * http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf (page 55)


 * Protein requirements as a distribution range from the WHO appear to be quite difficult to find, but are available as recommendation of 0.83 g protein / kg of body weight, with a note that intakes of up to twice the recommendation are likely to be safe. It should be noted that the recommendations are based on proteins with a PDCAAS score of 1.0, which includes most animal sources of protein and those plant sources that are either higher-quality or complete (e g, soy, quinoa, amaranth). 0.83 to 1.66 g protein amounts to 3.32 to 6.64 kcal, which for a 2000-kcal diet would be something like .166 to .332 % of the diet from protein per kg of bodyweight. As a quick and dirty example, a 65 kg adult eating said 2000 kcal diet could consume between 10.79 and 21.58 % of his or her dietary energy from protein while adhering to this recommendation. It is a bit problematic, in my opinion, however to distill the WHO protein recommendation into a distribution range as a percentage of dietary energy derived from protein in this manner, as human energy needs generally increase with height and lean body mass and will therefore vary between individuals, making it unreasonable to use an assumed diet of 2000 kcal to yield a general percentage distribution for the entire population. A more-complex formula of something like (332 to 664 / total energy intake in kcal) * bodyweight in kg I suppose could be placed in the article, but I think just placing the 0.83 to 1.66 g protein per kg bodyweight recommendation from the table and perhaps a couple of examples demonstrating how low their recommendation is in comparison to normal intakes along with a statement, such as 'the WHO's recommendation appears to be within the lower part of the range recommended in the AMDR' would be a lot more approachable and reader-friendly.
 * Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition (page 242)

Overall, I think we should make changes to this part of the article to bring our description of the recommended intakes by medical professionals in line with actual recommendations from health authorities. Additionally, I think it might be a good idea to add a note or sentence that dietary recommendations are occasionally made that would fall outside of this range, such as the common recommendation from the American Diabetes Association to keep net carbs between 45 and 60 per meal for persons with diabetes (yielding a ratio with a higher percentage from fat and proteins and lower in carbohydrate), ketogenic diets used for management of epilepsy (carbs and protein both at absolute minimal levels to maintain ketosis, the latter to discourage gluconeogenesis via deamination) or fats in the diet limited to 10 % of total dietary energy, used experimentally in therapeutic plant based-diets for treatment of heart disease (e g, in studies carried out by Drs Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn) but that diets such as these that fall significantly outside of the recommendations for the general population are best attempted only under supervision of a dietetics professional (RD) or physician.

I'd be happy to make the changes myself, but first wanted to get others' opinions and/or approvals before doing so.

Thanks for reading, everyone ^^, --Ashenst8 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does it seem to work? section
"So, why do low carb diets seem to work? Well its because if you follow them, you eat less calories. Simple as that. When you cut carbs you cut out of your diet breads and grains which tend to have a very high calorie density, basically they have a lot of calories for how much stuff is in them."

This is bullshit, as in clinical trials the carbohydrates are replaced and not omitted (and with very good results).


 * Cite what you take to be the most relevant trial or two in regard to your claim. Shirtsleeves (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

This is billshot. I don't like the way this section is written. Not only the quality of the writing (grammar) is subpar, it's vague, hard to read, and just sounds overall really dumb and uninformed. The section thinks that breads and grains have high calorie density, so it's not fulfilling, but fiber is technically a carbohydrate. Are you telling me that quinoa, a grain, is not fulfilling? The section fails to distinguish "complex carbohydrates" and "simple carbohydrates", so I'd support a rewrite, if not outright removal. LEFTY GREEN  MARIO 01:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Need for critical thinking
I just stopped by this article. It surprised me as quite lacking in critical thinking and some basic facts of human nutrition. I don't think I want to edit it because it looks like you already have a nice edit war going on :-) For example, there is a claim that carbohydrates are an essential nutrient that body needs. This is not the case; while glucose has an essential role in the body, protein and fat can be metabolized to glucose. This is how, for example, the Inuit survived, doing quite well before the modern western-pattern diet brought them type-2 diabetes, etc. Also, please remember that dietary guidelines (e.g., Canada Food Guide) are based on low-quality observational evidence, which requires thorough reading, critical thinking, and cautious interpretation; something the average health professional does quite poorly. Let me give you an example: there are plenty of epidemiological studies linking moderate consumption of alcohol to better cardiac outcomes (e.g, fewer heart attacks). This is commonly misinterpreted as 'alcohol prevents heart disease'. In fact the heart disease outcome is not caused by the exposure (alcohol/no alcohol) but by a 'healthy cohort effect': drinkers tend to be younger, and people who don't drink are often older, with more pre-existing illnesses (i.e., many medications don't combine well with alcohol). Adjusting for baseline differences in age & illness obliterates the apparent positive effect of alcohol. Dietary guidelines say 'use skim milk' and 'reduce dietary cholesterol' when in fact there is little to no evidence that full-fat dairy is unhealthful, and no relationship between dietary cholesterol and plasma cholesterol. I could go on. The fact is that you absolutely cannot repeat nutritional mantras (carbs good! fat bad!) or rely on 'expert opinion'. So when a dietary guideline says 'eat 45%-65% carbs', you can't just *believe that*. What's the evidence? What comparison is the interpretation based on? How were the studies controlled? I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that you need that many carbs. Additionally, the evidence supporting the health benefits of grains are based on comparisons of whole vs. white grains. You'd need a 'no grain' control group to demonstrate that grains are an essential part of the diet. Thanks, Tanya. 18:17, 6 December 2014
 * I too am really shocked at the shallow level of critical analysis, on this entire site. For something called "Rational Wiki", the amount of irrational dogmatic content borders on the hilariously ironic. 104.228.164.105 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Some comments
I do not think that this article is written well enough. It makes too many assumptions without good science to back them up. Just a few points.

First: many human populations in history have lived as hunters in regions where carbohydrates are seasonally or year-round unavailable. This is in direct contradiction to the "Your body needs carbohydrates to survive" claim. It does not, at least not *dietary* carbohydrates (technically, body will internally produce some glycogen from your food, as mentioned in the article). I do not think that you can find any scientific research making the claim that periodic or even total absence of carbohydrates from diet will shorten your life span etc. Too many healthy hunters in Siberia, the Arctic etc. seem to thrive quite well and live long. On the other hand, without fat or protein you will deteriorate and die in matter of months, no matter what else you eat. *These* are essential macronutrients.

Second: it isn't a good idea to argue about energy use of ancient hunters and take modern sports as an anology. Modern cycling or long distance running is very different from hunting. Actual hunters do not run for miles and miles and miles on smooth surface. The terrain is usually too rough to do that. The traditional hunters mix walking, waiting and very fast bursts of running. From my personal experience as a long-distance hiker, which is, too, a mix of "walk fast - walk slower - sit down for a while - run a bit" activities, my body does perform very well in such conditions without carbs, actually even better than with them (the level of subjective energy and wellness does not fluctuate as much if you do not swing your insulin levels). Of course, your experience may be different. It might be true that without carbs, reaching record speeds or durations is impossible. But that is not a typical human activity.

Third: while there is significant evidence that trans fats are dangerous for your health, there is no such evidence for saturated fats. The hypothesis about dangers of saturated fats has come into existence as a pure speculation, when it was observed that statins tend to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease at the same time. It was speculated then that saturated fats, which increase cholesterol levels, will have the opposite effect. But AFAIK this hasn't been proven at all, despite some efforts. (Note that mammalian fat tissue consists of some 60 per cent of saturated fat. That includes humans. If saturated fat increases risks of diseases, it means that mammal physiology is, under normal conditions, willing to store a lot of harmful stuff in body cells. While this is certainly possible, it is definitely source of some doubt for me.)

Fourth: human physiology is comparable to the physiology of chimps, but that does not mean that we could eat the same things that chimps do. Modern humans have lived in temperate and subarctic regions for ages, and these regions do not have as much fruit available as the tropical forest does. There probably was some adaptation in the meantime. I am not saying with certainty that there was, but that the argument from comparison with chimps is weak. We are a few million years apart & we have lived in different conditions, so there may be very significant nutritional differences.
 * This is a buncha "paleo" pseudoscience. Making up a human history, and then asserting that fictitious history is "natural" and thus healthy.  Cite your facts.  We do.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what exactly do you dispute? That ancient humans were mostly hunters and gatherers? That there is shortage of carbs in winter in the temperate and subarctic regions? That frequency of modern diseases such as obesity, diabetes and most cancers in hunter-gatherer populations, both historic and contemporary, is very low, bordering on nonexistent? I am willing to discuss all of these, but I cannot accept your claim that I have somehow "made up" fictitious human history. Please point out any concrete points that you disagree with or that you deem fictitional. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.113.52.218 / talk / contribs 10:21, 18 March 2015‎
 * I don't have any expertise on this topic or sources to cite, but are you sure they didn't suffer from obesity and diabetes at the time because there wasn't enough food for that to occur and that cancers didn't occur because they died of things like infectious diseases and being mauled by bears before they could have the chance to catch them? TheSocktor (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. You make very good points, which, nonetheless, are not in contradiction with my points. Death patterns in hunter-gatherer societies have been studied by anthropologists. Incidence of violent death in pre-modern hunter societies is very high; actually, many more deaths are due to tribal warfare than to accidents with animals (plus many children die in tender age). Yet, even in contemporary tribal societies, once you reach about 20 years of age, you have reasonable chance to live to be 60 and there are people living into their 70s, so it isn't as if "no one had time to develop this and that". There have been medical studies of contemporary hunter-gatherers since the late 19th century. Their typical diseases seem to be osteoarthritis and parasitic/fungal infections. Cancer and metabolic-syndrome-like diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes of the 2nd type etc.) are extremely rare to nonexistent among them, with individual cases making it into scientific articles. As for the ancients, we cannot detect diabetes or high blood pressure from bones, but we can detect cancer and bones with cancer lesions are extremely rare in burials of ancient hunter-gatherer people as well. Early agricultural people, such as Ancient Egyptians, left skeletons which are decidedly less healthy; the change in the fossil record is very abrupt and often "visible to the naked eye".
 * I noticed that I forgot to address your point with the quantity of food. Hunter-gatherers are/were rarely if ever visibly malnourished. Their dietary habits were very different from ours, certainly. We do not really know today how obesity develops, the model with calories in and calories out seems to be too simplistic (not least because both "in" and "out" are extremely hard to measure in practice). It is worth observing that in modern societies, you will find "Gaussian" distribution of leanness/chubbiness; unless the whole community is severely malnourished (such as the inhabitants of besieged Sarajevo were, or Ukrainians in the Holodomor), a certain percentage of the population on the right side of the curve will be fat, even in comparatively poor societies, such as rural India. AFAIK this wasn't the case with hunter-gatherer societies.
 * That's dumb as hell. Medieval European peasants whose diets consisted almost exclusively of cereal grains(i.e. carbs) also were very rarely obese.  This is bad reasoning.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think that quality of any argument is supported by exclamations such as "dumb as hell". To the merit of the point. What was the rate of obesity in medieval European peasants? Is that even known? (An anecdote to the contrary: in my family, the great-grandparents around 1900 were rather poor peasants in Eastern Europe, whose diet wasn't that much different from that of medieval peasants. Mostly wheat. And yet the rare tinted photographs show that most of the men had "beer bellies" in their middle age. Not morbidly obese, but visibly overweight, and it was visceral fat.)
 * You claim there's no science to back up the article but have cited no sources yourself to support your claims. Nobody here is under obligation to refute any of your claims until you cite legitimate sources to back yourself up. Trick (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC)I see very little chance of there being a quality argument when you're making vague and inaccurate statements about natural human diets as they relate to the modern obesity epidemic. You've got a weak-ass argument and if you want to be taken seriously and get a "real argument", you'd better bring some goddamn data to the table. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let us start somewhere then. I recently made a claim that hunter gatherers do not suffer from obesity. I will look around for citations to support that claim. You made the claim that medieval European peasants did not suffer from obesity either. Will you look around for citations to back up that claim as well? If so, let us go on a citation hunt. I believe that this is a fair challenge.

Treatment for epilepsy?
It's fairly well established that low-carbohydrate diets can, if carefully managed, be effective as part of the treatment regime for certain types of epilepsy (see, for instance, https://dx.doi.org/10.1542%2Fpeds.2006-2447). Is that something that should be added to this page? 81.145.40.198 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that would be far too rational 104.228.164.105 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)