Talk:Low-carb diet/Archive2

The obvious solution
Is to simply remove meat and soy from your diet. Talsley (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget gluten! It's gluten that causes all the problems! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And don't eat nuts or legumes. Legumes contain high doses of mercury and lead, and nuts contain even higher doses of arsenic and cyanide Cow...Hammertime! 20:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My boobies weigh 200lb a peice. i figured if i just cut them off, i'd be most of the way there!  clearly the obvious! [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lose ten pounds of ugly fat!" - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Dukan
Apparently France has their own Atkins, and he's in trouble with French medical groups. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Slow-carb diet "cheat days"
This is an innovation of Tim Ferriss' slow-carb diet (though other diets have had cheat days): once a week, you spend the day binging on all the stuff you were good and didn't eat the rest of the week. Psychologically, this strikes me as brilliant. But do we have anything resembling studies on such a thing? - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the same Tim Ferriss who wrote "The Four Hour Workweek"? I'm having a hard time believing him to be an expert in anything (I read the book I mentioned...he has some good points about reducing bullshit in your life, but his methodology is probably impossible to implement in this economy without support from management), given the vitamins he pushes as a solution to everything.  -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know Robert Anton Wilson advocated for cheat days in (which is not about low-carb dieting). Don't know that there are any real studies on the issue, but I seem to recall reading about other studies on the importance of indulging occasionally for the purposes of "replenishing" willpower.
 * My biggest issue with The Four hour workweek was that it only works as a system for people in salaried positions in a tiny subset of fields... — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 15:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My trainer talks about having a cheat-and-relax day, once a week...but this assumes six days of diet AND heavy exercise (cardio/lift/cardio/lift/cardio/lift), not just diet. But my trainer is just that, a trainer, with a master's degree in a relevant field and multiple certifications, not a bullshit slinger.  -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed that Tim Ferriss. The diet is in The Four Hour Body, which I can only describe as a magnum opus of broscience. His ideas on what constitutes evidence are somewhat lacking - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ketosis can be a beneficial state if controlled carefully
This isn't woo, I promise. I'm no dietary expert, so I can't vouch for the strength of the science behind it, but there appear to be benefits with intentionally keeping yourself so low on carbs that you go into ketosis, as long as you replace the calories you've given up with calories from fat. On the short term, it sucks because you're depriving your body of its preferential fuel source, but it's all about sticking to the regimen until your body adapts to the conditions and begins burning fat instead.

Earlier this year, Leo Laporte (of Tech TV and TWiT fame) and Steve Gibson (security researcher, coined the term "spyware", creator of SpinRite) did two approximately-hour-long shows on Leo's TWiT network about this concept. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here. Now, to be sure, neither Leo or Steve are qualified medical professionals in any way, and Steve makes a point of running this past your doctor. However, to my non-medschool-educated mind, this seems to make sense, and I've had good (if temporary, due to willpower and other situational conditions) results on similar paleo-style diet practices before, only without intentionally inducing ketosis for long periods of time. In the months since these specials were published, Steve has mentioned on his regular show (Security Now! on TWiT) that he's received lots of feedback from people who've lost significant weight from the process and are feeling much better.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but this seems like a fairly reasoned, woo-free approach if you aren't going to run into trouble because of other conditions with your body. I'm putting this on the talk page since I'm not comfortable with sticking nutritional advice from a security researcher (regardless of his hobbies) on the main article unilaterally. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nurses study
RR of 1.2 (on a good day) in observational study is next to a null effect. - The data as if from food questionaires was mangled at least TWO times: first by splicing it into percentages of caloric intake (fats - carbs - protein), second by splicing these percentages into deciles and assigning 0,1,2,...,8,9 "points" of an artificial score. Chopping up data artificially invites artefacts. - I didn't read further - not even to understand what "no diabetes" was supposed to mean. At start of study, or did they throw out later cases? In any case, since LC is helping with glucose control. excluding diabetes introduces anti-LC bias. - And you know what? It's the same with virtually any "study". Their media impact seems to be based on propaganda value. -- 88.74.146.124 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)