Talk:Low-carb diet

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon food.svg

This Food woo related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Edit by Glp1agonist is original research[edit]

Glp1agonist you cited this paper [1] for the line "Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and preferences". However the said paper does not include that line. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keto doesn't reverse diabetes[edit]

Going keto to manage diabetes is like using crutches to reduce pain from a broken ankle. They don’t actually fix the underlying problem on their own.

Having normal glucose on keto doesn’t mean you are not insulin resistant or diabetic. Keto and low carb diets typically increase insulin resistance and reduce carbohydrate tolerance but if done for a short duration it’s likely reversed once you stop the get. There’s some evidence that adhering to the diet long term might causing lasting issues. And that’s just for glucose. Ketogenic diets increase cholesterol which increases CVD risk. Insulin resistance is not safe just because you are on keto btw, that’s something that crowd likes to repeat without evidence

Ultimately T2 diabetes is caused by excess visceral fat. Personal fat thresholds determine whether you get excess visceral fat at a normal, high, or very high BMI. You can be skinny and have excess visceral fat.

To reverse T2 diabetes you need to lose weight, specifically visceral fat. The longer you have T2 the harder it is to reverse Only8livesleft (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sugar industry[edit]

What is written on this page regarding the sugar industry does not seem to agree with what is written here: Sugar#Big Sugar. Free full text of the JAMA historical review article on the Sugar page is here.[2] I haven't looked at this issue since 2022 and wasn't aware of the Science review, so maybe you can sort this out, @Oldman4. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the RationalWiki sugar article (I have never read it before until now). The 2016 JAMA historical review is unreliable and is based on sensationalism, not historical accuracy. When that paper was published it was put all over the news. It was pushing an unproven conspiracy theory narrative that was taken up by low-carb conspiracy theorists like Gary Taubes. The 2018 Science paper was much more rational in its conclusions [3]. There was no cover up or conspiracy theory to suppress research. Back in the 1960s there was no good epidemiological evidence that sugar was bad for heart health, the evidence just didn't exist. It is that simple. How could there be a cover up if the evidence didn't exist? John Yudkin had no evidence to support his claims, whilst Ancel Keys had the evidence.
In the 1960s, the dairy and egg industry pumped $millions into funding research on heart health but that is never mentioned by proponents of this sugar conspiracy because it doesn't suit their narrative. The National Dairy Council paid $14 million to a group of 320 staff to show that dairy was beneficial in the 1960s. The low-carbers do not mention the payments from meat, dairy or egg industry. All they talk about is a one-off payment from the sugar industry for a 1967 review for $6500.
A lot of nutritional research is industry funded but this doesn't mean an automatic dismissal. One should always check through the methodology of said papers to see if there are any issues. Regarding the 1967 review, nobody has been able to find any mistakes in it. I have read the review and it is mostly accurate and even holds up to day. One claim that low-carbers bring up is that D. Mark Hegsted was suppressing research that showed sugar is bad for triglycerides. The statement is bizarre because there was no research back then on triglycerides and sugar consumption. The 2016 JAMA paper has sadly managed to dupe a lot of people that this conspiracy theory was real. We know the authors of that paper were not playing fair because they do not mention the dairy egg and meat industry funding, a lot of that was not disclosed that the time either. If you have some spare time I recommend reading the 2018 paper, it is much more rational with its conclusion. I think it is probably worth updating the sugar article. Oldman4 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)