Talk:Low-carb diet/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>

, (new)(back)

Not fad diets

So I made an edit, included my rationale in talk, added see talk to the summary and the page was reverted. What's up with that?144.142.12.1 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) First change: Removed term "Fad Diet"

Low Carb diets and Atkins are not "Fad Diets" Atkins has been around for more than 60 years now, and has consistently been one of the most popular and most studied, so it doesn't meet the common definition of fad diet.

Nor does Atkins meet the defintion on RW's "Fad Diet" page.

>>>A fad diet is any diet plan that is promoted by publicity and word-of-mouth rather than scientific study.

Atkins and LCHF diets are promoted with scientific study.

Here:http://www.dietdoctor.com/science and Here: http://www.atkins.com/Science/Science-Behind-Atkins.aspx

http://www.atkins.com/Science/Articles---Library.aspx

http://www.atkins.com/Science/Articles---Library/Scientific-Review-Articles.aspx

http://www.atkins.com/Science/Articles---Library/Cancer.aspx

http://www.atkins.com/AtkinsDotCom/media/Master/Published-Atkins-Supporting-Research-121812.pdf

>>>Most such diets focus around weight loss, but many claim to cure diseases such as autism, attention deficit disorder, and even cancer.

Atkins makes no such claims, and most LCHF diets do not. Some suggest that since cancer cells are insulin sensitive and metabolize glucose exclusively that LCHF may slow the growth of cancer and that is being actively studied, with promising, but not conclusive, results.

http://www.atkins.com/Science/Articles---Library/Cancer.aspx

>>>Such diets are often created by a single person, sometimes a medical practitioner of some sort, but often a lay person with no particular credentials.

Atkins diet was based on previous low-carb diets and published research. The current Atkins book is authored by a team of experts.

http://www.atkins.com/New-Book/Meet-the-Authors.aspx

>>>Some are often propagated as anonymous faxlore or email lore in much the same manner as many urban legends, but others are distributed and heavily promoted by major media corporations.

No and no for Atkins.

>>>The diets' effectiveness is generally anecdotal

Atkins is effectiveness is shown in RCT's (See above.)

>>>and the claimed mechanisms a mix of plausible could-be science and fairly blatant magical pink unicorns.

The claimed mechanism of Atkins is based on science. Specifically the interaction of glucose and insulin and insulin's role in fat storage.

>>>Actual validity (or lack thereof) is often established or disproven long after the diet has become popular due to the lack of peer review in the popular press, especially since many fad diet promoters have thrown in their lot with alternative medicine.

Atkins has been popular since the early 70's and studies during that period have shown it's effectiveness. (See links above.)144.142.12.1 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna pretty much disagree with you on the fad diet part. That is exactly what atkins is. Popularity does not make something less fad, and the science is highly questionable or diaticians would be suggesting it. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Popularity by itself does not make something less than a fad, but popularity over an extended period (40+years) of time does. The term "fad" by definition means transitory. (Fad (n) An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.

As for the science, one main thesis of low-carb diet advocates is that the current consensus on diet and nutrition is not based on good science. One of the links pointed to 18 published studies, most RCTs, all showing the effectiveness and health of LCHF diets. Arguing that those can't be valid because dietitians would recommend the diet if the science were valid is two kinds of logical fallacy (argument from authority, begging the question). There is not one single study showing a low-fat or calorie restricted diet is more healthy or more effective than a LCHF diet at losing weight by burning fat and preserving lean tissue; improving health; reducing risks for chronic disease.

I supported my edits with good science. There is no good science supporting what's on the page now.144.142.12.1 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(please indent when you are replying - you do it with the little : dudes). I went to pub med, typed LCHF diet. the first 8 of 10 listings talk about dangers or failures of such diets. high cholestrol, lack of understandign of what portion size is - making sustainablity nearly impossible, higher than normal regain rates, ketosis damage to liver and brain from long term low carb diets. It's not good science, it's selective science. Yes, in controlled studies, under careful monitoring, with weekly blood tests to make sure your brain is getting enough carbs, you can have short term success.

what is doubted, and why its a fad, is because it is not long term success, and evne dangerous if you are not doing it very carefully

That is a special pleading. You're saying yes, it works in studies, but doesn't work in the wild. Just as acupuncturists say their treatments work in the wild, but not in studies. In some of the studies, the intervention is simply providing test subjects a diet book and then measuring their blood. And even then, these studies are comparing different diet plans. Why would LCHF consistently out perform other diets in a number of parameters. Wouldn't LF or CR dieters face the same discrepencies?

. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686621, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209003, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18652862, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393289, were the first ones to come up. some are "no better results than" and some talk of the long term dangers. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Influence of weight-loss diets with different macro... [Appetite. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18652862

Here's a link to the full text: http://web.mnstate.edu/stockram/sdarticle.pdfobeseyouth.pdf

The problem with this study is that the LCHF and LCHP diets is that the carb level not low enough. On Atkins you lower your carbs to below 20g, most coming from veggies, here low-carb is considered 60g, which is not enough to lead to ketosis or weight loss. (This is actually a common problem with diet studies. The 18 RCT's I linked to meet the LCHF criteria.)

Group a: Low-carbohydrate (60 g, 20%), high-protein (150 g, 50%), low-fat (40 g, 30%); LCLF.

Group b: Low-carbohydrate (60 g, 20%), low-protein (60 g, 20%), high-fat (80 g, 60%); LCHF.

Postweaning low-calcium diet promotes later-l... [J Nutr Biochem. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209003

This study looks at low-calcium diets in rats, not low carb diets in humans.

Associations among 25-year trends in diet, cholestero... [Nutr J. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686621

This study is a population study that looks at food frequency surveys, where the surveys themselves cannot be used to determine the carb content of the diet. The surveys, were done annually (how often did you eat x food over the last year?). This is the weakest form of study and even then, says nothing about the carb content of the diet.

Noninvasive assessment of hepatic lipid compositi... [Hepatology. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393289

This study lasted 67 hours, probably not long enough to get past the "Atkins Flu." All the studies I linked to were of much longer duration.144.142.12.1 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Basic nutritional knowledge and understanding of our ancestry will tell you that a low carbohydrate diet of any kind is a bunch of silly bullshit. That there are a few studies which showed that it may have some positive effect in some situations with small groups done for short periods of time does not change this. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to say dismissive things like that, but when it comes to providing good science to back things up, the way the RationalWiki guidelines specify, not so much. If your basic nutritional knowledge and your understanding of your ancestry were backed up by science then you'd have good studies showing calorie restriction and/or low fat to be more effective and healthier than low-carb. Fact is, you can't, those studies don't exist. I think it's time to rethink your basic knowledge in light of new evidence.

In the meantime I'm following the guidelines and posting good, and well supported information, and correcting obviously false and misleading comments, and getting reverted. Which is sad, because whereever you stand on the issue this page is a mess, with bad links and false information. CarbShark (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this page

I see a number of problems with this page. Much of the language is biased, subjective and pejorative. Descriptions of low-carb diets miss the mark, the extent they constitute straw men. I plan to start correcting these errors...99.45.162.78 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So fix it, or don't. None of us are nutritionists, but being an obese woman who goes to a nutritionists, she's pretty muck ok with what we've written. but add, justify and there it shall be. Do remember, though, we are against psuedo science, and we will check everything in pub med. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We ARE biased, subjective and perjorative. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So the page is protected. I could understand you would disagree with some of my edits, but most were good edits.

You say "We will check everything in pub med" yet the links on the page are mostly to second and third hand sources. Even the way the page is organized and written is sub-standard. The section on Atkins has one sentence about Atkins (with factual errors) then the rest of the sections is about other diets and some unsupported claims about low-carb products associated with other diets. I think someone has been blinded by bias.CarbShark (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The low carb diet is basically a bunch of hokum, so we really don't care.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't care? Well, obviously, someone cares! Plus, much of the information here is demonstrably false. (Atkins is not high-protein, it's low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein). Even if you don't agree with low-carb or care that much about diet, do you at least care if there is false and misleading information on the page?CarbShark (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Low carb diets run contrary to our evolution and basic nutritional knowledge. That one is high fat instead of high protein is basically irrelevant.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is protected cause you are edit waring, not because anyone is right or wrong. Show specific links you want to change, or add, and let those who are waring with you, look at them. But endless changes, reverts, changes reverts isn't really productive. I'll unprotect it, but only change what you have specific references to. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Thank you. As for edit warring, when I revert a page, I also edit further to try to address any issues that were raised when reverted. (In these cases I had to guess because there were no useful comments to go with the reverting. CarbShark (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"but we evolved to eat meat"

I find it funny that endlessly people say "the reason we are fat is cause we are eating grains, and started this 10,000 years ago, outside of what we had evolved to eat. It's not exercise, but grains! Here's the problem with that - we've only had an issue with obesity for about 100 to max, 200 years. Tose grains, and even nice pretty white flour have been around much longer. just saying.... Portion! Portion! Exerise! etc.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We're evolved to club antelope's to death with a stick after chasing it to near death over 15-20 miles. If people want to use the naturalistic fallacy to justify their silliness, they better be marathon runners who eat a diet of mostly vegetables and fruit and other things you can get while running in a Savannah.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I chase my hamburger around the frozen section for at least 1 "lap" trying to figure out which cut is the best deal. does that count?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But we also evolved to eat plants, therefore we should all be vegetarians. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Godot, I guess that depends. Are you comfortable with how you look, and does your diet/overall physical health concern you? If it does, I have some things I could say that would help, and if it doesn't, then no worries. I will say regardless, that running is fun, you meet a lot of interesting people, and apparently there are women who orgasm from running.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm into science. I'm into reading lots of actual peer reviewed studies. Little supports the idea that we suddenly became fat from grains, after 10,000 years of eating them. Little supports teh idea that cutting out grains helps you. What is supported, by studies, is that rationing your food reasonably, eating a larger variety of foods, and restricting scrubbed grains and processed sugars is how you will get there. If "low carb" really were that well researched, why are most registered diaticians not recommending it? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's something approaching science to the claims of low-carb dieters. Basically, one pound of body fat is 3,500 Calories, and to cut that body fat you need to cut Calories. There's a formula used to figure the minimum amount of calories your body needs based on your age, weight, activity level, etc, but if you eat 500 calories less then that, you'll lose a pound of body fat in a week. Now, it isn't that grains are bad for you, its that grains tend to be high in Calories compared to how filling they are. So, bread, toast, rice, etc, these things can give you a lot of Calories, more then you'd realize, without filling you up. In that light, they're aren't completely wrong in saying you should cut grains, more like, use with some caution.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You assume that based on some formula that if you eat 500 calories less, than you'll lose a pound of body fat in a week. That is not supported by science. If you put less energy into your system, your body's first response is to put less energy out. Your energy expenditure drops, you become more lethargic. Your body's second response is to increase energy input. You get hungry. The problem is that if your insulin levels remain high, you won't be able to easily metabolize stored fat, so if you do start losing weight, you're probably metabolizing some lean tissue.

Take it to talk page

The edit waring is silly. Work it out here. No one is adding aything other than the edit war, therefore I'll keep protecting the page till someone agrees on what edits to make.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited section that concluded LC diets are unsafe. There were two refs to support the argument. The one on PubMed actually showed that compared diets were safe. (Also, the Low-Carb diet studied wasn't, in reality, actually low carb.) The other was a link to an article about high protein diets. The link was dead. Even so, low-carb diets are not interchangeable with high protein diets. There have been high protein/low-carb diets in the past, but they are not supported by science. Atkins is not high protein, nor is South Beach; Zone or the others I'm familiar with mentioned on this page.

Here are those links:

Long-term effects of a high-pr... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15007396

CONCLUSION: Without active ongoing dietary advice, adherence to dietary intervention is poor. Nonetheless, both dietary patterns achieved net weight loss and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/diabetes/news/highprotein.html

The page you requested can not be found.

144.142.12.1 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blah, needs work

I'm going through this and I think there needs to be some serious work done on this article to explain quite a few things, like why this is such bullshit. I'm going to work on this at my sandbox. I'll post a new version when I get the time. ETA a week.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! i added a few things to the Atkins part, since there really wasn't much there. Also, if you have time and knowlege, something about ketosis (the good and the ugly) would be nice. I'm sorta clear on it, but not versed enough to write it.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I think you really need to know is that ketosis is metabolically very similar to your body starving to death according to the majority of doctors. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that ketosis begins when your body starts to metabolise stored fat in your body. This could be the result of starvation or it could begin at the end of a prolonged bout of exercise when your body has used up all its easily available energy. It's not a good or a bad thing - it's just what happens.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 11:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding about ketosis is flat out wrong. When you're in ketosis the liver converts fat cells into ketone bodies. The brain is able to directly metabolize ketones. (It can metabolize glucose too, but not fat.) Other organs (the heart) also process ketones and there is good evidence that the heart and brain function better when metabolizing ketones than glucose. You can be in ketosis on a fairly high calorie diet, as long as very little of the calories come from carbs and protein intake is moderate. People don't starve to death. In fact, they thrive. In fact it's likely that ketosis is the natural state for humans. It's easy to throw around terms like "majority of doctors" but in this case that claim has no basis. Equating ketosis and starvation is flat out false, and on that there is very little disagreement. It sounds like you've made up your mind that this is BS, and you're not really looking at the science. This page is a mess.CarbShark (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But isn't it the case that your body only starts doing this after it has used up the available glycogen?--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is the case. First, your blood sugar falls, then your body uses up its glycogen, then your blood sugar drops a bit further and your energy levels drop. (This phase is knows as the "Atkins Flu." It's safe for healthy people and lasts a few days. Then your ketone production increases and ylou have plenty of energy and your blood sugar remains at a healthy and stable level. There is no "starvation." While adapting to ketosis and while in ketosis you can eat as much fat as you want. There is no starvation. There was no good reason to revert my last edit and keep false and misleading statements on the page.CarbShark (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're going against all major literature out there. Fine, if the medical establishment is really hiding this wonder diet, you can come back and slap the shit out of me when all or most doctors and more importantanly, registered dietitians ocome out and start saying "this is a better plan than a well ballanced diet". Till then, I think you are hearing the consensus that we are going with what major medical and diatary information say and recommend. slightly lower, but not "low" carbs, and low fat.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, ignoring that that's an argument from authority, you might be right that in general the medical establishment may believe there are issues with low-carb diet. Although, it's not like global warming, where there has been actual polling done and we have statistics that show what percentage of experts agree or dissent. There is no such data for diet. I would argue the consensus is not nearly as high. But even if it is that one sided, that does not mean that the majority or even any experts believe that ketosis is akin to starvation, and it doesn't make dead links on a page live. And it doesn't make a half hearted qualified statement that ketosis may not be healthy the equivalent of saying you're starving yourself to death. You said above that any thing I edit should be backed up. Everything I'm removing is not backed up, and everything I'm arguing is.CarbShark (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

more importantanly, registered dietitians ocome out and start saying

Why is it more important that dietiician come out? There's a few things you should know about dietitians. First the dietary guidelines they follow, the food pyramid, or the new food plate, is not based on science. It doesn't come from the FDA, but the dept. of Agriculture. Plus, dieticians are not doctors. They don't have the freedom to make recommendations that don't follow their guidelines. Dieticians can lose their licenses for recommending butter over margarine, so don't expect them to be eager to come out in favor of changing the macronutrient component of the diet. That said, there are a number of dieticians who are doing just that. There are low-carb and paleo dietitians. CarbShark (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)