Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Inspiration and Wisdom > Recommended Reading
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2010, 11:02 AM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
cleome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern USA
Posts: 314
Gallery: cleome
Stats: 230/184/130
WOE: Metformin+LowCarb/HypothyroidHealth
Start Date: September 2009
Heads up on the latest anti-LC propaganda

Steel yourselves for this one:
Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: Two Cohort Studies Teresa T. Fung et al. Annals of Internal Medicine September 7, 2010, vol. 153 no. 5 289-298

Dean Ornish is loving it. Dr. Dean Ornish: Atkins Diet Increases All-Cause Mortality

Jenny Ruhl (blood sugar 101) puts it in perspective. Text below is edited from her blog.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Diabetes Update: Why The Latest Low Carb Scare Study is Flawed

Here's why it's crap--and completely irrelevant to those of us who control carbohydrates to keep our blood sugars normal.

The methodology used here was this:

Prospective cohort study of women and men who were followed from 1980 (women) or 1986 (men) until 2006. Low-carbohydrate diets, either animal-based (emphasizing animal sources of fat and protein) or vegetable-based (emphasizing vegetable sources of fat and protein), were computed from several validated food-frequency questionnaires assessed during follow-up.

This raises four immediate red flags:

1. Based on Inaccurate Questionnaire Data.

2. Misleading Definition of "Low Carb Diet" Leaving aside the fact that the data collection method renders the data highly questionable, the definition of "low carb" used in this study is almost certainly one most of us that eat a true carb restricted diet would consider a high carb diet--one of 150-200 grams of carbohydrates a day.

If that is the case, the "meat based" low carb diet was probably a "meat and potatoes and bread" diet, which we are all agree is not healthy for anyone.

3. "Meat-based diet" May Mean "Fast Food Meat and Potatoes Diet"

4. "Plant based Low Carb diet" Highly Suspect The "plant based" low carb diet which was found to be so healthy here is unlikely to be low carb, since it is almost impossible to eat a true low carb diet relying on plant based foods without overdosing on soy which is far from healthy.


Once again, the nutritionists defending their turf use flawed methodologies to ensure that people with diabetes will continue to eat the "healthy whole grains" and sugary fruits that ensure they will end up with severe, life threatening complications.
cleome is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 09-08-2010, 11:36 AM   #2
Senior LCF Member
 
healthnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 391
Gallery: healthnut
Stats: 190/160/120 5'2"
WOE: Atkins '72
Start Date: April 2010 (2nd - and last -time)
Dean Ornish believes that we should all be vegetarians. I recently came across his endorsement of the 'low acid diet', which is an all vegetable and fruit, very low starch, and "little or no meat" plan. The argument for eating this way was that man was never meant to eat meat, and that man's development through thousands of years has depended mostly on plants since "it was too difficult to hunt animals."

So now we're revising history!
healthnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:55 AM   #3
Major LCF Poster!
 
WendyK1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 2,230
Gallery: WendyK1974
WOE: low carb
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthnut View Post
Dean Ornish believes that we should all be vegetarians. I recently came across his endorsement of the 'low acid diet', which is an all vegetable and fruit, very low starch, and "little or no meat" plan. The argument for eating this way was that man was never meant to eat meat, and that man's development through thousands of years has depended mostly on plants since "it was too difficult to hunt animals."

So now we're revising history!
Wow..just wow...What a load of garbage.
WendyK1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:04 PM   #4
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Speck333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,182
Gallery: Speck333
WOE: Semi-Primal
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthnut View Post
Dean Ornish believes that we should all be vegetarians. I recently came across his endorsement of the 'low acid diet', which is an all vegetable and fruit, very low starch, and "little or no meat" plan. The argument for eating this way was that man was never meant to eat meat, and that man's development through thousands of years has depended mostly on plants since "it was too difficult to hunt animals."

So now we're revising history!
That man needs to sit in on one of my biological anthropology lectures... he clearly missed out on a lot in his education.
Speck333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:07 PM   #5
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,793
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Did I miss something? Where in the study did it say they were Atkins dieters? Where is the definition of a 'low carb' diet? Seems pretty underwhelming to me.
clackley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:25 PM   #6
Major LCF Poster!
 
synger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,409
Gallery: synger
Stats: Start: 310 Current: 259
WOE: Calorie and carb counting, IR Diet framework
Start Date: IR/PCOS: Dx pre-diabetic 3/2010
I'd also like to see the results as compared to a control group, that did not limit their carbs at all. This seems to only answer the question "which is better -- low carb plant-based or lowcarb meat-based?" It doesn't compare low carb to non-low carb at all... so if the mortality from meat-based low carb is 1.23 and for plant-based low carb is 1.14, and if the mortality from non-low-carb is 1.58 (hypothetically, because it wasn't included in the study), then I'd still choose low-carb.

In truth, I'd choose low-carb anyway, but that's for other reasons than "mere" mortality. I choose low-carb because I can lose weight, I can be satisfied, and I can keep my blood sugar even. If that means I live six months less, but I can be active and a healthy weight and keep my feet and sight and kidneys up to the end of my life, I'd rather that than be obese in a mobile chair and need help to take care of myself and lose my feet and sight and kidneys before I die!
synger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:49 PM   #7
Senior LCF member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,611
Gallery: Leo41
Stats: 340 then/145 now
WOE: Low carb/calorie cycling
I agree with Jenny completely, but I saw this reported on the local news last night (by an M.D.), and it's even more interesting. The doctor reported that while there was a slight difference in mortality between the two groups, the difference was so slight as to be statistically insignificant! The 'headlines' would lead you to believe otherwise.

And, just as Jenny predicted, they showed pictures of some meals. The plant-based plate was full of rice and grains!

What they call low carb is nothing that any of us are eating.
Leo41 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 02:04 PM   #8
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,050
Gallery: fawn
12% Mortality Leo.

Self reporting first is not a good platform for a study.

It's interesting because Jackie Eberstein, RN from the Atkins Center is a part of the Nurses Group study and I heard her say one time "They ask you for 2 years worth of self reported records....for someone like me who eats fairly consistently, it's a bit easier but who remembers what they ate last week much less 2 years ago" Oh and Jackie has been on Atkins for 30 years now.

All of the media groups focus strictly on the Abstract which just irritates the heck out of me....and all of you I'm sure....

For what it's worth, do you all know that Ornish's heart study was never completely followed through with? Many participants dropped out, one died.....it was an incomplete study coined "The lifestyle Heart Trial" In other words, we have no accurate long term data.....(even 5 years would be a start!)

Shame on him really......

The best way to analyze ones true health is through that of actually viewing the blood.....

Last edited by fawn; 09-08-2010 at 02:06 PM..
fawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 03:54 PM   #9
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 74,269
Gallery: DiamondDeb
Stats: 125+ lbs lost
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthnut View Post
Dean Ornish believes that we should all be vegetarians. I recently came across his endorsement of the 'low acid diet', which is an all vegetable and fruit, very low starch, and "little or no meat" plan. The argument for eating this way was that man was never meant to eat meat, and that man's development through thousands of years has depended mostly on plants since "it was too difficult to hunt animals."

So now we're revising history!
I know. He wants to change basic biology. Man was not created to be a vegetarian.
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 04:28 PM   #10
Thick and Delicious
 
CARLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 8,819
Gallery: CARLINI
Stats: 303/252/140
WOE: Eating REAL food
Start Date: 2/14/2004
You rebuild using the materials you are made of - water, protein and fat. Simple really.

My dad followed the Dr. Ornish diet after his first heart surgery. A few years later he was back in having a triple by-pass. Now I know it was because his insulin was thru the roof and his arteries were clogging up again because of it.

I’ve just about had it with these doctors giving out their deadly advice based on these ‘studies’. Really, when will we learn?
CARLINI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 04:40 PM   #11
Major LCF Poster!
 
SouthernCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,185
Gallery: SouthernCJ
Stats: 146/Pregnant!/129 5'9"
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: December 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondDeb View Post
I know. He wants to change basic biology. Man was not created to be a vegetarian.
Correct me if I'm wrong here people, but humans have the teeth of omnivores. All human and humanoid fossils found have been found to possess omnivore teeth sooo.... WTH? I'm getting this info from the History channel so maybe my data is bad.

Meat too hard to catch? Puh-lease, my brother was killing rabbits and chipmunks with a basic slingshot before he started kindergarten.

In closing, GO MEAT!!!
SouthernCJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 05:58 AM   #12
Senior LCF Member
 
cleome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern USA
Posts: 314
Gallery: cleome
Stats: 230/184/130
WOE: Metformin+LowCarb/HypothyroidHealth
Start Date: September 2009
Bad science

Denise Minger, who did a nice smack down of the Campbell's China Study data (The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? « Raw Food SOS) provides an overview of Fung's report. A couple excerpts follow.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Bottom line: In this study, when you look closer at the data, differences in mortality appear to be unrelated to animal product consumption. Changes in cancer and cardiovascular risk ratios occur out of sync with changes in animal food intake....

In other words, it looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.” And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant-based, so I’m not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here.

Brand-Spankin’ New Study: Are Low-Carb Meat Eaters in Trouble? « Raw Food SOS

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Quote:
Originally Posted by fawn View Post
The best way to analyze ones true health is through that of actually viewing the blood.....
Exactly right. Check out this bit of pseudoscience from Dr. Ornish:
Your body makes HDL to remove excessive cholesterol from your body. Eating a stick of butter will raise HDL, but butter is not good for your heart. Pfizer discontinued a study of its drug, torcetrapib, which raised HDL but actually increased risk of heart attacks. Dr. Dean Ornish: Atkins Diet Increases All-Cause Mortality

This is wrong on so many levels. How did Dean Ornish ever get to be a "health" pundit???
cleome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 04:07 PM   #13
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,050
Gallery: fawn
Quote:
This is wrong on so many levels. How did Dean Ornish ever get to be a "health" pundit???
Maybe the soybean industry "said so"
fawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2011, 07:20 PM   #14
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 831
Gallery: Doug K
Stats: 229/195/140; goal: 30" waist (5'4" tall)
WOE: Atkins OWL
Start Date: April 2011
I found this in the LA Times Online today:

Quote:
Eating a low-calorie diet in which carbs have a heavier presence at dinner may offer a host of healthful benefits, a study finds.

Researchers randomly assigned 100 obese male and female Israeli police officers age 25 to 55 to one of two diets for six months: a standard low-calorie diet (this served as the control group), or a low-calorie diet that offered more carbs at dinner. Both diets contained about 1,300 to 1,500 calories per day.

Nutritional breakdowns were the same for both groups as well: 20% protein, 30% to 35% fat, and 45% to 50% carbohydrate. But those in the experimental diet ate more protein than carbs at breakfast and lunch and loaded up on carbs at dinner, while the control group scattered their carbs more evenly throughout the day.
-- Eating More Carbs at Dinner Helps Weight Loss - LA Times, 4/9/11

The rest of the article lists more alleged benefits of "load[ing] up on carbs at dinner," but it doesn't give any numbers, or margins of error, so I can't tell if they're statistically significant. From the numbers it does give, I can figure that members of both groups ate between 45% of 1300 calories and 50% of 1500 calories in carbohydrates, ie, between 146 grams and 188 grams, daily (1 gram of carbohydrate = 4 calories). That's a potential 28% spread. I can't separate the lower-carb eaters from the lower-calorie eaters, so it's possible that the people who ate the lowest percentage of their calories in carbs lost the most weight, regardless of how they distributed the carbs over the day, or how many calories they ate. I have no reason to assume that "nutritional breakdowns were the same for both groups."

The article links to the homepage of the Obesity Society. I went there, looking for the publication on which the article is based, to see if the original material broke more of this out, but they want $85/page.

But here's what jumped out at me, before I got out my calculator. The headline, and the photo of a big bowl of brown rice below it, make it seem as though the people who ate more carbs at dinner ate more carbs for the whole day. But the third paragraph says that they just distributed their carbs differently. The article could just have easily been headlined, "Cutting Carbs at Breakfast and Lunch Helps Weight Loss," or even, "Load Up on Fat at Breakfast and Lunch to Lose Weight."
Doug K is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.