I mean, all I have to do is point you to any number of people doing a very low-carb/no-carb diet who have zero issues with hypoglycemia. This is a non-issue unless you suffer from a medical condition that inhibits glucose production.
/QUOTE]
This argument is moot and pointless.
Do you want me to point out all people who smoke and don't have symptoms? The ammount of people who drink a glass of alcohol per day that don't have hepatocelular carcinoma?
In medicine it doesn't matter how many people do something and don't get consequences; this is not how medicine studies work. What it matter is if the people that are doing a certain thing have a
higher risk of the consequence then not doing the previous thing. In short low carb diet has
more risk of developing health problems then doing a "normal" healthy diet (normal means following the food wheel, NOT what ever is USUAL for your culture to eat).
At the very least can we agree that unless a new diet has
less risk then our balanced diet should still be the first recommendation?
It's another garbage survey-based observational epidemiology waste of time.
Do you truly think that anyone could answer such a survey with any degree of accuracy? It's completely asinine. Most people can't even recall what they ate for dinner a few days ago, but they were checking in on these people several years apart and asking them to recall specific foods and report frequencies over spans of years at a time. You will get nothing of use from that.
Other than visit 1 and visit 3 (of six total), they did not actually look at carbohydrate intake, but instead just estimated the rest based on those two visits they did track and assumed things would largely stay the same. I mean, I already said any answers to a crazy survey like this would be trash, so maybe plugging in guesstimates for carbohydrate values is just a good, but either way, you're just accumulating garbage non-data.
If you disagree with lancet you are free to contact them so they can withdraw the "trash" article.
Personally, while being a critic is fine, those seem like the right attitudes to do when studying nutrition. When you are heavily limited on what you can do, you do the best you can; which is what this appears to me. Withdrawing non healthy patients from the study group makes senses as well using what people remember that they have eaten. I mean who has the resources to actually see/evaluate what people eat at every meal?
Yes, the study could be better drawn but this argument can be done for ALL studies. Your counterpoint shouldn't be just that a study is bad but also that X study /review/meta-analysis proves the contrary.
If You could have drawn and execute a better study why not do it and publish it with lancet/BMJ,etc?
If you don't have the resources or the ability to do it why call the hard work of others "trash"?
My point for that study is an example of why i think people shouldn't be following keto diet instead of a balanced diet. I ask again for sources, i'd prefer a regulatory body that recomends a keto diet above the recomended diet.
Finally, look in the table of the different groups of participants. Their lowest carb intake group is at 37% of kcal intake as carbohydrate. Their kcal intake was as low as 1558 kcal. 37% of that is 144g of carbohydrate. That is not a low-carb diet in any camp.
Sir/madam, those numbers are correct!!!!
The recommended carb intake is 45- 55% of the daily calorie intake. It is also recomendes a minimum intake of 1500Kcal so that you don't miss any micronutrients. So any diet below 45% carbohydrates is, by definition, a low carb diet.
Those numbers are exactly what should be expected in a health study.
Any part of nutrition? That's nonsense. You're basically saying that stuff like sugar and alcohol need to also not be ignored.
Your comment is dishonest. When i say any part of nutrition we both know i'm talking about this:
Is sugar or alcohol there?
What insulin dosage? If you're treating diabetic patients, then yes, they absolutely need to work with their doctor to ease off their insulin dosages if they want to try low-carb. I wasn't initially referring to people who were already shooting themselves up with insulin.
insulin does not equal diabetic patient. I can tell you that those patients usually have hyperglycemia thus it is "hard" to make an hypoglicemia; unless we are super agressive with the dosages.
The patients i'm talking about are, for example, the hypercaliemia ones, which usually have normal glycemias and it is relatively hard , with my experience, to predict their response to insulin. I had a few that even with dextrose were still getting hypoglycemic.
My point still stands : If the body, like you say, could produce glucose as needed, I wouldn't need to be careful with the dosage of insulin would I?
The body could just compensate it!
No, we can't produce fiber on our own. Personally, I'm skeptical of the need for dietary fiber in the first place, but that's a separate topic.
(
source)
The data proves to fibers being good for you but you chose to not believe it; you last post is exactly why i won't comment further.
What is the point of a discussion when there is a HUGE ammount of data showing something is good for you but you are going to choose to ignore it?
Your first comments says the human body can produce carbohydrate as needed. Carbohydrates include fibers; so your first comment where you say "dietary carbohydrate is not an essential nutrient and that the body produces as much glucose as necessary. " should be read "Do note that dietary small carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient since the body can produce glucose. "
All of that post and you didn't even mention this:
- why you didn't post a single source? if you were talking, IRL, with a doctor you would not show a single source and yet expect him to believe you over what he spends a lot of time studying?
- Also what do you think it will happen with the increased meat intake (which usually includes red meat)?
all the questions are rhetoric. for you to think further on the subject, as i will not post further;
What is nonsense is me wasting my time on this discussion when for you Insulin= diabetes mellitus type 2; carbohydrates =/ from fibers; Alcohol is part of a normal nutrition; fibers might not be needed in diet; etc.
The barrier, IMO, is too great for a discussion. If you want to learn what is current practice, i took the time to upload some foundation classes on nutrition for doctors (
1;
2) they were made by doctorate professor in CHUC, Portugal. Specialist in intern medicine + subspeciality in nutrition; head of the nutrition department.
