Probably, you've all heard of the recent study from Harvard that disses on the low-carb diet. Here's a rebuttal.

[MBAnderson]

health.harvard.edu/healthbe...

"Latest Low-Carb Study: All Politics, No Science"

"The only evidence to be found in this research is evidence of bias."

Posted Sep 05, 2018

psychologytoday.com/us/blog...

[park_bear]

It is appalling how much propaganda and misinformation show up in medical journals. Here is something I wrote up regarding extremely egregious example:

Junk Science, Bad Reporting Propagate Unhealthy Misinformation Regarding Supplements

tinyurl.com/yay9yza2

[MBAnderson in reply to park_bear]

This is quite an article. It'll take me a couple days to digest it. You publish under the name "wilderness voice?" That has more cachet than park_bear. I signed up for KOS and I'm a follower. Thank you for all your contributions.

I am so impressed with so many people on this forum. It's really remarkable.

[park_bear in reply to MBAnderson]

Yes, I publish under the name wilderness voice at Daily Kos. Thank you for putting in the effort to fully grok that article - it is a case in point of how to do a bad review of studies. Executive summary: they cherry picked studies to get the adverse result they wanted.

[Hidden]

The rebuttal is not a rebuttal of the Harvard paper. The Harvard paper does not “diss” low carb diets but is a timely reminder that while carbs might be restricted, they cannot just be replaced with anything. What they are replaced with is important. I would have thought that that message is appropriate.

[PDConscience]

MDA, That’s a pretty revealing article (Psych-Today) - especially when contrasted against the summary of the lacking Harvard ‘study’. It kind of boggles the mind how such a thoroughly flawed methodology ultimately clears peer review and makes it into print.

In the end the perpetual dilemma remains: Within each of the ‘macro’ categories (fat/carb/protein) lie both healthy and unhealthy sources, the ‘ideal’ composition of which ultimately depends on the unique biochemistry (esp. microbiome) of the individual.

[Hidden]

The rebuttal that you refer to reads like the real propaganda to me. We humans have the enzyme ptyalin in our saliva so that starch digestion can begin inside the mouth while chewing our carb foods such as grass seeds, grain or bread This is an example of genetic blueprint. Another example of genetic blueprint is that our body is designed to conserve salt, and to excrete large amounts of potassium. A predominantly vegetarian diet is rich in potassium. The so-called paleo diet is a myth. Humans have rice based diets, corn based diets, wheat based diets, millet, sorghum, buckwheat, barley etc. There has always been a lot of medical propaganda. Syphilis appeared in Europe after the return of Columbus and his crew, and for many hundreds of years, doctors treated it with various forms of mercury, and no one will ever know how many people were killed by mercury poisoning. Penicillin was discovered in the 1940's. The real cause of stomach ulcers turned out to be gut bacteria. Gut bacteria also play a role in Parkinson's disease. Various diseases have been blamed on protein deficiencies, when the problem all along was gut bacteria. As long as a person has enough food to eat, it is impossible for them not to have enough protein, unless they are just eating French fries, or just eating fruit. Such crazy people do exist. The entire history of medicine is awash with propaganda.

[MBAnderson]

Because reading articles by nutritionist is like reading articles by economists (in that they are both all over the map,) for me, the prudent course is to hedge my bet and not to go all in on a particular diet.

For myself, I’m going with low-ish (one third of calories from) carbs, high-fat, and moderate protein because of the many deleterious effects of high and fluctuating glucose, especially on our microbiome and its role in the autoimmune response and the role of autoimmune in PD.

This link is a good panel discussion from a recent conference in Switzerland called, “The Science and Politics of Nutrition” with panelists supporting both positions on low fat vs low-carb.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Eby6L0...(Not working as expected?)

[park_bear]

It is a pity that all carbs fall under one classification. It is true they will turn sugar eventually, eventually being the operative word. Nonetheless there is a vast difference between ingesting sugars versus complex carbs, because the complex carbs turn to sugar slowly, whereas sugars are absorbed quickly. It is the ingested sugars that wreak havoc with blood sugar levels, ultimately resulting in type II diabetes if done to excess. High blood sugar also damages arteries which leads to cardiovascular disease.

I choose what to eat based on whatever seems the most appealing at the moment. I figure that is my body's way of telling me what it wants to have.

[MBAnderson in reply to park_bear]

Good points, good explanation. I should be careful to talk in terms of glycemic index and glycemic load.

Here's another good explanation.

lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/foo...

Lucky you - getting to eat what's most appealing. If I did that, I'd be a brittle diabetic or dead.

[park_bear in reply to MBAnderson]

I should have included what is most appealing in my refrigerator or cupboard. I implement my diet by what I buy at the supermarket. Being your basic bear, there is no hope of any self-control if the food is within paws' reach.

[JAS9 in reply to park_bear]

Yes, and whole foods help mitigate the glycemic load of other foods, so not eating unprocessed carbs makes negative sense: youtube.com/watch?v=AoHvkrc...(Not working as expected?)

[park_bear in reply to JAS9]

A lot of good information packed into that video!

[MBAnderson]

Another critique of the Harvard study by Nina Teicholz

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/239...