Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.
http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract
According to this recent study, it looks like we're all going to die.
*** BULLS#!T. ***
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand- ... n-trouble/
Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mort
Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, jethrof, stuward, parth
It is a stupid study but the scary part is that, as usual, most just read the conclusion from the abstract and then repeat it. Then it becomes "Truth" and those of us that know better have less of a voice and are considered "nuts". Read some of the comments and check the names out. It's a who's who of the online low-carb community.
-
Rik-Blades
- Associate Member
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:47 pm
- Location: Nottinghamshire U.K.
-
ApolytonGP
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am
Philosophy comment:
Obviously, you shouldn't let a single study break you of a previous belief, since there are so many studies and so many ways they can be wrong and even so many confounding factors. That said, an opposing study ought to at least open your mind to the possibility that a previous belief was mistaken. so many here, seem to think in terms of good guys and bad guys (paleo and starting strnegth with a barbell are the good guys), rather than of being really curious about the science of training and even what areas are very much still up in the air.
Like on the whole machine versus barbell thing. I got two pretty decent lit reviews and they basically showed that almost all studies show sstatostocally similar strength improvements for machine versu barbell. There's also a common sense veiw that tthe muscle shouldn't care, just load is what matters. Now, we can probaly question each study. Can debate populations and methodlogy and all that. but when you have the bulk of the evidence. When the other side is only finding fault with studies that go against them, rather than supplying their own, rather than questioning all studies (of all sides), then I see a pattern of not real Feynmanian curiosity and intellectual honesty.
P.s. Not a hack against you, Stew. you are one of the best. But a general comment.
Obviously, you shouldn't let a single study break you of a previous belief, since there are so many studies and so many ways they can be wrong and even so many confounding factors. That said, an opposing study ought to at least open your mind to the possibility that a previous belief was mistaken. so many here, seem to think in terms of good guys and bad guys (paleo and starting strnegth with a barbell are the good guys), rather than of being really curious about the science of training and even what areas are very much still up in the air.
Like on the whole machine versus barbell thing. I got two pretty decent lit reviews and they basically showed that almost all studies show sstatostocally similar strength improvements for machine versu barbell. There's also a common sense veiw that tthe muscle shouldn't care, just load is what matters. Now, we can probaly question each study. Can debate populations and methodlogy and all that. but when you have the bulk of the evidence. When the other side is only finding fault with studies that go against them, rather than supplying their own, rather than questioning all studies (of all sides), then I see a pattern of not real Feynmanian curiosity and intellectual honesty.
P.s. Not a hack against you, Stew. you are one of the best. But a general comment.
-
pdellorto
- Deific Wizard of Sagacity
- Posts: 5252
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Heh. This made me smile when I read it.frogbyte wrote:That ties in with that other recent article link speculating that half-assed low carb was useless. That wasn't a study of low carb, it was a study of half-assedness.
"Summary: Half-asses approaches get even less than half-assessed results (+- 0.2 asses)."
Actually his statement was correct. But you were right in saying that this study Stuward posted for us was something that should get us to look with an open eye, is not actually something that should.frogbyte wrote:Your philosophy comment is completely incorrect. The point is it's not an opposing study. It's a misleadingly titled study.
Click "Preview" and re-read your posts before submitting them. Really think about whether what you're saying is useful and as accurate as it can be.
This is why I'm about to start taking Stephen Colbert's attitude towards science- "I'm not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are"
No, you SHOULD let one study challenge and change your beliefs. Unless of course that study is bull$h!7. In fact you should not have ANY beliefs. Beliefs imply belief, as in believing something without evidence. Thinking something is more likely to be true in an area where there is no solid evidence is ok. That's where ideas come from. People can test the ideas and find out if they are true.
However when studies are published with an agenda and go against the scientific method, that is just plain dishonesty. Only studies using the scientific method should be given any legitimacy.
However when studies are published with an agenda and go against the scientific method, that is just plain dishonesty. Only studies using the scientific method should be given any legitimacy.
You're more generous than me. I just don't think that incompetence at that level is possible. Consider the number of doctors that put there name on this. Do you really think they are all incompetent? That's probably scarier than the alternative.
Teresa T. Fung, ScD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD; Susan E. Hankinson, ScD; Meir Stampfer, MD, DrPH; Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH; and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD
Teresa T. Fung, ScD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD; Susan E. Hankinson, ScD; Meir Stampfer, MD, DrPH; Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH; and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD
