Page 1 of 2

Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mort

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:28 pm
by stuward
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/

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:56 pm
by Jebus
Well, were all going to die anyway... What a stupid study.

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:10 pm
by stuward
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.

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:28 pm
by Rik-Blades
Top Class!! Nice find Stu, finally a study that clearly (and very kindly!) provides the data, so it can be shot to pieces!

Should be added to the sticky's.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:44 am
by frogbyte
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.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:56 am
by ApolytonGP
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.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:09 pm
by frogbyte
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.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:15 pm
by pdellorto
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.
Heh. This made me smile when I read it.

"Summary: Half-asses approaches get even less than half-assessed results (+- 0.2 asses)."

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:18 pm
by Rucifer
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.
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.

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"

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:40 pm
by Ironman
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.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:29 pm
by frogbyte
Now I'm once again reminded of that cool bumper sticker I saw - "Don't believe everything you think"... :-)

Maybe those guys had an agenda, (I'm not sure I'd go that far) but certainly they did a poor job.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:32 pm
by stuward
frogbyte wrote:...
Maybe those guys had an agenda...
Do ya think?

If there was ever a case of fitting the data to match the conclusion, this was it.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:47 pm
by frogbyte
Well, I'm not quite so quick to ascribe malevolence to what could just as easily be the result of incompetence and group-think.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:04 pm
by stuward
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

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:14 pm
by frogbyte
Think about how many economists didn't see housing bubble coming... group-think is powerful and compounds minor levels of incompetence.