General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Terrific timing for my man Sam Harris to step in http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

This was so perfect it's almost hard to believe the timing. But it perfectly deals with the "Bread is poison is a pretty tough sell since it's basically responsible for civilization, and life expectancy has only increased since man settled down." argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155441/?tool=pubmed
I think this a valuable reading for anyone interested in diets in general. There are a lot of studies available at pubmed that show interesting results. I think a lot of the information in this thread has been cherry picked, and hopefully people are willing to read a less sensationalist article on the topic.

The diet ultimately recommended here is the mediterranean diet. As you can see it differs significantly both from the traditional low-fat diet, but also the low-carb diet championed in this thread. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011

It's hard to read any of the publications on pubmed and come away with a sense of having a definitive answer, which I think is the biggest mistake that people are making in this thread.

It's hard to read any of the publications on pubmed and come away with a sense of having a definitive answer

welcome to science

Terrific timing for my man Sam Harris to step in http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

so much for my weekly bonfire prayer group.

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) diet: 2 new trials provide the best evidence.
-Two-year trial1 of 322 patients found those following a high-carb (low-fat) diet lost 2.9 kg, those on a Mediterranean diet lost 4.4 kg, and those on a low-carb diet lost 4.5 kg.
—The low-carb group had the highest dropout rate.

let's break down this review shall we?

from the abstract of this study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155441/?tool=pubmed:

"The mean weight loss was 2.9 kg for the low-fat group, 4.4 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group, and 4.7 kg for the low-carbohydrate group"
why did 4.7 loss for LC get changed to 4.5 in the review????

"among the 272 participants who completed the intervention, the mean weight losses were 3.3 kg, 4.6 kg, and 5.5 kg, respectively."

and from the full text of the study
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681#t=articleBackground:

"Mediterranean Diet [...]
We restricted energy intake to 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men"

they're restricting calories! unfair comparison. the LCHF group was calorie unrestricted, meaning not hungry and very happy.

"HDL cholesterol (Figure 3A) increased during the weight-loss and maintenance phases in all groups, with the greatest increase in the low-carbohydrate group (8.4 mg per deciliter [0.22 mmol per liter]"
HDL is good cholesterol, high is good.

"Triglyceride levels (Figure 3B) decreased significantly in the low-carbohydrate group (23.7 mg per deciliter [0.27 mmol per liter]"

"Overall, the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol (Figure 3D) decreased during both the weight-loss and the maintenance phases. The low-carbohydrate group had the greatest improvement, with a relative decrease of 20%"
low ratio good

from the conclusion:

"The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups suggests that a low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet may be optimal for those who will not follow a restricted-calorie dietary regimen."

but don't know what to say about the dropout rates.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011
from the page: " In fact, a recent analysis of more than 1.5 million healthy adults demonstrated that following a Mediterranean diet was associated with a reduced risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality, a reduced incidence of cancer and cancer mortality, and a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases."

nothing but an observational study being used as conclusive proof. bunk science.

Wow. Just... wow...

Wow. Just... wow...

That can't possibly be your response. I haven't read everything nawhead wrote, but he's clearly trying to reason his way through the article and explain why some of it may not be as definitive as you/the authors made it out to be. Why is that worthy of a clearly incredulous "wow"?

Because I specifically said that it isn't definitive, and the article very much echos that the results are not definitive. And because nawhead clearly is willing to accept any little indication that a low-carb diet is best as sound science, and any contrary evidence is quickly dismissed.

To my point: He concludes out of thin air that the calorie unrestricted group must be "not hungry and very happy". While saying that "associated with a reduced risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality, a reduced incidence of cancer and cancer mortality, and a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases" is "nothing but an observational study being used as conclusive proof. bunk science."

nawhead, looking at this, and how passionate you rightly are about it, makes me realise why others view my perspectives on other clearly verifiable facts (aka 9/11 wink wink) as nonsense.

Thank you

It's not that what you're saying is wrong. Just it's easy to dismiss obvious facts when faced with emotional turmoil.

Probably gonna be flamed but its fun to have these 'internet' debates while we can..

Because I specifically said that it isn't definitive, and the article very much echos that the results are not definitive. And because nawhead clearly is willing to accept any little indication that a low-carb diet is best as sound science, and any contrary evidence is quickly dismissed.

To my point: He concludes out of thin air that the calorie unrestricted group must be "not hungry and very happy". While saying that "associated with a reduced risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality, a reduced incidence of cancer and cancer mortality, and a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases" is "nothing but an observational study being used as conclusive proof. bunk science."

fair enough. In nawhead's defense, the associated risk stuff is in fact fact wishy-washy crap that's just there to make reviewers happy. I do agree with you that his assumption that ad libidum feeding = full and happy isn't necessarily true. I know if I was on an ad libidum vegetarian diet I'd be a sad panda. I will also say that the low-carb crowd does not have many/any super awesome studies showing it crushed other stuff. Basically nobody has done a fantastic study on diets since they're so goddamn hard to do.

eta: in conclusion, let's all have a beer together.

I think arguing which of the better diets are the best between us laypeople becomes fuzzy very quickly. I thought nawhead did a good skeptical analysis of the study though and expect he applies that same critical thinking to the studies that strengthen his position too.

exactly. low-fat is a fad and a failed theory based on bad science that's wrecked the health of hundreds of millions of people (as well as the psychological pain it's caused) for the past 30 years.

Now defend this quote from nawhead. Talk about unfounded claims.

HEY NOWHEREMAN THAT BETTER BE LOW CARB BEER.

Because I specifically said that it isn't definitive, and the article very much echos that the results are not definitive.

how is it not definitive when most every metabolic measurement is in favor of LCHF being best and the actual scientists doing the clinical study conclude that "The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups suggests that a low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet may be optimal for those who will not follow a restricted-calorie dietary regimen."

the only thing that might be a real negative for LCHF from that study was higher levels of ketones. but it's debatable whether this is even harmful.

i'll take n0whereman's word that there is no super study on diets. but if this study is being used against LCHF or to downplay LCHF, now we're just blatantly ignoring the numbers. better is better.

To my point: He concludes out of thin air that the calorie unrestricted group must be "not hungry and very happy".

maybe happy was too strong a word. how about relieved? on the other hand, i'd be pretty sad if someone told me i had to semi-starve myself for the rest of my life on the Mediterranean diet to achieve worse results than LCHF where i basically get to eat all i want (except carbs obv).

While saying that "associated with a reduced risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality, a reduced incidence of cancer and cancer mortality, and a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases" is "nothing but an observational study being used as conclusive proof. bunk science."

http://deucescracked.com/forums/4-General-Discussion/topics/482841-Low-Carb-High-Fat-eating?page=7&per_page=15#post_4244771

how is it not definitive when most every metabolic measurement is in favor of LCHF being best

How about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17136037
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820038 ?