Be careful making any changes to your diet based on these "findings". The healthiest populations on the planet eat plenty of carbs, but not refined sugars.
Even without the data quality issues, there are obvious uncontrolled confounding factors. I don't understand how a real scientist can title this study "Dietary Carbohydrates Impair . . ." when the finding is actually "Dietary Carbohydrates Are Associated With Impaired . . ." Clear evidence that statistical training (or perhaps just incentives) for scientists remains insufficient.
What's really surprising is how many people on here are like, "of course, ketogenic diets!" Where is all the skepticism that is so vividly on display when discussing the latest Google or Facebook product announcement?
Because they explain the causal link. See the paragraph beginning with, "Most dietary carbohydrates relevant
for human nutrition contain the monosaccharide
D-glucose".
Countless studies show that consuming refined sugars alone has very different effects on the body than consuming complex carbohydrates along with the fiber found in natural foods. This is like saying that all protein contains glutamate so there's no difference between eating a steak or a tablespoon full of refined MSG.
I think their claim is that most carbs are mostly made out of D-glucose. And that excessive amounts of it cause your insulin based signalling cascade to go wrong.
I'm sure that encapsulating your carbs in a nice hard-to-unwrap cellulose structure slows the release of this D-glucose stuff and gives your body's control loop more chance to cope. But at this point we're arguing about the details of the causal link.
I always wonder, when nutrition studies are usually so poorly designed and controlled, why people don't just look at the blue zone diets for nutrition guidance.
Yep. We have multiple examples of multigenerational communities that regularly live to 100+. Poorly done studies like this one only serve to obscure the truth about what we should be eating for longevity.
Comments
This study is highly flawed:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure...
Be careful making any changes to your diet based on these "findings". The healthiest populations on the planet eat plenty of carbs, but not refined sugars.
Even without the data quality issues, there are obvious uncontrolled confounding factors. I don't understand how a real scientist can title this study "Dietary Carbohydrates Impair . . ." when the finding is actually "Dietary Carbohydrates Are Associated With Impaired . . ." Clear evidence that statistical training (or perhaps just incentives) for scientists remains insufficient.
What's really surprising is how many people on here are like, "of course, ketogenic diets!" Where is all the skepticism that is so vividly on display when discussing the latest Google or Facebook product announcement?
Because they explain the causal link. See the paragraph beginning with, "Most dietary carbohydrates relevant for human nutrition contain the monosaccharide D-glucose".
Countless studies show that consuming refined sugars alone has very different effects on the body than consuming complex carbohydrates along with the fiber found in natural foods. This is like saying that all protein contains glutamate so there's no difference between eating a steak or a tablespoon full of refined MSG.
I think their claim is that most carbs are mostly made out of D-glucose. And that excessive amounts of it cause your insulin based signalling cascade to go wrong.
I'm sure that encapsulating your carbs in a nice hard-to-unwrap cellulose structure slows the release of this D-glucose stuff and gives your body's control loop more chance to cope. But at this point we're arguing about the details of the causal link.
I always wonder, when nutrition studies are usually so poorly designed and controlled, why people don't just look at the blue zone diets for nutrition guidance.
Had not heard of "Blue zone"s before [1]. (EDIT: Added [2])
[1]: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eat...
[2]: http://bluezones.com/recipes/
Yep. We have multiple examples of multigenerational communities that regularly live to 100+. Poorly done studies like this one only serve to obscure the truth about what we should be eating for longevity.
if you live on a plant then you don't have much of a choice anyway.