You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j7er2i7 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


AllanfromWales1 t1_j7erwoe wrote

Not very helpful on carbohydrate quality. Are there 'good' and 'bad' carbohydrates?


Centimal t1_j7evbd4 wrote

TLDR - carbohydrate intake is related to cardiovascular disease etc. Does not differentiate between full grain/integral and not, does not seem to control for sugar intake.


modcon86 t1_j7f42lm wrote

Is this for all population groups? How about endurance athletes and other high carbohydrate demand groups? Does it vary between types of carbohydrates? So many questions.


Key-Hamster8897 t1_j7f44xo wrote

The way I look at it is that the human body has had very little time to adapt to a rich carbohydrate intake. Let's not forget that the agricultural revolution happened only 12,000 years ago. Mass carbohydrate intake was adapted even later. Before that, people ate mainly meat, greens, and fruit. Evolution will adapt eventually, but I don't see that happening any time soon.


lugdunum_burdigala t1_j7f5l0v wrote

From the abstract, they don't seem to differentiate between starchy foods and (refined) sugars. Intuitively and from my limited knowledge, I would assume that sugar is the real culprit of health decline, unless starchy foods are consumed in lieu of a diverse diet (including various protein sources, vegetables and nuts).

Starchy foods are still at the basis of many diets over the world, including in countries with high life expectancy (e.g. Japan and their high white rice consumption).


youshouldbethelawyer t1_j7fixh4 wrote

So, just like almost all public health recommendations of the past, the health service have been unhealthing people systematically


teadrinkinghippie t1_j7fkm06 wrote

Also I squared values don't hold. For example, "For each 5 %E increase in dietary carbohydrate intake, the summary RR was 1.02 (1.00–1.04, I2 = 66.8%) for cardiovascular disease, 1.04 (1.01–1.06, I2 = 0) for stroke but not significant for other outcomes." I2 = 0 is equivalent to saying all of this difference is attributable to chance and not differences between data. So while RR for stroke is 1.2 (20% increase), the amount of that increase attributable to real difference is ... zero.


BafangFan t1_j7fl6ft wrote

Vegetable oils are the culprit I'm picking out.

They first started as industrial waste from the cotton-picking industry, until companies found ways to detoxify it enough for human consumption.


OfLittleToNoValue t1_j7fm3fy wrote

A big part of it is cumulative insulin response and the glycation of LDL and framing it for heart disease while it's actually repairing the damage from sugar ablating the endothelium.

Fructose has the same impact on the body as alcohol.

It's not simply refined sugars because even ancient Egyptians knew wheat and bread lead to diabetes and obesity.


KamahlYrgybly t1_j7fn4qx wrote

Some of those 95% confidence intervals contain 1,0, yet the conclusion states that there is an effect. Eg. all-cause mortality (0,92-1,14).

I'm a bit rusty with statistics, but doesn't that mean that the effect is not statistically relevant?


Zoesan t1_j7fo8q2 wrote

Depends on "when" in the past. In terms of evolutionary time the longest period (IE before agriculture) two thirds or more of our calories came from animals.

TL;DR No, this is pretty wrong.


Fuzzycolombo t1_j7g2ikd wrote

They also eat a smaller quantity than Americans, with far more variety in their diet. Each meal is accompanied with multiple different vegetables.

Doesn’t make their white rice healthy, just allows them to get away with it.

High Starch consumption was a survival advantage that the human willingly took up 12,000 years ago to avoid the potential risk of failed hunts and inability to forage. Doesn’t mean it’s what’s healthiest for us, just what gave us the best chance at surviving. Surviving does not equal thriving


Fuzzycolombo t1_j7g2u0s wrote

High vegetable consumption, smaller caloric intake, more food variety, and less emphasis on fried junk food and sugars.

Any Asian populations that stray from this model turn out unhealthier, aka if they start adopting SAD characteristics


squatter_ t1_j7g6fan wrote

So perhaps the US food pyramid recommending 7 servings of grains per day should be revisited.


the--larch t1_j7gerl3 wrote

You can go high carb low fat (with natural foods and good fats), or you can go low carb and high fat/protein.

The in-between is deadly.

This is why the diabetes association pushes low fat /high carb, but people tend to find more dramatic results with keto.


Professional-Noise80 t1_j7gk3kk wrote

Increased consumption of anything that makes you obese will be associated with disease risk. I mean obese people tend to eat more of everything as well. So do fit people, who are actually healthier. What are we supposed to take away from this ? That we should stop eating carbs ? Sounds like a bad idea to me.


Goosfraba21 t1_j7gncle wrote

They eat an unprocessed diet rich in antioxidants. Carbs mainly from sweet potatoes and smaller portions of rice. Generally higher quantities of vegetables compared to the western diet. Small portions of meat. Tea and turmeric. Lower PUFA and lower total calories. My takeaway from their diet would definitely NOT be high carbs and low protein alone.


I-figured-it-out t1_j7gzo3k wrote

Increased intake of non-dietary carbohydrate is associated with childhood choking hazards, chewed pencils and vampiric death. Of these chewed pencils are considered associated with low risk of mortality outcomes, whereas staking is associated with abrupt flamboyant termination.


ChemicalRain5513 t1_j7h5pot wrote

OK, but I need 2500 kcal per day to function. If I don't eat carbohydrates, what am I going to replace them with?


the--larch t1_j7hge8j wrote

It has to do with how the body responds to the release of insulin. Keto/low carb works because your blood sugar stays low, so fats (generally) become fuel rather than storing it away in your arteries.

For a more elegant and educated explanation, I highly suggest Gary Taubes: Good Calories Bad Calories (or any of his works, really).

Edit: I should add that for people without metabolic disorders, there is more wiggle room, but the principle stays true.


Historical_Tea2022 t1_j7hv7ch wrote

Our brains need carbs. If you're only looking at the heart, maybe carbs seem bad, but we consist of a whole body.


stataryus t1_j7hxxoy wrote

Why is this user still allowed to post here???


conventionalWisdumb t1_j7i2qz4 wrote

Building on the response from u/the—larch:

Carbs and fats are processed by two different metabolic pathways and the carb pathway is more efficient so it is used first. You can then burn up the glycogen provided by the carbs while your body is slowly converting the fats which will feel like a blood sugar crash, so you eat more carb+fats. The process keeps going through the day and the fat has no where else to go except as triglycerides in your fat cells.

This issue can be abated if you’re willing to and can ignore the carb crash as a signal of hunger or if your carb source has high fiber as part of its nutritional matrix because the fiber slows down glycolysis. I would imagine we could potentially one day design a food with the ideal matrix where the ratio of carbs/fiber/fats provides the right amount of energy at the right time, but it won’t be as tasty as a donut.


CrispyButtNug t1_j7i9mup wrote

Guys, it's u/meatritian. Just a keto pusher that cherrypicks studies.

Sad that he's allegedly a grad student. I have an MS in exercise physiology and people like this devalue my hard work.


Scruffy77 t1_j7ibny5 wrote

Why is this guy allowed to post still?


Arentanji t1_j7ievtx wrote

Isn’t this stating the obvious?


lizarto t1_j7ijqy4 wrote

Huh…wonder what’s it’s doing at the bottom of the food pyramid.


BowlMaster83 t1_j7iov7u wrote

If your body never runs out of carbs to burn you never burn the fat and it accumulates. People should do periods of LOW carbs or fasting regularly so the body switches to burning fats.


thelobster64 t1_j7j0hh2 wrote

Its so annoying that he just posts terrible articles here basically every day. A few months ago I went into his profile. Here on r/science he just spams any and all scientific papers that support his extreme keto diet, but in his profile he posts and comments on all sorts of medical related subreddits and tells people they can cure their irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, depression, and pretty much all diseases by eating like 90% meat, and the more red meat the better. Its dangerous to have these propaganda posts on a supposedly scientific subreddit.


the--larch t1_j7j3wpn wrote

It has failed because we do it poorly, but clearly there are cases where it can be effective. (Traditional asian and Mediterranean diets, for example).

For actual intervention, I agree. I've been low carb for 20 years.


CrispyButtNug t1_j7j50y0 wrote

I work with a dietician who's been following labs on people for decades. Ive learned from her that eating carnivore longterm is terrible for your arteries. Just like doctors have been saying for quite awhile now. It's never been about dietary LDL -- it's about saturated fat and how that influences LDL and triglycerides.


Jay_8bit t1_j7j8di4 wrote

Look, I'm not the brightest marker in the caryon box, but if it's a burrito i eat


AlexTayo t1_j7jactz wrote

Keto/carnivore 4 lyfe!


Braeburn251 t1_j7jeusy wrote

Didn't we know this back in the 1950's? How is this newsworthy?


WhnOctopiMrgeWithTek t1_j7jgah7 wrote

Absolutely not quite and that's a toxic way of viewing the world.

Whole foods with fiber tend to be healthy, table sugar lack nutrients, fiber, and spikes insulin + produces inflammation and has many negative effects on the body.

There is hardly an issue with consuming say, berries and mangoes.


WhnOctopiMrgeWithTek t1_j7jgot6 wrote

Low carb and keto have me unable to gain muscle as easily. I also cannot recover from working out as easily, such that when I eat a large amount of carbs, fat, and protein, I can exercsie every day without feeling beat up.

If I skip the protein or carbs, it gets risky, especially by day two.

I've tried going carnivore with grassfed and whole grassfed milk, there is just something miraculous about carbohyrdates when it comes to working out, running, building muscle, or producing a pump from exercise.

I think it's best to be cyclical, so you're able to easily switch between burning carbs or fat, or fasting.


14sierra t1_j7jh607 wrote

Berries and mangoes are still loaded with simple sugars. Not as bad as candy but still not great. Complex branch chained carbs (think things like oat meal, whole wheat bread etc) are the least likely to cause blood sugar spikes and are generally the most healthy carbs you can eat.


the--larch t1_j7ji6bd wrote

Well, no one said skip protein, especially while lifting. Plenty of keto lifters out there, though.

If you eat a surplus and work out, even low carb, you get muscles. Is it the same result as the guys that live on boiled chicken breast and rice? IDK, but I wouldn't trade real food for an extra 2# of muscle. Ymmv.


traketaker t1_j7l7sbt wrote

Most fiber is insoluble. It just acts to carry everything through your system and clean you out. There are dietary fibers that do break down and are carbohydrates but that's a small amount. So it's a bad idea to just lump fiber as a carb.

"Dietary fiber is the kind you eat. It's a type of carbohydrate."

"Your body cannot digest fiber, so it passes through your intestines without being absorbed much"


traketaker t1_j7l8z5f wrote

I mean if he was eating red meat, store bought fruit, and store bought potatoes he could easily have had a lack of b vitamins and a lack of calcium, even while eating chocolate. which would have resulted in arterial build up and a heart attack.


dbanderson1 t1_j7lif0j wrote

It’s made of carbon and hydrogen. It’s a carbohydrate. There are three main types of carbohydrates:

Sugars. They are also called simple carbohydrates because they are in the most basic form.

Starches. They are complex carbohydrates, which are made of lots of simple sugars strung together.

Fiber. It is also a complex carbohydrate.

I was making the point because the above poster was trying to argue that candy and brown rice are equally bad be abuse they are “carbs.” All carbs aren’t created equal. Brown rice has fiber and other important nutrients and overall drastically different physiological effects than pure simple sugar.


traketaker t1_j7lkxas wrote

Ya. Sorry. I agree with you kind of. It was just a weird statement bc it's irrelevant if it's a carb if it just passes through. Also I'm skeptical of the "all fiber is carbs" statement. I mean all plant fiber, sure. But for a mountain lion hair and bone constitute fiber and I don't think hair is a carbohydrate. Or if a human ate hair wouldn't that constitute fiber in fecal matter. You may be right, I'm not an expert


dbanderson1 t1_j7lrxly wrote

Hair is mostly keratin which is actually a helical protein.

Is interesting that while we don’t directly digest and breakdown fiber … our gut microbes do and in ferment them into short chain fatty acids which are also important for gut health. Having a masters degree in nutritional sciences I approach the question more in regards from the biochemistry of the molecule. If you revisit your nutrition facts label you will indeed find fiber as a sub component of carbohydrate. Under carbohydrate it lists dietary fiber, total sugars, and added sugars. Some products like cheerios list soluble fiber as well.


Aporkalypse_Sow t1_j7mm7s2 wrote

I was merely pointing out that being overweight had nothing to do with his situation. Being overweight isn't going to win health awards, but you can limit your calories and still be a train wreck inside.