Clearing up the confusion: the recent study dealing a "death-blow" to low-carb...

**Rasputin** · 09-10-2010, 08:51

Maybe you've seen it. Or, possibly you are Ted Kaczynski's illegitimate love-child and live a secluded life away from every source of news except for Budoseek (you're probably better off that way, trust me).

Either way, there was a recent study reported in The Annals of Internal Medicine which purported to drive the final steak (I'm feeling witty this morning) into the heart of low-carb diets, including the Atkins' diet.

I have a busy morning, and it's all been rebutted quite handily by the Blogosphere, so I will simply pass on the links and a couple of juicy textbites and let the idiocy speak for itself.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/bra...rs-in-trouble/

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...ing-to-ornish/

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/s...t-so-fast/8946

Originally Posted by Denise Minger

I’ll sum it up. Some of these “low carbers” were eating up to 60% of their diet as carbohydrates (first decile), which—last time I checked—is kind of not low-carb. Even the lowest low-carb eaters were still eating over 37% of their calories from carbohydrates. Whoever decided to call this study “low carbohydrate” is nuttier than a squirrel turd. That doesn’t mean it can’t offer anything useful, though, so let’s look at what else is going on in the highest decile for each group (which is the only decile the researchers really looked at):

* Folks in the Animal Group were more likely to smoke and had higher BMIs than adherents of the Vegetable Group. Along with influencing mortality outcomes, this suggests the Animal Food group, in the aggregate, may have been somewhat less health-conscious than the dieters lumped into the vegetable category. And that’s the type of thing that has repercussions for other diet and lifestyle choices that weren’t measured in the study.
* The Vegetable Group was nowhere near plant-based: They derived almost 30% of their daily calories from animal sources (animal fat and animal protein), versus about 45% for the Animal Group. If we compare the middle (fifth) decile, the Vegetable Group was eating a greater percent of total calories from animal foods than the Animal Group was. D’oh!
* The Vegetable Group ate more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains than the Animal Group—which begs the question: What kinds of carbohydrates filled this macronutrient void for the animal-food eaters? Could it’ve been refined grains and processed carbs, which the study conveniently forgot to document?
* For the Vegetable Group, cancer and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the tenth decile than the first decile, even though both deciles ate exactly the same amount of red meat and nearly the same amount of total animal foods. This suggests animal products aren’t the driving force behind differences in mortality rates.
* Similarly, at the fifth decile, the Vegetable Group had a lower cardiovascular mortality hazard ratio than the Animal Group (0.99 versus 1.21), even though the Vegetable Group was eating a slightly greater proportion of animal foods (33.3% versus 29.9% of total energy for women; 32.9% versus 31% for men).