There's a study making the rounds in dietary literature that claims low carbohydrate diets increases risk of Swedish women's cardiovascular disease. The study was based on a questionnaire that asked women what they ate in the past 16 years.
According to the summary:
"A one tenth decrease in carbohydrate intake or increase in protein intake or a 2 unit increase in the low carbohydrate-high protein score were all statistically significantly associated with increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease overall"
Well. That should be enough evidence for all of us to turn course and go back into the safety of skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese.
But wait. We can't conclude anything from this study at all.
It's an observational study.
Tom Naughton (of "FatHead" documentary fame) has a YouTube video speech he gave on a low-carb cruise explaining how to spot good science from bad science.
Good science = Clinical/Experimental Study
Bad science = Observational Study
An example of flawed observational study conclusion:
"People who like to run are thin. I am fat. Therefore, if I want to be thin, I should run."
But there are numerous people who run and never get thin. They get shin splints and metatarsal stress fracture. If they can't run, how can they get thin?
The real conclusion is: "People who are thin tend to chose running for exercise."
Here's another observational study. 16 years ago (the period in which this study was conducted), I was a college student. I ate no breakfast, ramen noodles, pizza, beer, and Snackwells low-fat cookies. I was slim and weighed 125lbs. What can we conclude? Was it no breakfast, ramen noodles, pizza, beer or Snackwell's cookie that kept me slim?
We can't conclude anything. Even if we add in that I was walking an average of 2 hours per day to classes, uphill both ways, we can't conclude anything. Even if we added in my entire girl's dorm who were doing the same thing, we can't conclude anything.
Snackwells cookies were very popular in my dorm. Did it keep us college age girls slim? Did most of us gain weight after college because we stopped eating Snackwells? Should we eat more like we did in college to lose more weight?
Here is a breakdown analysis on the flaws with the Swedish study. She is not a low-carber; she is a raw food vegan who hates bad science.
- This study is observational—meaning it tells us nothing about cause and effect.
- This study relies on one food frequency questionnaire that the women filled out upon enrollment in the Women’s Lifestyle and Health Cohort. We have no idea what they were eating during the next 16 years.
- Women reported their food intake during the early ’90s, when low-fat diets were the gold standard for healthy eating. The most health-conscious women were likely to be eating the most carbohydrate at that time.
- Food frequency questionnaires are all sorts of terrible and don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.
- The study’s “diet score” design assumes that all low-carbohydrate diets are necessarily high in protein—resulting in a point-assigning system that doesn’t always identify true low carbers.
- The women with the lowest carbohydrate intake in this study were still eating up to 123 grams of it a day (an amount that’s probably wildly underestimated, to boot)—meaning they weren’t actually eating a low-carbohydrate diet.
- The true increase in cardiovascular disease risk from scoring high on the “low carb, high protein” scale is pretty minor—and pales in comparison to other lifestyle variables.
Emphasis: 123g daily carbohydrates was the lowest carb intake in this study. The conclusions are not drawn on a low-carb diet at all.
Here is a Standford clinical study comparing Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN (standard american recommended diet). Atkins outperformed all of the other diets in terms of weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, increased HDL, decreased LDL, normal cholesterol, low triglycerides, and overall compliance following the diet. The head researcher is a life-long vegetarian, and although surprised by the results, reported the facts as they stand. Conclusion: Atkins did not increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and heart disease, but decreased all known long term clinical markers.
The other interesting conclusion on the Stanford clincal trial is people who had some degree of insulin resistance performed better on Atkins. People who had no degree of insulin resistance performed better on the LEARN diet.
Here is an article about North Carolinian dieticians attempting to use legislation to censor a blogger who writes about how he cured his diabetes through a low-carb diet.
The blogger in question is named Steve Cooksey. Here is his blog, and all the ailments he cured through diet alone:
There's so much conflicting information, it's difficult to tell the good from the bad. Recognizing the difference between an observational study versus an experimental/clinical study is an important way to weed out the good from the bad.
Overall, self-experimentation was the only way I knew for sure.
Does my diet:
- Make me feel better
- Improves quality of life
- Leaves me with energy throughout the day
- No energy crashes
- No hunger
- No cravings
- Loses weight
- Easy weight maintenance
Does my diet reduce risk of Metabolic Syndrome/Heart Disease:
- Normal blood lipids (HDL,LDL,Trigylcerides)
- Normal blood pressure
- Normal body weight/body fat
My answer to all of the above is a resounding checkmark +.
Thanks to JustBirdy for raising the awareness on the ADA censorship and Denise Minger's analysis of the Swedish study.
"What did YOU eat 16 years ago?"
"Forbes article exposes the "academy's" creepy practices"