ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026 Interesting study and obviously a bit concerning at least when looking beyond a 30 day window. Can anyone offer a good critique for this? How are the recommended fats/protein sources in W30 different/safer than what is likely a part of this more generalized study in Sweden? Was this more general concern addressed in ISWF? Feel free to move is this is not the right place for this topic. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karacooks Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 the biggest thing that stands out to me is this (bolding mine): Conclusions Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. I'd like to see more studies where healthy lean proteins and balanced fats are taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny M Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I read through the article and my main problem with it is there is no mention of food choices within the macronutrient groups. This is the problem with most of these studies. A carb is not a carb anymore than a calorie is just a calorie. There are a few significant characteristics of the W30 foods to note the biggest of which is around avoiding seed and vegetable oils and fats. These are known to believed to cause inflammation and oxidative stress associated with heart disease. The study has no mention of such oils and their effects. There's a comment in the summary of the study that I find disturbing and indicative of the fact that details I think are extremely important are not only not present, but general assumptions are setting the stage for this study: Although low carbohydrate-high protein diets may be nutritionally acceptable if the protein is mainly of plant origin and the reduction of carbohydrates applies mainly to simple and refined ones So...a protein is not a protein. But again without important detail, what could we really hope to learn from this study anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 the biggest thing that stands out to me is this: I'd like to see more studies where healthy lean proteins and balanced fats are taken into consideration. Agreed definitely. Do any exist? I am not certain what the typical diet from this study would look like compared to the recommendations from W30. Since it is Scandanavia I do wonder if it is fish-heavy or not; would seem likely but hard to say for certain. Also, I am curious to know if following the W30 regimen leads to a better outcome in other important aspects of one's health, and if that balances out any additional risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 I read through the article and my main problem with it is there is no mention of food choices within the macronutrient groups. This is the problem with most of these studies. A carb is not a carb anymore than a calorie is just a calorie. There are a few significant characteristics of the W30 foods to note the biggest of which is around avoiding seed and vegetable oils and fats. These are known to believed to cause inflammation and oxidative stress associated with heart disease. The study has no mention of such oils and their effects. There's a comment in the summary of the study that I find disturbing and indicative of the fact that details I think are extremely important are not only not present, but general assumptions are setting the stage for this study: So...a protein is not a protein. But again without important detail, what could we really hope to learn from this study anyway? Thanks for the reply. I get your point on the oils not being taken into consideration, but aren't the oils independent from the increase in animal protein? Someone on the high carb/low protein side is just as likely to consume bad vegetable and seed oils as someone on the high protein/low carb side, right? Or is it your suggestion that removing these foods might counteract whatever increase in heart problems that may occur from a high protein diet? As for the quote about animal vs plant protein, I didn't get the impression that they were working from that perspective but rather suggesting that refined carbs are known to be bad pretty much universally for a variety of reasons so they are best avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karacooks Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Right to both posts above. I have a hard time with studies that focus on one or two aspects of a diet - simply becuase we still know so little about how all foods work in concert with the other. When you isolate one food or one macro for the purpose of a study, how do you know you're not missing interactions of other foods and nutrients? Plus, historically look at how things have changed in the last few decades. Fat is bad. No fat is good. No saturated fat is bad. No, actually it's not as bad as we thought. Eggs will kill you though. No wait, eggs aren't actually that bad at all. Carbs are evil. No wait, healthy carbs from complex sources and fruits and veggies are good for you. Etc. Etc. I just don't really believe any single study any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michelle888 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I also have an issue that this is a "self report" study. People aren't always honest about what they eat. The fact that this is a survey study alone is enough for me to distrust it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarfreeLife Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I recently saw this article http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-swedish-diet-revolution-and-the-resulting-hysteria I think that it is similar case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny M Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I'm just tossing ideas out there...I didn't spend a ton of time reading every detail and articulating responses...but typically those details is where these studies are flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 I recently saw this article http://www.dietdocto...ulting-hysteria I think that it is similar case. Actually the study I linked to seems to be about actual heart incidents rather than cholesterol/biomarkers. I know that that reading isn't a good way to understand overall cardiac health, but looking at heart attacks, strokes, etc is a bit more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 And just to be clear I'm on day 13 of my W30 and feeling quite good! There are aspects of this diet I hope to keep up with well after the 30 days are done. I am just trying to learn what I can to ensure this is a safe long term way of eating. I really like the idea of using the W30 as a challenge diet to see what removing and slowly adding back in certain potentially problematic foods does to one's body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tom Denham Posted July 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted July 5, 2012 The study is irrelevant to people following the Whole30 approach to eating. The study examined people eating a standard Swedish diet -SSD - (similar to the standard American diet - SAD). The participants ate refined, processed foods, grains, legumes, sugar, dairy, alcohol, etc. Whole30 eaters don't. It makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecb Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 The study is irrelevant to people following the Whole30 approach to eating. The study examined people eating a standard Swedish diet -SSD - (similar to the standard American diet - SAD). The participants ate refined, processed foods, grains, legumes, sugar, dairy, alcohol, etc. Whole30 eaters don't. It makes a difference. Are you sure? I get that W30 is much different from a normal diet, but my understanding of the results is that they controlled against all of those things to try and only look at how increased protein consumption affects heart health. Is the idea that avoiding those other problematic foods and substituting with W30 fats, no processed sugars, etc counteracts the negative effects from additional animal protein? If there are any good nutrition articles that cover these topics that would be great. Thanks! BTW, actually adding in a more scientifically minded group to the message boards would be a nice addition. I had no idea where to post this particular question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karacooks Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Actually I'm not sure I'd agree that the SSD bears any resemblence to the SAD. Also I htink saying that studies don't have any relevance to anyone doing Whole30 is slightly disingenous. I said I don't believe in any one single study .. but I also don't believe in throwing out a body of studies just becuase someone says "this diet plan is exempt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayell Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The ever fabulous Denise Minger takes this study on: http://rawfoodsos.co...-strikes-again/ You may also want to read the responses to the study on the BMJ site: http://www.bmj.com/c...6?tab=responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindaLee Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well, and the Whole30 lifestyle isn't really LOW carb, is it? It's just low refined/starchy/bready/sugary carbs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tom Denham Posted July 6, 2012 Moderators Share Posted July 6, 2012 Are you sure? I get that W30 is much different from a normal diet, but my understanding of the results is that they controlled against all of those things to try and only look at how increased protein consumption affects heart health. Is the idea that avoiding those other problematic foods and substituting with W30 fats, no processed sugars, etc counteracts the negative effects from additional animal protein? I completed all the statistics and research courses for a Ph.D. in Family Relations once upon a time, but I. Am. Not. Sure... That said, the study looked at what 50,000 people who completed surveys said they ate and tracked them over time. Statisticians say they control for different variables when they slice and dice the findings to identify subgroups, but their subgroups remain broad. Too broad to compare their findings to the life expectancy of people following a Whole30 approach in my opinion. Meat is healthy food. We don't have to counter negative effects from meat. Meat is not enough; there are lots of nutrients, vitamins, etc. in vegetables that our bodies need, but not as a counter-balance or prophylactic. The problem with conventional modern diets is the inflammatory and hormonal effects of grains, legumes, sugar, etc. Unfortunately, no one is doing studies that controls for these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.