[Closed] Low-carb diets could shorten life, study suggests

Your not advocating a balanced and controlled diet are you .

Get out of here with your sensible thinking.

Being alive significantly increases your chances of death 👍

I long for the day when science discovers a  delicious dead animal that's made entirely  out of carbohydrates.

Only then will I be truly happy.

So the iDave diet is bollocks? Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard an interesting podcast with a genetic researcher recently, who specifically studied diet and genetics. Basically it came down to this (I might not explain this very well) If your ancestor is mainly western European, your genetic make-up is going to differ from south east Asians and Eskimos. Through the process of evolution, certain adoptions to the available diet in an area give an evolutionary advantage, and are therefore likely to be passed on and gain dominance, ie 95% of western Europeans are genetically adapted to process cows milk, because there has been some form of dairy farming for thousands of years and it has been an advantage for those who could utilize that source of nutrition, while in south east Asia very few are adapted to drink milk.

So what they are beginning to understand is that a dietary study in China may not be relevant to Europe, and the supposedly healthy diet of the Eskimos wouldn't be so healthy for us.

It should also be pointed out that the study was based on the misconception of the low-carb diet rather than what it really should be. When done right, it is really a low simple carb and sugar diet. Replacing simple carbs and sugars with more complex carbs and fibre, ie replacing rice and pasta with cauliflower and brocoli. They do actually touch on this this in the article.

Your not advocating a balanced and controlled diet are you .

Get out of here with your sensible thinking.

So much this - I read an article on this on The Guardian this morning and my main takeaway was the simple fact that eating too much or not enough of any particular food group isn't going to be particularly good for you.

I heard an interesting podcast with a genetic researcher recently, who specifically studied diet and genetics. Basically it came down to this (I might not explain this very well) If your ancestor is mainly western European, your genetic make-up is going to differ from south east Asians and Eskimos. Through the process of evolution, certain adoptions to the available diet in an area give an evolutionary advantage, and are therefore likely to be passed on and gain dominance, ie 95% of western Europeans are genetically adapted to process cows milk, because there has been some form of dairy farming for thousands of years and it has been an advantage for those who could utilize that source of nutrition, while in south east Asia very few are adapted to drink milk.

But surely that is not long enough on the evolutionary scale for those with dairy tolerance to become prevelant, and no environmental factor to weed out those who are intolerant?

It very much is, especially when you look at the population explosion over the past few thousand years, and take into account historic infant mortality rates etc. It doesn't actually take that many generation for that kind of adoption to become dominant.

And the funny thing is now that those who were genetically adapted best to get the nutrient requirements when food was sparce, may suddenly find they are not that well adapted to modern times where food is plentiful, and those who may have struggled just 2 or 3 centuries ago may now be better suited to modern life (in dietary terms).

Guardian reported the same study as suggesting both low and high carb diets had poorer outcomes, although the high carb effects were less pronounced:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/16/both-low-and-high-carb-diets-can-raise-risk-of-early-death-study-finds

This kind of study always struggles to separate out other lifestyle factors associated with dietary choices - and relies on participants accurately remembering what they ate/drank/smoked throughout their adult life.

So are we talking about people who have a fry up in the morning, probably drink more than they admit, and claim to be exercising regularly vs people who eat more veg, drink less, but actually do exercise? People who are more conscious of healthy choices may also tend to be more fastidious and honest about their diet when filling in research forms.

As a cheery side issue, when I look forwards towards death's embrace, I'd be more in favour of making choices that guide me towards the type of death I want rather than only focusing on extending life in terms of age.

Ideally, live til a spritely 75, then out like a light, rather than live to 85, but be soiling myself and forgetting who the hell I am for the last 10.

So, what diet should I adopt at 60 to increase the chance of a massive coronary?

But surely that is not long enough on the evolutionary scale

Numbers, dude...from 200, 000 years ago to now: billions of folks have passed on their little bit of genetic code...We are the fruit flies of mammal genetics.

So, what diet should I adopt at 60 to increase the chance of a massive coronary?

Krokodil

People who are more conscious of healthy choices may also tend to be more fastidious and honest about their diet when filling in research forms.

Are you sure? Some may be more aware of their diet but more honest?

That's possible too - the problem is that diet doesn't exist in isolation from other lifestyle and psychological behaviours, some of which may affect your health outcomes over decades, and the accuracy of your answers when quizzed by researchers. Diet studies which rely on participants reporting what they eat are plagued by this, regardless of the amount of effort made to adjust the results for this.

I tend to take most of them with a pinch of salt (not more than the RDA, of course), unless the reported effect is massive.

Obesity definitely shortens lifespan. Therefore, any diet that results in folk not eating so much is a net positive.

So the iDave diet is bollocks? Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wasn't the iDave diet low GI and not low carb? Plenty of carbs in beans, lentils etc.

That’s possible too – the problem is that diet doesn’t exist in isolation from other lifestyle and psychological behaviours, some of which may affect your health outcomes over decades, and the accuracy of your answers when quizzed by researchers. Retrospective diet studies are plagued by this, regardless of the amount of effort made to adjust the results for this.

Absolutely.

Wasn’t the iDave diet low GI and not low carb? Plenty of carbs in beans, lentils etc.

Has anyone got a copy to check? Or has anyone received a copy yet?

Or has anyone received a copy yet?

The simmering undercurrent of suppressed rage among people who didn't get their copy will probably contribute to a spike in cardiovascular mortality over the next 20 years*

*obviously we need to adjust this upwards for the rise in Ebike use.

Eat what you want when you want, as long as the portion size matches your energy demands with calorie intake in vs out.

as long as the portion size matches your energy demands with calorie intake in vs out.

This is approximately 2200 calories.

One a day, no problem! 🙂

What's wrong with not living even longer? Doesn't look like my pension will be up to much anyway.

I long for the day when science discovers a delicious dead animal that’s made entirely out of carbohydrates covered in cheese.

FTFY Perchy mon ami.

Has anyone got a copy to check? Or has anyone received a copy yet?

I got a copy along with my training plans, who'd have thought a 3 month training plan would last me 15 months!

FTFY Perchy mon ami.

Good call. 🙂

The mozarella potato shrew.  It's the future.

So the iDave diet is bollocks?

Well, I read the Guardian article, and it said that the study compared low carb *high meat* diets, and that these diets suffered from lack of vegetables.  Well, the iDave diet does not advocate loads of meat, unlike some 'primal' macho  types on YouTube.  You should end up eating tons of vegetables when iDieting.  So it's good still.

But surely that is not long enough on the evolutionary scale for those with dairy tolerance to become prevelant, and no environmental factor to weed out those who are intolerant?

Evolution can happen quicker than you think depending on the stimulus.

For example there are genes thought to give resistance to bubonic plague present in european DNA. That's evolution and happened in a matter of years when a big enough stimulus wiped out most of the people without it.

Given the effect drinking milk has on the body, it's designed to make babies grow very quickly, and has a similar effect on grownups, being taller, heavier, less likely to break bones, and able to consume a cheap and calorie dense food stuff is going to very quickly have the dual effect of helping you kill your non milk drinking opponents and attract better mates. That and if dairy was a staple food of your family's diet, being lactose intolerant and constantly having the shits probably didn't do your life chances much good.

I'm not even convinced that eating a diet with minimal amounts of fried red meat, bacon, and cheese in it lengthens your life by any substantial amount; it just feels like it it does.

But surely that is not long enough on the evolutionary scale for those with dairy tolerance to become prevelant, and no environmental factor to weed out those who are intolerant?

Does epigenetics come into play here?

YAY pass me another snickers

For example there are genes thought to give resistance to bubonic plague present in european DNA. That’s evolution and happened in a matter of years when a big enough stimulus wiped out most of the people without it.

I vaguely recall a study in which higher rates of cardiovascular disease among sections of the Scottish population were tentatively attributed to a gene which, on the flipside, conferred improved resistance to some bacterial infection, with the suggestion being that mortality from infectious disease early in life was more of an issue than death from heart disease even a century and a half ago, so a gene that is seen as a disadvantage now actually conferred an advantage back then.*

In truth a gene which lowers the rate of heart disease in a population will never offer as strong an evolutionary advantage as one which stops you dying of typhus, or whatever, as your sole purpose is to live until you're 40, if that, reproduce, and die once your children can look after themselves.

*can't cite, as I can't actually find the thing now. I may even have imagined it, but I don't think so!