A new Harvard Chan School study shows it’s the quality—not quantity—of macronutrients that make a difference for heart health, debunking myth that modulating carbohydrate and fat intake alone is inherently beneficial.
I have lots of biases in the area the paper is talking about. I’ve acquired the actual paper and on first pass they don’t define what low carb means… really, they don’t, anywhere… including the supplemental material. Making best effort inferences on how they make the category cohorts, it seems 40% of energy from carbs is the cutoff. 40% of a 1800 calorie diet is about 200g of carbs per day.
Currently my smells on this paper
Who : Harvard nutrition, a org with a history of heavy plant based bias
What they said : PBF beats ABF in a 200g “low carb” diet using intermediate health metrics
On the basis of what : Epidemiology, on food frequency questionaries, using major assume corrective factors
In what context : 200g/day carb diet, not controlling for processed foods (so healthy user bias the unprocessed abf group isn’t represneted at all)
When I have more time I’ll do a full post on this paper after I’ve had time to read it and figure out what the actual data is. I’m gobsmacked a paper on low carb doesn’t even define what % of carbs is low carb explicitly… why make that so indirect and hidden!!!
It’s weird, when the keto and carnivore papers get published they are always open access… but this paper… closed… and doesn’t define their categories… it’s curious. If i wasn’t a charitable man I make think that was intentional.
I have lots of biases in the area the paper is talking about. I’ve acquired the actual paper and on first pass they don’t define what low carb means… really, they don’t, anywhere… including the supplemental material. Making best effort inferences on how they make the category cohorts, it seems 40% of energy from carbs is the cutoff. 40% of a 1800 calorie diet is about 200g of carbs per day.
Currently my smells on this paper
When I have more time I’ll do a full post on this paper after I’ve had time to read it and figure out what the actual data is. I’m gobsmacked a paper on low carb doesn’t even define what % of carbs is low carb explicitly… why make that so indirect and hidden!!!
Cool, I’ll look out for the full review. Jeebus 200g/40% is ‘low carb’, not unexpected, but it’s like they don’t even try.
They are trying really hard to do something
It’s weird, when the keto and carnivore papers get published they are always open access… but this paper… closed… and doesn’t define their categories… it’s curious. If i wasn’t a charitable man I make think that was intentional.