I always take these studies with a grain full shaker of salt. So I am not posting this because I believe it. There are probably many factors that were not properly considered.
But I thought people might find it interesting. Especially since they have apparently invented a time-machine, which seems like it would be the bigger story.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/low-carb-diet-linked-elevated-mortality-risk-study-233354036.html
Well, I canāt use that site due to the stupid video at the top being obnoxious and either locking the page up or interfering with my screen readerā¦but I did get as far as this part:
āFor the study, under 40 percent of energy intake from carbohydrates qualifies as a low-carb regimen, though many such diets reduce the share to 20 percent or less.ā
So in other words, they werenāt studying a low-carb diet. If someone eats 2,000 calories a day, then 40% is 200 grams of carbohydrates a day. That is not a low-carb diet by any stretchā¦
I think the interesting finding was that people who follow low-carb and elevate their animal-protein-based intake have higher risk of death, but that the risk goes down if people are getting the higher levels of protein from plant-based sources.
I think there were a few studies tying some particular protein in animal meat to an inflammatory process that messes up blood vessels. Taken with all the grains of salt of course, but I think thatās a plausible explanation. Who knows of course if these results even make sense. But if they did and could be confirmed, that would be a logical explanation for why.
As for @Jenās critique ā well, thatās definitely true. Most people on here eat way fewer carbs than is considered ālow carbā ā although obviously on a population cohort level these bins make sense because so few people are eating less than that. Also, on 2,000 calories a day, women typically eat around 1,500 calories a day ā so that would be less than 150 g.
Women who are trying to lose weight? or maintain? Iām curious about the 1500 calories since Iām thinner than Iād like and I need at least 2000 calories per day to maintain my weight, let alone gain.
I think it varies by height but I eat about 1,400 calories a day and do not gain weight or lose it. If I want to lose weight I need to eat about 1,000 calories a day. I am short though ā 5ā4" ā and on the slender side. And Iām not doing a ton of vigorous exercise.
But I would imagine that my activity levels are at least as much as the average American.
Iām 5ā8" and 139 pounds. Iām hoping to get back up to 145 pounds, though. Itās been a slow process.
yeah so you are approximately close to the āaverage 150-lb maleā thatās used as a reference point for the 2,000-calorie diet in terms of height/weight. (Not to say you are manly or anythingā¦just that from a height/weight perspective, youāre not far off from the person theyāre using as the benchmark for the 2,000-calorie diet).
The Lancet article is here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext
I noticed the definition of low-carb too. They do have a figure that goes down to 20% and the curve indicates the risk is higher the lower the carb percentage. There could be a lot of other confounding factors, of course. I havenāt dug into it enough yetā¦but it does seem like they tried to remove the impact of diabetes from the study, so not sure how applicable the results are to us.
hey T1Allison, i experience the exact same problem. i weighed myself this morning and came in at a whopping 100 lbs. my clothing is loose on me as well. i believe it is from all the swimming i do, but since i have been swimming, i have increased my carbs and my fat and my protein and my calories. still i cannot put on a pound. i raised my calorie intake from 1,500 to about 2,000, but apparently i need to try and get up to 2,500. what a bummer, huh? 
btw, i am 5ā4" and medium boned.
