Low-carb diet study

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.



Well, I can’t use that site due to the stupid video at the top being obnoxious and either locking the page up or interfering with my screen reader…but I did get as far as this part:

“For 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.”

So in other words, they weren’t 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 stretch…


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 that’s 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 @Jen’s critique – well, that’s definitely true. Most people on here eat way fewer carbs than is considered “low carb” – 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 – so that would be less than 150 g.

Women who are trying to lose weight? or maintain? I’m curious about the 1500 calories since I’m thinner than I’d like and I need at least 2000 calories per day to maintain my weight, let alone gain.

1 Like

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 – 5’4" – and on the slender side. And I’m not doing a ton of vigorous exercise.

But I would imagine that my activity levels are at least as much as the average American.

I’m 5’8" and 139 pounds. I’m hoping to get back up to 145 pounds, though. It’s been a slow process.

yeah so you are approximately close to the “average 150-lb male” that’s used as a reference point for the 2,000-calorie diet in terms of height/weight. (Not to say you are manly or anything…just that from a height/weight perspective, you’re not far off from the person they’re 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 haven’t dug into it enough yet…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.

1 Like

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? :wink:

btw, i am 5’4" and medium boned.

1 Like