When the news hit the mainstream media, many women wrote in to The Biohackers Space to voice their concerns. "So, will low carb kill me sooner than expected?" Moreover, others were trying to wrap their heads around the news. "But I've lost over 40 pounds, and I'm off of all of my meds and feel great. You mean this is bad for me?"
Scary, isn't it? We take too much to heart when it comes to "findings" without ever digging deeper into the root factors that must make us question the findings and the intention behind them.
Thanks to many gurus in the ketogenic and low carb realms, they are helping us make sense of current news mongering. Dr. David L. Katz, MD, MPH, shares his thoughts in his article, Carbs: It's the Sources that Matter-Calorie density and the meaning of moderation. Dr. Katz goes into details the questions we should have about such a study.
Wasn't it just four years ago when we were all rocked by the Sugar Industry falsifying study results trying to demonize fat and state sugar was safer than fat?
I knew it would take some patience to wait to hear from the gurus in the health and wellness industry to finally get to speak about the @lancetph article that stated low carb diets caused a lower life expectancy. I questioned the control of the group. How can you accurately monitor 400K people to assure they are eating a PROPER LOW CARB diet.
I had many messages on my website about the news of this most current research. It's actually easier than you think to have such a broad number of people in a study, yet conduct a study with critical components missing.
Were the 400K people required to enter in their daily consumptions, keeping their carbs within proper limits?
Were they eating healthy fats from grass-fed animals or plants?
Were they required to limit sugar and processed foods?
Were they all equal in their lifestyle, chronic illnesses, a genetic propensity for illness due to their mental state?
We all know people that say they are going "low carb," yet cheat 'til the corn-fed cows come home. Also, the findings were based on "all-cause mortality rates" in the group. The definition of "all-cause mortality" in the medical dictionary is: All of the deaths that occur in a population, regardless of the cause. It is measured in clinical trials and used as an indicator of the safety or hazard of an intervention.
Did anyone look into whom, some of these scientists, were working and conducting their research? The Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston.
Do you all understand how much money is in the 'treatment' of cardiovascular disease? Billions of dollars for advertising and the creation of cardiovascular pharmaceuticals like statins, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and alpha/beta blockers, and so forth, are the motivators behind findings that prove their existence. Yes, for some patients, it is his or her only hope due to their disease being acute, however if those patients, years ago, were given a valid dietary plan based on a whole food diet, would they be in a healthier place?
Does anyone question the validity of the study being done by a group that benefits from the negative findings of the Low Carb diet?
One such study recently proved the benefits of the Low Carb diet are benefitting cardiovascular patients by changing 22 of the 26 health markers. Why is that not being shared with the masses? Why not share that by eating from whole foods, possibly grown in your backyard at minimal costs, could cure your illnesses. Where's the profit in that?
I could go on, but I am glad we now are getting the proper, well-thought-out responses to the fear-mongering from the NIH touting their studies as law. Look into the $$$$, and you will see how the end-result of the study create a profit line.
Read more health-related articles at my site, The Biohackers Space and please like or share if you thought this was interesting. Sharing is caring!