Comment: Low Carb Denialism

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: McDougall (see in situ)

Low Carb Denialism


I doubt that you even read this article very carefully. It was not even written by Dr. McDougall, but by myself. In the article there are many references to both clinical trials and epidemiologic studies which tested low-carb diets against diets primarily based on low-fiber refined carbohydrates (ie. reference 6 and 86, which are meta-analyses that are not in agreement with your claims). Considering the evidence I provided showing the benefits of replacing nutrient poor low-fiber carbohydrate rich foods with high-fiber carbohydrate rich foods, the findings would have evidently been even less in favor of low-carb diets had these studies focused primarily on fiber rich diets.

You stated:
“Why can't McDougall just perform a study that directly compares a low-carb diet with a high-carb vegan diet with coronary disease risk factors? The answer is that these studies HAVE been done, and every single one of them shows greater improvement in risk factors on a low-carb diet.”
How many such studies can you cite which had good compliance? Reference number 9 in my article is perhaps one of the very few studies that even came slightly close to such a comparison, and this study does not support your claims.

This “obnoxious” video shows that many of the most popular low-carb advocates have experienced difficulties controlling their own weight while apparently adhering to the diets that they recommend for weight loss. It is not to say that all or even most low-carb advocates are fat, but it does cast doubt on the diet being as effective as claimed. Even if Mary Enig is considered slim, the co-author of the book is clearly overweight which casts doubt on the author’s claims. As I mentioned in the article, Sisson practices caloric restriction and therefore cannot be cited as an example that ad libitum low-carb diets are effective for weight loss.

Many of the cited experiments on animals cannot simply be considered irrelevant. If a compound can cause atherosclerosis in so many different animal species, including over one dozen different species of non-human primates, there would be rational to suggest that the substance could also adversely affect the health of humans. Also presented in the article are the findings of the health of several non-industrialized populations that subsisted almost exclusively on naturally raised animal foods. These populations are clearly not a good role model of health.

Although I have cited the China Study a couple times in my posts, the focus was on how the data has been misused by the low-carb crowd, and was not the primary source of evidence that I based my conclusions on.

GreyWyvern – I challenge you to actually read the studies I cite instead of making up nonsense that you were probably hoping that no one would correct.