Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Roger Zoul - 09 Sep 2010 11:34 GMT

http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract

Abstract

Background: Data on the long-term association between low-carbohydrate diets
and mortality are sparse.

Objective: To examine the association of low-carbohydrate diets with
mortality during 26 years of follow-up in women and 20 years in men.

Design: Prospective cohort study of women and men who were followed from
1980 (women) or 1986 (men) until 2006. Low-carbohydrate diets, either
animal-based (emphasizing animal sources of fat and protein) or
vegetable-based (emphasizing vegetable sources of fat and protein), were
computed from several validated food-frequency questionnaires assessed
during follow-up.

Setting: Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals' Follow-up Study.

Participants: 85 168 women (aged 34 to 59 years at baseline) and 44 548 men
(aged 40 to 75 years at baseline) without heart disease, cancer, or
diabetes.

Measurements: Investigators documented 12 555 deaths (2458
cardiovascular-related and 5780 cancer-related) in women and 8678 deaths
(2746 cardiovascular-related and 2960 cancer-related) in men.

Results: The overall low-carbohydrate score was associated with a modest
increase in overall mortality in a pooled analysis (hazard ratio [HR]
comparing extreme deciles, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24]; P for trend =
0.136). The animal low-carbohydrate score was associated with higher
all-cause mortality (pooled HR comparing extreme deciles, 1.23 [CI, 1.11 to
1.37]; P for trend = 0.051), cardiovascular mortality (corresponding HR,
1.14 [CI, 1.01 to 1.29]; P for trend = 0.029), and cancer mortality
(corresponding HR, 1.28 [CI, 1.02 to 1.60]; P for trend = 0.089). In
contrast, a higher vegetable low-carbohydrate score was associated with
lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.75 to 0.85]; P for trend ≤ 0.001)
and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.87]; P for trend <
0.001).

Limitations: Diet and lifestyle characteristics were assessed with some
degree of error. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were probably
not substantively affected by residual confounding or an unmeasured
confounder. Participants were not a representative sample of the U.S.
population.

Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated
with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a
vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause
and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Reply to this Message

FOB - 09 Sep 2010 15:48 GMT

This "study" was based on self reporting of consumption, very unreliable.
In addition, the diet aimed for was far higher in carbs than any of us
consider low carb. Read Atkins Nutritionals response here:
http://www.holdthetoast.com/content/atkins_nutritionals_response_to_this_stupid_study

| http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract
|
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
|
| Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Reply to this Message

Roger Zoul - 11 Sep 2010 21:34 GMT

Here is another response in case someone wants to read a source other than
Atkins

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/is-meat-bad-for-you-no-but-junk-science-and-the-clu
eless-media-are

(it never hurts to have lots of sources to debunk the nonsense (which never
seems to go away)!)

> This "study" was based on self reporting of consumption, very unreliable.
> In addition, the diet aimed for was far higher in carbs than any of us
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> |
> | Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Reply to this Message

FOB - 11 Sep 2010 23:22 GMT

You expect the lies in politics but I guess science has been taken over by
politics. At least the real low carbers are on the watch and have some
legitimate studies to come back with.

| Here is another response in case someone wants to read a source other
| than Atkins

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/is-meat-bad-for-you-no-but-junk-science-and-the-clu
eless-media-are

| (it never hurts to have lots of sources to debunk the nonsense (which
| never seems to go away)!)

Reply to this Message

Roger Zoul - 13 Sep 2010 10:34 GMT

At least in the medical fields and probably any others that engender lots of
public interest.

> You expect the lies in politics but I guess science has been taken over by
> politics. At least the real low carbers are on the watch and have some
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> | (it never hurts to have lots of sources to debunk the nonsense (which
> | never seems to go away)!)

Reply to this Message

Billy - 09 Sep 2010 16:40 GMT

> http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
>

This study seems to fly in the face of Inuit health on an all meat diet,
before trading posts exposed them to processed carbohydrates.

Signature

- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html

Reply to this Message

brushfire - 10 Sep 2010 04:22 GMT

>http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Presumably, most people who go on a low-carb diet are overweight or
obese to begin with and likely to have a higher mortality anyway. Was
that controlled for? We know most people who go on diets are
unsuccessful. Do we know how long the low-carbers stayed on their
diets? Were they obese at death?

Reply to this Message