By Robert Verkerk PhD, scientific and executive director, ANH-Intl

You’ll be familiar with the old adage – one frequently applied to things nutritional: “everything in moderation.”

Does that also apply to heavy metals in your fish, pesticides on your blueberries, or transfats in your gluten-free flapjacks? Of course not! There are some things that just aren’t good for us. And there’s currently a big debate as to just how much and what kinds of carbohydrates we should be eating for optimal long-term health. Unlike fats and proteins that we can’t live without, carbs are – technically speaking – optional. Yet most humans on the planet rely on them as the primary source of energy. And if we choose to restrict our carbs, what should we replace them with, if anything?

The latest scientific call that seems intended to reinforce public health messaging about carbohydrate intake is directed fairly and squarely at the rapidly growing low carb community. It’s an open access paper published last week in Lancet Public Health that suggests that low carb diets – as well as high carb diets – contribute to early death. The take-home? Eat carbs in moderation, so that they make up 50-55% of the energy of your diet, just the way governments are currently suggesting.

This advice is ironic when we know the majority of the population in Western countries are already doing this yet they’re suffering early, preventable deaths at the hands of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

The low carb community, of which we are a part, is comprised of large numbers of consumers, doctors, scientists and even celebrities who have experienced or witnessed spectacular health turnarounds after reducing their carb intake. That includes remission from diseases like type 2 diabetes that was, until recently, widely labelled as ‘incurable’. Supporting this experience and observation is a growing armoury of scientific evidence from diverse disciplines ranging from biochemistry to evolutionary biology that goes a long way towards explaining some of the key mechanisms at work that help people to regain their health.

The truth is confusion in this area is rampant. That’s not least because there are, as yet, no clear, universally accepted definitions for what is meant by a ‘low carb’ diet or a ‘low carb high fat’ (or LCHF) diet. That’s despite Richard Feinman PhD from State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and 25 other scientists and clinicians attempting to clarify definitions in their seminal 2015 publication.

The Lancet Public Health attack on LCHF

Understandably there has been a reaction by some of the leaders in the LCHF community, with the likes of Richard Feinman leading the charge.

While the ultimate aim is to have the paper retracted, this we think is a tall order given the scale of interests involved in maintaining the status quo. We shouldn’t forget that most type 2 diabetics who adopt low carb or ‘keto’ diets are able to come off medications, such as metformin, Glyburide and Januvia. Type 1 diabetics generally substantially reduce their insulin. And it’s a Lancet spin-off journal we’re talking about.

Are the findings of the new Lancet Public Health study reliable?

In short, like Dr Feinman and others, we say no. And that’s not just because we don’t like the findings or the paper’s conclusions. Predictably, the study’s conclusions have been reverberated around the world. They’ve made headlines that include, Low carb diets could shorten life, study suggests (BBC), Both low- and high-carb diets can raise risk of early death, study finds (Guardian), Low-carb diet linked to early death, medical study suggests (USA Today), amongst many others.

What kind of study is it? In essence, the study has two parts. The first is a survival analysis which measures all-cause mortality in the ongoing prospective observational Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort study of 4 different US communities and then attempts to relate this to self-reported intake of carbohydrates. The second part is a meta-analysis which compares the ARIC data with 7 other cohort studies, including the multinational PURE study published last year that included findings from over 135,000 people on 5 continents. After 7 years of follow-up, the authors of the PURE study concluded that high carb diets led to the highest mortality rates and those consuming more fat (albeit only 35% of daily energy) were 23% less likely to die than those who consumed least fat (10% of daily energy). It couldn’t exclude the possibility that less carbs and more fat were better still, following a linear relationship, so it was generally good fodder for those wanting scientific support for low carb diets.

The PURE study therefore put some high profile noses out of joint. Not least were the scientists that have been primarily responsible for informing current dietary guidelines, including eminent epidemiologists like Professor Walter Willett from the TH Chan School of Public Health at Harvard.

In many ways – the latest Lancet Public Health study can be seen as the establishment response to PURE – or what some might argue was the incorrect interpretation of PURE. It’s also no surprise to find Walter Willett, the architect of the original questionnaire used in the ARIC cohort, listed as a co-author.

Our concerns

We are independently preparing a response to the senior author of the paper to which correspondence is directed, Dr Scott Solomon from the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. So we won’t get bogged down here with the detail of our scientific complaint. However, we’ve broken down our concerns into 5 main areas, and below we summarise in lay terms some of our main concerns:

  1. General methodological problems. Unmatched groups with different carbohydrate intakes, lack of adequate definitions of low carbohydrate diets (<40% of energy intake is insufficient), measurement errors from food frequency questionnaires, insufficient consideration of confounders
  2. Potential unrecorded changes in dietary composition during follow-up period. The current study on the ARIC cohort included just two snapshots of self-reported carbohydrate intake based on Willett’s 61-question food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). These snapshots were taken in Visit 1 (1987–89) and Visit 3 (1993–95), yet there were four other visits in which other data were collected, most recently in 2016-17 (hence the cited 25-year follow-up period). There are many questions about the accuracy of the FFQ, there are inadequate reliable data on the quality of foods that have been substituted or how the composition of commercially available foods has changed over the last 25 years
  3. Confounding. The authors have attempted to adjust for age, sex, education, waist-to-hip ratio, smoking, physical activity, diabetes, location and total energy intake. But there are numerous other confounders, including glycaemic index/load, phytonutrient, fibre and fatty acid profile, and the degree of processing in foods consumed that have not been factored in. Given what is known about the influence of these unconsidered factors, they alone could have exerted a major influence on the results, and been more important than total carbohydrate intake that the authors suggest is the prime driver of the associations found. These unconsidered factors could influence The authors consider the (positive) influence of plant-based over animal-based diets so they know that influences other than carbohydrates might be highly significant, yet they apportion all of the primary effects to carbohydrate consumption.
  4. Confusing association with causation. The big message from the authors is the U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate consumption and mortality. They suggest there’s a ‘sweet spot’ for carbohydrate intake and this sits somewhere in the middle, at 50-55% of total energy from carbohydrates. Eat more or less carbs than this and you’ll die more quickly, suggest the authors. Interestingly, the figures for increased death rates among high carb consumers come mainly from the PURE study which includes less developed countries, and the figures for the left tail of the U-shape come from the new analysis of the ARIC cohort, in turn from a Western (US) population. There are so many differences in the genetics, diets and lifestyles between these two groups and the adjustments carried out only a go part of the way in addressing them. Moreover, it’s entirely wrong in our view to suggest, as the authors have done, that it is the total amount of carbohydrate that is responsible for the higher death rates among higher and lower consumers of carbs. It’s nothing more than a statistical association born out of the limited dataset that may be based on inaccurately recorded information (especially in the case of the ARIC-influenced left tail)
  5. Relevance of findings to the real world. The low carb consumer group in the ARIC cohort appear very different from modern, informed, health-aware LCHF consumers. The authors characterise them as being “more likely to be young, male, a self reported race other than black, college graduates, have high body-mass index, exercise less during leisure time, have high household income, smoke cigarettes, and have diabetes.” Their higher educational status may be the only characteristic shared with the majority of contemporary LCHF, Banting or ‘keto’ aficionados. The substitutions made by a modern-day LCHF consumer are also likely to be a whole lot healthier than those in the ARIC cohort.

Take home

When the survival analysis plots for the ARIC data computed a U-shaped curve, you can only imagine the excitement among some of the authors, particularly those who’ve long supported relatively high carb, wholegrain, low fat, plant-based diets. They’d blown away the possibility that low carb is better than moderate carbs – and that there’s a linear and positive correlation between carb intake and all-cause mortality. But that’s only if the data were reliable and relevant.

The problem is that the ARIC data aren’t representative. It’s a fudge. Two self-reported snapshots, nothing like enough data on other factors that could have influenced mortality – and all of it entirely unrepresentative of what modern-day, low carb consumers are eating or doing.

The problem with science in a world in which so much science is controlled by so few (i.e., big corporations, governments, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.), is that it’s very vulnerable to manipulation. Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult; unlike drugs, nutritional studies can’t compare the effects of eating against not eating. When we cut down one type of food, what do we substitute it with? And when we look at studies with very long follow-ups like the ARIC study, do we cater for all the changes that have occurred in our food production methods over the last two and a half decades?

Public health policy relies on big studies with big numbers, and increasingly, ‘mash-ups’ (meta-analyses) of multiple studies with data that can’t or shouldn’t be compared, like apples and oranges. These studies are often quite indifferent about the variable quality of data going into them. In the field of nutrition, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) have become the almost exclusive sources of information for public health advice. Clinical findings and experience are dismissed as anecdote.

We might need to wait a bit longer to understand more about the health of those who choose to adopt low carb diets that include a diversity of plant-based nutrients and/or healthy animal-based foods, as proposed in our Food4Health guidelines. But there are some over-arching principles we consider to be entirely compatible with low carb, healthy diets:

Getting back to the messaging linked to the Lancet Public Health study: how can we blindly follow government guidelines when we know – without any need for survival analysis or statistical trickery – that adherence to them is closely associated with the chronic disease spiral?

We’ll keep you posted on our progress with our correspondence with the paper’s authors.

Resources

Food4Health campaign

Volek & Phinney (2011) The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living

Volek & Phinney (2012) The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance

 

Back to ANH-Intl homepage

Comments

  1. Excellent. In-depth and on-point! Much hard work involved in this response, and much appreciated. The only thing I was concerned about is that “Eliminating all processed meats and factory-farmed animal-based products from your diet is good” might SEEM to imply that meat is bad for one.

    It seems to be there is more and more evidence that PROPERLY-SOURCED MEAT is fine for health, even exclusively. Explorer Steffanson lived for 9 years on meat alone with indigenous peoples. You can find here the results of his and Carsten Anderson’s 1928 recapitulation of the all-meat diet while under observation (year-long; free-living with urine samples collected to establish maintenance of ketosis): Here’s one can find the results of this 1928 experiment which took place in NYC:

    http://borntoeatmeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Steffanson-Bellvue-Experiment.pdf

    CLINICAL CALORIMETRY.
    PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY FUNCTION AND KETOSIS
    BY WALTER S. MCCLELLAN AND EUGENE F. Du BOIS.

    (From the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology in Affiliation with the Second Medical (Cornell) Division of Bellevue Hospital, New York)

    (Received for publication, February 13, 1930.)

    _____________

    All that happened is that Steffanson’s gingivitis cleared up. Both stayed in perfect health, even Vit C not a concern in the absence of carbohydrate.

    _____________

    Providing amino acids in place of carbohydrate is part of why you don’t have to consume any carbohydrate at all: the glucose that the brain requires can come from amino acids such as alanine or other metabolites. Glucose the brain uses is derived from the liver’s gluconeogenesis.

    ______________

    http://www.mikhailapeterson.com <– meat alone only thing that worked for her; evidence it is curative in very serious auto-immune disorders. In her case, idiopathic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (2 joint replacements in her teens), symptom free in her mid-20s, and in short order, and this for a disease progression that was life threatening.

    __________________

    Ditto (again, this may only hold true for extreme auto-immune conditions):

    CURING CHRONIC CONDITIONS WITH PALEOLITHIC KETOGENIC DIET
    W/O FRUITS & VEGETABLES OR PLANT FOODS
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323151200_Therapeutic_protocol_of_Paleomedicina_Hungary
    The Staffan Lindeberg Memorial Conference, Lisbon 2017
    Abstract – Csaba Tóth . Andrea Dabóczi , Mária Schimmer , Zsofia Clemens

    PALEOLITHIC KETOGENIC DIET (PKD): A diet covering and limited to our physiological needs.

    We developed the PKD in 2010-2011. PREVIOUSLY WE HAVE BEEN USING THE PALEOLITHIC DIET WHICH PROVED TO BE INEFFECTIVE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRONIC CONDITIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PKD (PALEOLITHIC KETOGENIC DIET) IS THE ONLY EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTED DIET FOR HUMANS. Rehabilitation of chronic diseases is most effective when the diet is limited to our real physiological needs.

    EATING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES DOES NOT FORM PART OF OUR PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED BUT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH RISKS. PLANT FOODS CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS “RELATIVELY” SAFE AND ONLY WHEN CERTAIN PLANT FOOD ITEMS ARE CONSUMED AND ONLY IN LIMITED AMOUNTS. The diet was derived from clinical evidence and was not primarily influenced by archeological or ethnographic evidence, given that the application of the diet is clinical too. Altogether clinical experience was derived from about 4000 patients. Characterizaton of the PKD • 70-100% animal based food, 0-30% plant based foods (in volume) “Diet exactly confined to our needs” “Physiologically still tolerable diet”

    Therapeutic protocol of Paleomedicina Hungary (PDF Download Available). Available from: [accessed Apr 07 2018].

    So, just putting out a defense of meat.

    Great job guys!

    1. Dear Paula – many thanks indeed for this considered and appreciated feedback. I have made a few tweaks to the list of suggestions at the end of the article, influenced by your input. You correctly assert the clinical value of carnivory as a treatment protocol. It’s the long-term effects of a carnivorous diet for the bulk of the population (apart from the sustainability issues), especially given the state of modern livestock rearing methods that I am less sure about.

      I agree that we can readily source all the energy we need from animal products, but there is considerable and growing evidence that a diverse range of phytonutrients and a range of different fibres (indigestible carbohydrates) help modulate key metabolic and restorative or protective processes in the body and contribute to long-term health and disease prevention.

      Links follow to a couple of relevant reviews which in turn provide a range of relevant studies:
      Phytonutrients: https://immunityageing.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4933-9-9;
      Indigestible carbs and microbiome: https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/systematic-review-on-effects-of-diet-on-gut-microbiota-in-relation-to-metabolic-syndromes-2Tp9.php?article_id=7001

      However, you also make the point about risks associated with plant foods, much of this being associated with allergy and intolerance, something that’s particularly problematic in autoimmune individuals. Given the autoimmune spiral (https://www.aarda.org/diseaselist) it’s something that can’t be pushed under the carpet.

      Finally, I think we’ve got as many problems with modern rearing/cultivation processes and genetic backgrounds that affect plant foods as we do animal foods. Your point on “proper sourcing” is therefore crucial for all areas of the food supply and it is no great surprise that it is the minimally processed, non-supermarket sourced, mainly home-prepared foods that are associated with the currently identified 5 ‘blue zone’ centenarian populations who suffer little in the way of the chronic disease comorbidities so common in industrialised/urban populations.

      Thanks again Paula for your thoughtful inputs and kind words. Best, Rob

  2. The critical or primary issue I call out is not of diet but of a masking agenda working deceitfully – including through the guise of science and journalism or news reporting.

    The tactics or devices of such deceits need to be called out as such and not allowed to remain acceptable currency by which to elicit unmindful reactions by which genuine communications are framed by association with negative outcome or invalidating intent.

    Narrative direction or control works mind-capture of allegiance or at least conformed compliance.
    “…the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
    ~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

    The need to awaken vigilance for true currency of thought, and against being phished by loveless deceits working in the form of communication is the addressing of health at the level of mind, thought and purpose. Toxic thinking – also known as doublespeak – is the intent to manipulate communication. Life is communication.

    Re-education to the nature of the mind in act is a core curriculum for healing splits, conflicts and divisions within us that are causal to the generating and persisting of false and destructive ideas and outcomes.

    I don’t know where to begin addressing this – excepting that all that I write online does, and in reading Rob’s article I feel that the ‘contest’ is engaged without properly discerning the true qualifications – or lack thereof – of an intent to undermine, subvert and make sick as the predicate for a false and destructive sense of power in the world.

    If the Corporate is our larger body – then let it serve rather than dictate the balance within wholeness. If the Law is the basis for order, let it embody the protection for wholeness in each and for all.

  3. Yes, Brian – great insights as always – you are so right in recognising the doublespeak – and I think also, as you suggest, much of this occurs at a sub-conscious or even unconscious level among the perpetrators (e.g. authors of this LPH paper). But it’s the people in ivory towers of industry and government who are the real puppet masters. Best, Rob

  4. Sometimes association implies causation if the association is strong. But there is no association. Remember cigarette smoke lung cancer association was 20:1 and if you go into a court of law with a toxic tort case (which is what this really is), you have to have an association of at least 2:1 unless you have something else really compelling. Here the association was about 1.2: 1 and given that the primary input was food frequency questionnaires 6 years apart. this is utterly meaningless. There was no association. Nothing. There are standards for when associations imply causation but here there was no association. This is the twisted minds of physicians who can’t stand the successes of low-carbohydrate diets.

  5. Your article suggests “Where meats are included in the diet, ensure they are properly sourced and cooked without open-flame and/or high-temperature cooking (e.g. grilling/barbecuing, broiling, or roasting)”
    What does that leave:?

    1. Hi Paul, thanks for your question. We recommend no sizzling or blackening rather low temperature cooking methods such as slow cooking, low flames with covered pots etc. If you have gas use of a simmer plate can be very helpful along with the use of thick saucepan bases to minimise damage to the meat.

      Hope this answers your query.

      Warm Regards
      Melissa

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *