I see two related reasons for the outcry against this study from low carb advocates (hereafter LCAs). First, the authors have implicated "low carbohydrate diets", when they have not studied any carb intake remotely like low carb diets (LCD). This matters, because 1/
Fair enough. It is also weird to see people so vehemently against the idea that there may be some detrimental health impacts to look out for when on an extremely restrictive diet, something that appears both obvious and fairly trivial
-
-
Not really, because restrictive is a relative term. We don't eat just anything. To take that to its logical extreme: how restrictive is it not to eat arsenic? The further the enculturated diet from the evolved diet, the less it seems like restriction and the more like prudence.
-
Ok then: restrictive of micro/macronutrients known to prevent disease Honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's no more problematic to say that low-carb diets may increase your risk of, say, bowel cancer than to point out that vegan diets can cause anemia
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.