Also - low-carb diets are great... - ...but unlikely to be much greater than similarly low calorie high carb diets - whatever works best for the individual!
I mean, I'm sure we can debate which is the better choice to use, but my main point is every low carb person reads the abstract and then gets the numbers wrong...
-
-
That <45 is considered "low" is only an artifact of what policy (not science) decided was "normal." I'm not talking about which is "better," I'm talking about which is used by most clinicians who use these interventions daily. Where's the "real life" in your "real life" studies?
-
You literally got the numbers wrong tho. That's my point
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I didn't get the number wrong. The abstract uses <45% of kcals to define "carbohydrate restricted." They further divide that category, but they did use <45 as their cutoff for low carb.
-
Indeed. So they looked at <26% carbs, and found no benefit, as well as lower amounts of restriction
- 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.

