First of all the meta-analysis that you pointed to defines CHO restriction as less than 45% of kcals. Let's be realistic about this. Clinicians who use therapeutic carb restriction don't 1) use % kcals or 2) use a level of carb intake that high.
-
-
Replying to @ahhite
Why does everyone say that? It didn't-they split carb lowering into <20% and <20-45%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Clinicians seldom use any % kcals for therapeutic carbohydrate restriction. We treat carb intake as absolute value/threshold because that's how it operates in humans w/r/t metabolic changes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ahhite
But research usually does, and it's right there in the abstract...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
So a good question to ask might be "why?" Since this isn't how experienced clinicians administer the diet, why would researchers use this approach? This is probably where
@WeDietitians could help provide a possible answer
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahhite @WeDietitians
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...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @WeDietitians
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahhite @WeDietitians
You literally got the numbers wrong tho. That's my point
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @WeDietitians
Okay. Help me out, then. What number besides <45 is the cutoff for what the authors define as carbohydrate restriction? Bc what I read is "the effects of carbohydrate-restricted diets (<45% of total energy) compared to high carbohydrate diets(>45% of total energy)."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You tweeted that "they split carb lowering into <20% and <20-45%" but I don't see that in the abstract or the paper. It looks like the lowest carb studies were grouped together using <26% of total energy as the cutoff.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep 20% was a typo, should've read 26% my mistake
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @WeDietitians
LOL. Okay. You got the number wrong. Typo. I got it. But where did I get the number wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahhite @WeDietitians
Health Nerd Retweeted Dr. Adele Hite
Health Nerd added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.