What's important seems to be what you replace those carbs with:

The scientists then compared low-carb diets rich in animal proteins and fats with those that contained lots of plant-based protein and fat.

They found that eating more beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese in place of carbs was linked with a slightly increased risk of death.

But replacing carbohydrates with more plant-based proteins and fats, such as legumes and nuts, was actually found to slightly reduce the risk of mortality.

But I would think that doing a vegetarian low-carb diet would be difficult for most people to follow long-term, so as I suggested before...all things in moderation.

Very important information. I worry about people who go overboard on the no-carb plan and even start counting the carbs in leafy greens!

I'm simply amazed at food studies. It seems that even the most scientific ones come out with great fanfare and then a few years later totally different theories are published.

And this is why I count calories. I don't have a degree in biology or chemistry, I'm not a medical practitioner, I don't know good carbs from bad carbs or how to figure out how to count sugars both natural and added or fibres and what it all means. I don't know how to discern good blogs from bunk blogs.

I do know everything in moderation and I know what a calorie is and what it means.

I have a friend who used to jump onto every new diet bandwagon until she made herself sick and she has a degree in biology. Her doctor told her to stop it.

I know many can intelligently follow a specific diet and then feel better.

The study Annie offers was presented by Professor Banach. Absent are some important quotes by the professor:

He concluded: "The findings suggest that low carbohydrate diets are unsafe and should not be recommended."

However, he cautioned the study does not prove low carb diets directly raise the risk of a person dying prematurely, and more research is needed to provide definitive proof.

The research was presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in Munich, and has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext

Actually I posted info from more than one source including some info that was published in Lancet. I doubt there is ever concrete proof of *anything* scientific from which more insight can't be gained with further study. But the fact that this finding agrees with a meta-analysis of over 400,000 people in 20 different countries is suggestive.

Heck, when I think fewer carbs, I only think of less bread, pasta, corn, rice, and potatoes. I never even thought about categorizing greens. I guess that makes a moderate carb person. Wait, I already knew that. Because I don't even think about cutting down or out any fruits.

I know I can never do low-carb, or Keto. I don't like sweets, I love my carbs.

I have friends on Keto and they say that our body goes into keto when we fast prior to blood-work. It's the accurate way of measuring your body's health, in the keto state.

It's working for them, he's lost 97 lbs and looks fantastic, but again, I don't have the patience and would crave rice, pasta, cereal, etc all the more. I never know what I want for breakfast......cereal, eggs, porridge etc, so to be limited even more would drive me crazy.

Cutting carbs is a successful way of losing weight and many people have done it. But I don't think it's a lifetime solution for weight control, especially if people replace the carbs with high fat and highly-processed meats and cheeses. I know people who cut the carbs by relying on artificial sweeteners which are not good for you. Neither are saturated fats. But it's also a very individual thing. DH has low kidney function and is very sensitive to salt. Me? Not so much. I on the other hand have high LDL and need to watch my sat fat intake whereas his is fine. So it's a combo of doing what's wise and doing what's best for your body.

But I thought this was telling...esp since it's those people who think they are doing the best for their body without realizing they may be at risk: The associations were strongest among older, non-obese people.

I have
done low carb for short term and quick weight loss, but my maintenance
plan allows carbs, in moderation, as part of a healthy diet. I think
where carbs cause trouble is the over consumption of sugars, snacks such
as potato chips and foods made from white flour.
Moderate portions of things such as brown rice, whole grain bread or
cereals and beans/legumes belong in our diets.

While I have reduced my fruit intake the past, I'll never
eliminate it from my diet; it's my belief that the nutritional benefits
of fruit far outweigh the sugars/carbs that are found in fruit. Cut out
leafy veggies? Never!

I've done keto before and it doesn't really work for my body. I ended up at a cardiologist after bad heart palpitations even after having plenty of electrolytes. I ate some carbs and felt better. He told me to stay away from super extreme diets as they can be hard on the body.

Being obese will kill ya early too. Doesn't really matter what you ate to get that way. I follow a low carb diet given to me by a doctor. Not keto though. It focuses on lean meats and non starchy veggies. Common sense is key. People KNOW that eating large amounts of cured,fatty processed meats is a bad idea for health. But most diets or eating plans are followed with weight in mind,not necessary overall health. My own personal experience has shown a drastic reduction in overall cholesterol, an increase in HDL(the good stuff) lower blood pressure and since cutting down carbs,I have more energy and that sluggish, gross feeling I used to have all the time is gone. Granted, I don't eat a lot of red meat,though I do have some, or a ton of bacon, but I do eat it when I want it.

Keto is too new a craze to have any sort of evidence on the long term effects on someones health,either positive or negative. However, in the short term, an obese or overweight person losing the excess weight will undoubtedly see an improvement in their health almost immediately.

Remember when eggs were the food of death??????? Look at em now! They are now "the perfect protein!"

Bottom line, when it comes to these scientific studies i say if you dont like what they "prove" just wait a few years for the newest study disproving the last one comes out. Then do what your own experience has proven beneficial for yourself.

My go to is the irrefutable fact that billions of people rely on carbs as the basis of their diet-Asian people to be precise. They live long and healthy lives with life expectancies that exceed our own by a few years. They have wheat noodles and rice as the basic foods in their diets. So diet wise it cant be carbs. For Americans as a whole we live to be around 80 which is plenty old so even if you are fat you are going to live to be pretty old. Enjoy life I think. Eat some fun stuff and stay mobile. Life is short. Constantly fretting about what you eat is not such a fun way to live. If you live a couple extra years by eating Kale is it worth it? If you love Kale sure but if you don't...…..

Sooo...the older you get, the more carbs you need? I knew I was onto something when I started eating a doughnut a day. It not only keeps the grumpies away, but possibly even the grim reaper as well. lol

"My go to is the irrefutable fact that billions of people rely on carbs as the basis of their diet-Asian people to be precise"

Yes and no. Most Americans eat too many calories, too many carbohydrates, not enough real veggies and fruit and not enough real food. No, potatoes aren't a vegetable.

An American who consistently eats a true East Asian (Chinese/Vietnamese/Japanese) diet, at a comparable level of calories, veggies and fresh foods and with limited meat, will lose weight. If you pick and choose, the effect isn't the same.

Elmer, I didn't address how much people eat. I was only talking about carbs.

What is a vegetable is an artificial category at best. Vegetables are often fruits botanically speaking. Roots like beets or turnips or carrots are called vegetables. Potatoes are tubers, part of the root system as well. They are high in vitamin C which was a serious merit back in the day when fresh fruits and veg were hard to get. We eat more than we need but that is another issue. The only reason I brought up Asians it that they are long lived these days and their diet had a predominance of wheat and rice-two foods that are under attack at the moment.

There are too many chemicals and additives in our foods. Far too much. My diet isn't perfect, but 90% of what I eat are single-ingredient foods, or combinations that I make of single ingredients. My palate is accustomed to this, and so processed foods do not taste good to me. I eat plenty of carbs like honey and fruit. But I do not eat processed carbs. (I also practice intermittent fasting, but that's another discussion.) My weight is normal, I have plenty of energy, and my labs are fine.

It seems when people follow low-carb diets, they replace carbs with too much animal-based protein and fats. If you're swapping breakfast cereal for bacon, I'm not sure that's a good trade. And we like to use the phrase "everything in moderation." But moderation seems to vary greatly among people.

I wonder who paid for that study? Carbs are the reason Type 2 diabetes is on the rise. People who have Type 2 and cut the carbs (with the exception of vegetables) can go off their insulin. Processed foods (most of which are highly processed carbs) are killing us. BUT: the pharmaceutical companies have that quick fix (expensive medication) so you can have your cake and eat it too..........

I think it's important to recognize the role that carbs often play in our diets as fat-delivery mechanisms. People don't tend to eat butter...but they will slathered on bread...people don't tend to eat shortening, but they will mixed with flour in a pie crust or cookie...people don't tend to eat alfredo sauce unless it's slathered on pasta. So when one cuts one, one often cuts the other.

As far as the diabetes epidemic, it is because Americans eat too many sugars and carbs and fat. They eat too much in general. The average American diet has about 500 calories a day more in it today than it did in the 70s which would account for an average 50 lb gain per person.

I agree with blfenton, a calorie is a calorie. If you REALLY watch and count calories you will lose or maintain your wait. With calorie counting you will automatically lose weight. If you only have x amount of calories left in a day and you are hungry, you will eat a food less in calories. Carbs are higher in calories naturally you will eat less. I have seen many friends lose weight with the Keto diet, Low fat diet ect…. once they start putting those back into their diet, the weight creeps back up.

Annie - Interesting that you should mention the "500 calories a day". In 2009 I lost 42 pounds and have kept it off. My eye opener was when I discovered that a pound has 3500 calories in it. I wanted to lose weight as a change in lifestyle so it had to be slow and methodical. So I figured if I could lost 500 calories a day (3500/7 is 500) it would be doable. It was actually quite easy to find 500 calories a day that I didn't need.

That second helping of dinner - don't need it

That muffin at 10:00 to reward myself for going to the gym or for a run = how stupid is that, don't need it.

And for me, I was already going to the gym and running three time a week so the weight loss had to come from my excess eating habits.

Gotta go = time for a run (in the pouring rain but partners are waiting for me :)

Well the issue with just calorie counting is that it makes no guarantee of healthy eating...only weight control. I mean you could lose weight eating nothing but chocolate, but that won't make for a healthy diet.

Also, carbs and protein both have the same calorie load: 4 calories per gram. Fat however contains 9 calories per gram. That's why even healthy fats such as in nuts or olive oil need to be portion controlled or they're easily overeaten. Pure alcohol is about 7 calories per gram.

Yes, blfenton, the formula is quite easy. To lose 10 lbs in a year, you need to cut 100 calories a day. But that needs to be a permanent cut. And you won't continue losing weight after that unless you cut even more calories. Each lb burns 10 cal a day to maintain itself, so if you lose 10 lbs, you need 100 fewer calories a day to maintain the new weight. So a new stasis is reached.

So it's both simple and hard, right? It should be easy to cut say a candy bar a day out of one's diet to lose 20 lbs in a year...but the flip side, it's easy to overeat only a single candy bar a day and find yourself 20 lbs overweight!

Few things are more tedious and soul-sucking to me than counting calories. I've done it twice in my life while keeping a food diary. Not only was it time-consuming, but it took away the joy of eating.

A calorie is a calorie, but that doesn't take into account so many other factors in our metabolism of food. If you eat 1800 calories a day, there's a big difference between dividing those calories among 3 meals and 2 snacks over 14-16 hours (because we've been brainwashed to believe that eating small portions all day long keeps up our metabolism), and consuming those same 1800 calories in a restricted period that allows for our bodies to take a break from digestion and all the associated hormones and processes that go along with it--most importantly, insulin production.

Here's an article if anyone is inclined to read it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190724103702.htm

As an aside, dividing 1800 calories among 3 meals and 2 snacks, to me, is as every bit as soul-sucking as counting those calories. There's nothing joyful about a 500-calorie meal.

But cutting carbs is a cut in what you're eating as well and something that has to be counted. All changes in eating in which the goal is to lose weight or to become healthier is going to require cutting out something from what you're currently eating, whether it be carbs or fat or whatever.

It all requires educating yourself about your choices and honestly whatever works for you is a start.

And a piece of cheese has 100 calories and a cookie has 100 calories, I'm smart enough to know which is the better choice. Cheese has protein and no carbs and is perfect as a snack.

One of my doctor friends says a calorie is a calorie. You can eat 2 500 calorie candy bars and call it your calorie intake for the day or you can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. In his opinion, you should have the same result. I do think portion has a lot to do with it, I think carbs play a factor but the most important carbs that we should watch is the refined sugar carbs IMO. And the closer to natural that you can get food (and then you cook it yourself) the better it is for you. So much food which we really don't considered processed food has added sugar which is added carbs. And I don't think artificial sweeteners are any better than real sugar -- in fact if I want something sweet, I would prefer the real deal. We're dieting now -- sort of semi low carb. We're making good progress and are better with our food choices. Feathers -- I've never went with all those "mini meals" -- to be it's just meals and snacks and if you want to maintain your weight when you're off the diet you have reprogrammed yourself to eat 3 more times a day so after diet, it becomes a morning donut and an afternoon candy bar. IMO, learning to eat 3 meals a day that leaves your full and satisfied is the best thing you can do.

One of my doctor friends says a calorie is a calorie. Certainly, it is, as a measure of energy. However, I have read some of Dr. Fung's ideas about hormones and insulin, and they certainly provide food for thought.

My natural eating is one big meal a day. I like feeling full. I've never understood the 3 small meals and 2 snacks. I feel like I'd never feel satisfied, but I know others that do well eating small amounts all day and never getting that hungry feeling.

When I've dieted, chi, an advantage to the many small meals approach is that your stomach shrinks (I don't know if that's real or perceived) and a smaller quantity will give you a full feeling. Also, drinking a full glass of water before a meal does the same thing and limits how much food is needed to achieve the fullness.

Conversely, one large meal will make you feel not satiated unless you've had a large meal. And multiple meals helps keep your blood sugar at a stable level through the day. Swings up and down (think glycemic index) can trigger hunger pangs.

I've actually heard one big meal is better for insulin resistance (which I have) with the fasting state the rest of the day.

I've tried the small meals but I always end up eating until I'm full, and if I had the willpower to avoid overeating, I probably wouldn't need to diet in the first place!

Check with your physician and do what they advise. Maybe you've already done that. Best wishes, it's something many of us struggle with.

Thanks, yes, I've definitely talked to my doctor. She's fine with whatever works outside of keto since my body did not respond well.

At the end of the day it's just calories in and calories out to lose weight, and all the different variations can help people stick to it if they find what works for them.

From Martha Scott's doctor friends comment (which I'm guessing was probably meant as an illustration of a principle, not as literal diet advice) I was curious exactly how much lettuce equaled two 500 calorie candy bars. Can you guess?

Per googling, the answer is 200 cups of shredded lettuce, or 12 and a half gallons! My goodness, you'd be eating all day!

200 cups! Lett-uce refer to that as a gut-wrenching (apart from a wallet-wrenching) proposition?

o j