Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Low Carb Diet could shorten life

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Low Carb Diet could shorten life

Reply

Old 08-17-18, 03:03 PM
  #1  
wgscott
VectorPotential sensitive
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: The Timbers of Fennario (CL77)
Posts: 3,544

Bikes: Steel

Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1822 Post(s)
Low Carb Diet could shorten life

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45195474

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...135-X/fulltext




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.

Dr Sara Seidelmann, clinical and research fellow in cardiovascular medicine from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who led the research, said: "Low-carb diets that replace carbohydrates with protein or fat are gaining widespread popularity as a health and weight-loss strategy.

"However, our data suggests that animal-based low carbohydrate diets, which are prevalent in North America and Europe, might be associated with shorter overall life span and should be discouraged.

"Instead, if one chooses to follow a low carbohydrate diet, then exchanging carbohydrates for more plant-based fats and proteins might actually promote healthy ageing in the long term."
wgscott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-18, 03:31 PM
  #2  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,205

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1083 Post(s)
All diet studies have one very serious flaw to it, and that is, they don't take the persons background, lifestyle and habits into consideration...It's so easy to demonize foods such as meat, or certain carbs or fats and say that they cause cancer or heart attacks or obesity...But what about the persons lifestyle ??...Does that person exercise, do they have a lot of stress in their life, do they smoke or drink a lot of alcohol, do they have a hazardous job, what about their family genetic history ??..AFIK none of those studies ever take those other things into consideration...All diet studies are a bunch of crap and there is no single diet that can increase your lifespan. Your health is determined mostly by your genetics and the length of time you live on this planet is determined by powers and factors which are beyond your control.
wolfchild is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 09:37 PM
  #3  
Hondo Gravel
misanthrope
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 524

Bikes: Motobecane Boris Fatbike, Motobecane Omni Strada Pro,Fantom Pro CX, Fantom X7 MTB, Gravity SS MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Fast Food is Slow Death
Hondo Gravel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 09:46 PM
  #4  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,501

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1348 Post(s)
That's why you always want to follow a tin of kippers with an ice cold IPA...
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 03:06 PM
  #5  
jsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 602

Bikes: Trek Madone, Blue Triad SL, Dixie Flyer BTB

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
All diet studies have one very serious flaw to it, and that is, they don't take the persons background, lifestyle and habits into consideration...It's so easy to demonize foods such as meat, or certain carbs or fats and say that they cause cancer or heart attacks or obesity...But what about the persons lifestyle ??...Does that person exercise, do they have a lot of stress in their life, do they smoke or drink a lot of alcohol, do they have a hazardous job, what about their family genetic history ??..AFIK none of those studies ever take those other things into consideration.
Actually pretty much all of these observational studies try to take this into consideration, they call it "adjusting for confounding factors". You can argue about how effective or not this approach is, but to say that they ignore it is just wrong.
jsk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 07:05 PM
  #6  
Ball Bearing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast of Western Australia
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jsk View Post
Actually pretty much all of these observational studies try to take this into consideration, they call it "adjusting for confounding factors". You can argue about how effective or not this approach is, but to say that they ignore it is just wrong.

Standard procedure when the evidence goes against personal bias.
Ball Bearing is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 08:24 PM
  #7  
AlmostTrick
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedrock, IL
Posts: 6,132

Bikes: 1968 Schwinn Orange Krate, Raleigh Roper road bike, Wabi Special fixed gear

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 814 Post(s)
Plenty of people I know (along with myself) have never limited carbs and never had a problem with our weight. The low carb fad seems, at the least misguided, and now maybe dangerous.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 09:42 PM
  #8  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,501

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1348 Post(s)
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick View Post
Plenty of people I know (along with myself) have never limited carbs and never had a problem with our weight. The low carb fad seems, at the least misguided,


.
True, true, an apple a day is bad for you but blueberries are great? Not sure Atkins really thought that one through... but then, it originally was the drinking man's diet.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 10:51 PM
  #9  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,039
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5954 Post(s)
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick View Post
Plenty of people I know (along with myself) have never limited carbs and never had a problem with our weight. The low carb fad seems, at the least misguided, and now maybe dangerous.
Yep. "Blue zones" are the epicenters of longevity and places where people eat a lot of carbs.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 02:30 AM
  #10  
elcruxio
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Posts: 1,772

Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
I tried to write a longer post but all I was trying to write can be summed up into this: It's quite difficult to be both vegan or vegetarian and also be low carb. I think it has been proven that vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest forms of diet. However eating enough protein can prove difficult since almost all plant matter that contains protein also contains carbs.

Then again low carb tends to be popular among those who like meat and it has also been shown that especially red meat raises cancer risk
elcruxio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 05:22 AM
  #11  
GrainBrain
Senior Member
 
GrainBrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Central Io-way
Posts: 869

Bikes: LeMond Zurich, Giant Talon 29er

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
That's why you always want to follow a tin of kippers with an ice cold IPA...
This!

I'm a firm believer in balance for most people. I follow what my stomach craves - veggies, meat or carbs. This combined with regular exercise has led to an effective feedback loop that hasn't required me to follow a specific diet plan.

I rode 1,004 miles in July, which towards the end started to challenge my haphazard nutrition plan. The biggest obstacle though was hydration. Listening to my stomach I really started to crave protein, and while I had been eating balanced meals I would also heavily depend on carbs towards the end for energy bursts while riding in the afternoon.

I really hate the idea of a "diet" of any kind for someone without any particular food constraint. Portion control is a good idea, eliminating refined sugars is a great idea. But if you want to lose weight I'm a firm believer in focusing on an exercise plan first, getting active first and leaving your current diet alone. Then, as you continue being active just naturally letting yourself eat. An exception to this for me is I have to stay away from carbs when I get done riding, at least for a few hours till the mindless chip eating urges pass

​​​​​​
GrainBrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-18, 03:36 PM
  #12  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,175

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1443 Post(s)
Also calling BS on this study, even though my dietary "beliefs" are in accordance with its conclusions. Still, it's an unscientific study, as are almost all nutritional epidemiological studies. There's an excellent article about this problem with dietary studies in JAMA. Here's a link if you can access it.

The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research

: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=082318

Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.

In recent updated meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies, almost all foods revealed statistically significant associations with mortality risk.1 Substantial deficiencies of key nutrients (eg, vitamins), extreme overconsumption of food, and obesity from excessive calories may indeed increase mortality risk. However, can small intake differences of specific nutrients, foods, or diet patterns with similar calories causally, markedly, and almost ubiquitously affect survival?
The article's conclusion is that these studies do not answer that question. I agree.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-18, 07:29 PM
  #13  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,039
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5954 Post(s)
For the anecdotal record:

My performance has been suffering on the bike lately. It takes me longer to get warmed up, I can't stay over my LTHR for more than a second, I can't take hills at race pace. I can go fast on flat ground just below my threshold, but I don't have any anaerobic to give. This is completely new to me. Also, for what it's worth, I've been struggling in the weight room. This has been going on for about a month, although I've barely been on the bike the last two weeks.

I've been keeping a food journal and it shows that I've been getting 20 to 30 % of my calories from carbohydrates lately. That's extremely low carb. I'd never do that intentionally, it's just a consequence of trying to eat a high protein diet and stay under a calorie goal - and, apparently, do it in an unhealthy way. I eat apples and oranges and berries and even some chocolate, so it wasn't obvious to me, but when you add everything up, I'm in the low carb group. And my performance is clearly suffering for it. I'm starting to eat more carbs to fix this.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-18, 12:59 AM
  #14  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 6,727

Bikes: No. 7 now sitting in a box in the living room

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1163 Post(s)
The mortality rate is 100% regardless of any factor.
__________________
Mrs. Reagan also taught me to Just Say No To Shifting, and be kind to elderly single speeds.
Rollfast is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-18, 10:59 PM
  #15  
aclinjury
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Also calling BS on this study, even though my dietary "beliefs" are in accordance with its conclusions. Still, it's an unscientific study, as are almost all nutritional epidemiological studies. There's an excellent article about this problem with dietary studies in JAMA. Here's a link if you can access it.

The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research

: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=082318

The article's conclusion is that these studies do not answer that question. I agree.
The reason why there are so many association studies and epidemiology studies and not randomized control trials is that it could be unethical to subject people to a diet that could end up killing their health, in say 10 years down the road. It's sort of like studying the effect of cocaine on the human brain. You can only "study" such thing when the patients stupidly took the drug. You cannot administered the coke because it would be unethical. But there is still value in studying patients who have taken the coke and possibly killed themselves. So if you're looking for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, the gold standard, then it's not gonna happen.

Having said that, there is the Seventh Day Adventist study out of Loma Linda University. Here's a large scale study on a group of religious people who share a lot of similarities because of their religion. They have similar lifestyle, and they don't smoke, don't drink, and have access to similar level of healthcare. Lifestyle, smoking, drinking, and access to healthcare, are THE dominant confounding factors in all epidemiology studies, and the Seventh Day Adventist study for the most part kept them out. Anyone interested in this study can google it for themselves.
aclinjury is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 10:07 AM
  #16  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,175

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1443 Post(s)
Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
The reason why there are so many association studies and epidemiology studies and not randomized control trials is that it could be unethical to subject people to a diet that could end up killing their health, in say 10 years down the road. It's sort of like studying the effect of cocaine on the human brain. You can only "study" such thing when the patients stupidly took the drug. You cannot administered the coke because it would be unethical. But there is still value in studying patients who have taken the coke and possibly killed themselves. So if you're looking for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, the gold standard, then it's not gonna happen.

Having said that, there is the Seventh Day Adventist study out of Loma Linda University. Here's a large scale study on a group of religious people who share a lot of similarities because of their religion. They have similar lifestyle, and they don't smoke, don't drink, and have access to similar level of healthcare. Lifestyle, smoking, drinking, and access to healthcare, are THE dominant confounding factors in all epidemiology studies, and the Seventh Day Adventist study for the most part kept them out. Anyone interested in this study can google it for themselves.
Slightly amusing that you wanted to make the study (studies) slightly less accessible by not including links, which I do here:
https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventi...c-publications
Note that they are all published by Loma Linda, an Adventist organization, not in peer-reviewed journals.

IF you read the JAMA article I posted, you'd realize that the problem with epidemiological dietary studies is not so much that they are not RCTs, but rather that so many of them are done and analysed by researchers who are committed to proving their conclusions. This Loma Linda study is an exemplar of study analysis bias. Adventists want badly to prove the benefits of their religion and these studies were done for that purpose.

If you want to read a more balanced analysis of the study data, read a study of the same data published in a peer-reviewed journal such as JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/

There have been a number of studies which seem to show a relationship between red meat intake and all-cause mortality. However, a low or zero red meat intake is not necessarily indicative of a vegetarian or low or high fat diet. Of course other things related to the Adventist religion are confounding factors as well.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 10:23 AM
  #17  
aclinjury
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
I think this study is "ok", but there is some question about food source, specifically at the extreme end of carbohydrate feeding. Do people who tend to eat carbs at the extreme end also eat refined carbs too, which would indicate it's a question of bad diet (because eating refined and processed carbs is never a good thing). We need to study people who eat whole un-refined carbs.
aclinjury is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 10:53 AM
  #18  
aclinjury
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Slightly amusing that you wanted to make the study (studies) slightly less accessible by not including links, which I do here:
https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventi...c-publications
Note that they are all published by Loma Linda, an Adventist organization, not in peer-reviewed journals.

IF you read the JAMA article I posted, you'd realize that the problem with epidemiological dietary studies is not so much that they are not RCTs, but rather that so many of them are done and analysed by researchers who are committed to proving their conclusions. This Loma Linda study is an exemplar of study analysis bias. Adventists want badly to prove the benefits of their religion and these studies were done for that purpose.

If you want to read a more balanced analysis of the study data, read a study of the same data published in a peer-reviewed journal such as JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/

There have been a number of studies which seem to show a relationship between red meat intake and all-cause mortality. However, a low or zero red meat intake is not necessarily indicative of a vegetarian or low or high fat diet. Of course other things related to the Adventist religion are confounding factors as well.
first of all, so what if they want to show the benefits of their religions? And what would those benefits be in the context of food? They have members from meat eaters all the way to vegans. If you have an issue with their scientific methods, then state so.
And I find it slightly amusing that you'd slight their studies by saying that they're non-peer-reviewed, but yet your original complaints is that all these nutritional studies (in peer review journals) are all wrong. So what'll it be? You can't cherry pick when to use peer reviews to support your stance and then blast them later when they don't.
And furthermore, you seem to trust peer reviews too easily. There are plenty of industry-funded studies that make their way into peer review journals, plenty of industry supported gun for hire diet doctors preaching the high fat diet. It's a bit of a joke to see see studies funded by the Atkins foundation make their way into these journals (because we all know what the conclusion of an Atkins Foundation or meat industry study is going to say; can't disappoint the hands that feed you the research funds eh). Makes one wonders if these journals are all that much better off than populist magazines.
aclinjury is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 11:18 AM
  #19  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,686
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6880 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
Your health is determined mostly by your genetics and the length of time you live on this planet is determined by powers and factors which are beyond your control.
I refuse to believe in a fatalistic view of the world. When one is conceived, one receives a "born on date" and a "die on date".

Yes, genetics play a role, but lifestyle also plays a huge role, and that includes diet and exercise.

There have been plenty of studies posted here about exercise and cycling having life prolonging effects, even when factoring risk of accident and injury or death.

Some chronic conditions like Type 1 Diabetes may just be bad luck. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that other conditions such as Type 2 Diabetes can be mostly prevented with diet and exercise.

Heart Conditions... Yep, diet and exercise.

Cancer? Well, that may be complex, but there are several environmental related cancers including smoking and tobacco related lung, mouth, throat, and bladder cancers. HPV cervical and throat cancers. Others? There is also growing evidence that diet and exercise may also impact cancer risk.

As noted in the blurb above, the high/low carb risk may be related to what else is used to replace those carbs... in fact, replacing the carbs with meat and animal fats is bad... not a big surprise to many.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 11:20 AM
  #20  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,686
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6880 Post(s)
Oh, I suppose, also when looking at stuff like exercise... Is there a fundamental difference between those people who ride 10,000 miles a year, and those who haven't been on a bike for 50 years (if ever)?

In reality, the biggest difference is actually getting out there and onto the bicycle. And, keeping at it.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-18, 08:49 PM
  #21  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,501

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1348 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post




In reality, the biggest difference is actually getting out there and onto the bicycle. And, keeping at it.
True, true... the latest is that we need at least 30 minutes of some quality exercise a day so striking out in the wild every 3rd day on a road bike for an hour or so or, over 30 miles as conditioning and inclinations permit) probably is a bonus. After that, if you're not gaining weight, what you eat pretty much takes care of itself but, on the conservative side, it may be prudent to adopt Jean Mayer's admonition of, moderation in all things--e.g., don't get all your calories from chicken wings and craft beer.

Last edited by McBTC; 08-31-18 at 09:00 PM.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-18, 06:26 AM
  #22  
awesomeame
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 162

Bikes: 2018 Trek Emonda SL w/Vision metron 40 wheelset, ultegra gruppa. 2010 Intense Tracer VP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
I think as long as you don't eat much junkfood and ride your bike 10hrs a week, you'll be fine.

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2254...healthy-aging/

I alternate between low carb and high carb myself, but not with any specific plan. If I need carbs I eat carbs.

Matt
awesomeame is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-18, 09:15 AM
  #23  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,501

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1348 Post(s)
Low carb diet is bad-? Not sure how this squares with chicken soup broth being medicinal although, eating nothing but meat probably is bad but no more so than drinking too much carrot juice. That's what is really in question-- how much is too much?


https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/...-chicken-soup/
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-18, 11:34 AM
  #24  
Sojodave
Senior Member
 
Sojodave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Utah
Posts: 268

Bikes: Fezzari Fore CR3 Di2

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
This study has already been proven false. I eat less than 20 carbs a day and I've lost 50 lbs, lowered my cholesterol and my blood sugar to normal range. I've done long distance rides on low carb. I rode 140 miles in June and kept low carb. Everyone on the ride kept telling me, dude, you've got to carb up or your going to bonk. I did fine without carbs.
Sojodave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-18, 11:49 AM
  #25  
wgscott
VectorPotential sensitive
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: The Timbers of Fennario (CL77)
Posts: 3,544

Bikes: Steel

Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1822 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Sojodave View Post
This study has already been proven false. I eat less than 20 carbs a day and I've lost 50 lbs, lowered my cholesterol and my blood sugar to normal range. I've done long distance rides on low carb. I rode 140 miles in June and kept low carb. Everyone on the ride kept telling me, dude, you've got to carb up or your going to bonk. I did fine without carbs.
Be sure to write the editors of The Lancet and report your anecdotal findings and refutation.
wgscott is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service