The website is not a science blog, but just a dude interpreting a health paper.
Maybe they’re right. Or not. I frequently find these people cherry pick whatever they want. Or worse, the paper is just a small sample and not yet ready for society… But news pounce on it because it’s “trendy”.
But right now, this website doesn’t have a reputation that I trust, and put them in the same category as a health blogger who recommends shoving avocados in your butt to look more youthful.
Edit: this was also posted on the “News” Lemmy instance group. I’m surprised they also identified the BS that I smelled when I read this. Come on Science… Do better.
Seriously, everything will kill you. Just do whatever the fuck makes you happy until then.
This finding reminds me of the studies that found people who drank a little alcohol lived longer than those who drank no alcohol. Further investigation finds that the no alcohol group included reformed alcoholics, who has already done enough damage to their systems to shorten their life expectancy, and this extra group was enough to skew the figures.
So I think we need to ask: are there reasons to think taking <40% of calories as carbs is selecting for a group with shorter life expectancy? Maybe - anorexia would be one, although I’ve no idea of its prevalence among Japanese men.
The paper makes no mention of considering this sort of thing.edit: correction because I can’t read the paper.Did you actually read the paper, or just its abstract?
Edit: it’s a genuine question, folks. This is a science community.
how could he have read the abstract? The link is a science article, not the study.
Where did I mention that I was referring to the article?
The parent poster wrote “the paper,” so I was referring to the paper. Not the article.
Im betting when he said paper he meant the link in the post. At least I thought so. I get what you are saying but in an internet forum I usually assume words are used in the most generic sense.
Well, that just falls in the realms of opinions. I could agree with you in a different context. But in this community about scientific discussion, I’ll assume the parent poster meant paper when they wrote paper.
Regardless, that’s why I asked the question as a clarification.
fair enough.
FWIW I think it was a fair question.
Hmm… I thought I’d read the paper, but it turned out I got confused by an abstract with multiple sections. I thought it was very short. My mistake
So I can’t say whether the authors addressed whether the low carbohydrate group was selecting for people already known to be at risk.
What about just carbohydrates and still eating fats?
here is the study directly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316623721986?via%3Dihub
food frequency questionnaire (how accurate are old people at reporting “What” they actually ate?)
in this cohort review, Low Carb is <40% of daily food intake as carbohydrates.
This found opposing results between sexes with no mention of any additional lifestyle contributing factors.
To complete the report: men who eat less carbs and fats temd to die sooner than the men who didn’t. And the opposite is for women: women tend to die sooner if they eat more carbs.
More proof that it’s OK to take that extra slice of bread at dinner, my dudes
what about protein?
