[noondip]

Oh, dear.

First study:

> Dr. Hill reports having received consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola

Second study:

> This study proves a principle and does not provide clinical guidance; given the known benefits of fat restriction, future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed.

Third study:

> The study was designed to compare weight loss and cardiovascular risk in the short term; our long-term results, although appearing successful, must be considered as anecdotal, and further long-term follow-up studies must be conducted to confirm these findings.

Fourth study:

> Although advocates for very low carbohydrate diets are likely to embrace the results of this study, several points of caution need to be emphasized. First, a single study of a specific dietary regimen cannot provide a full assessment of safety and efficacy. Despite this study being the longest randomized, controlled trial of a very low carbohydrate diet reported, our results are still limited by the 6-month time frame. Whether the very low carbohydrate diet will produce sustained weight loss and continued improvement in cardiovascular risk factors over longer periods of time remains to be determined; the gradual increase in carbohydrate consumption in the final 3 months of the study suggests that some degree of recidivism is likely in persons on this diet. In addition, increased dietary fat has been linked to certain types of cancer and may have effects on cardiovascular health beyond the risk factors assessed in this study.

Fifth study:

> Financial Interest: Dr Hennekens is funded by the Agatston Research Institute, a nonprofit foundation, as Director of Research.

Sixth study:

> Participants were healthy and were followed for only 24 weeks, factors that limit generalization of our results. The low-carbohydrate diet has not been studied extensively in patients with chronic illness, and certain patients may require close medical supervision when following this diet. Furthermore, weight loss resulting from the low-carbohydrate diet may be difficult to maintain after 24 weeks.

> Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation)

Seventh study:

> This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.

Eight study:

> There were initially 20 subjects enrolled in each experimental group [...] Over the course of the study, four subjects dropped out of the LF group and five dropped out of the LC group.

Ninth study:

> 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. [calorie restriction does not work in the long term, period]

Tenth study:

> Carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake. [saturated fat causes CVD and other chronic illness]

Eleventh study:

> Mood and other symptoms were evaluated by participant self-report using the Atkins Health Indicator Test [I'm sure that's not at all biased /s]

Twelfth study:

> Limitations included the lack of a valid and comparable assessment of individual adherence to the 4 different diets, the lack of data on whether participants had familiarity using any of the specific study diets prior to enrolling in the trial, and the lack of assessment of satiety.

Thirteenth study:

> Whether either of these diets would produce similar outcomes over longer periods and under ad libitum conditions or in populations that are more vulnerable to adverse effects, such as persons with specific psychological difficulties, requires further investigation.

Seriously, I had to stop at that. I'm sure the rest are also short-sighted and cannot be generalized as a healthful diet.

[voidlogic]

Care to explain why the many people who post their bloodwork every week on r/keto have lowered body weight, improved lipid panels, better fasting glucose scores? Its easy to say these are anecdotal, but when it happens weekly for years- (That of course not to say its well controlled, because of course its not, or that there may not be some sampling bias).

I gave it a try myself and judged it by all the objective and subjective measures at my disposal. It works (at least for me).

I can respect your skepticism, are the pending studies being done by http://nusi.org/ well enough designed to be considered weighty by you?

[noondip]

You've basically nailed it - the evidence is anecdotal and, coming from a keto echo-chamber, is obviously subject to confirmation bias. Therefore, these findings cannot be trusted as statistically significant.

By the same measure, we could argue smoking cigarettes is a reasonable, even healthful thing to do (on a slight tangent: exactly that was suggested by doctors in the 50's and 60's) - after all, we all know heavy smokers who haven't dropped dead, but on the contrary seem alive and thriving.

I'm glad it worked for you, but have you also fairly and objectively evaluated a plant-based, high-carb, low-fat diet? I think only then can the two be compared without bias, at least as I see it.

Regarding NuSI - I could write many paragraphs about the organization. If you have some time, please do check out these critical, detailed videos: http://plantpositive.com/warning-signs-nusi-guys-1/ and let me know what you think.