New research showed men who consumed less than 40% of their total energy from carbohydrates experienced significantly higher risks of all-cause and cancer-related mortality (medicalxpress.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's not good for Keto'ers

[-] Nepenthe@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On the other hand, among women with five years or longer of follow-up, those with a high carbohydrate intake of more than 65% had a higher risk of all-cause mortality. No clear association was observed between refined or minimally processed carbohydrate intake and the risk of mortality in women.

For fats, men with a high fat intake of more than 35% of their total energy from fats had a higher risk of cancer-related mortality. They also found that a low intake of unsaturated fat in men was associated with a higher risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality.

In contrast, total fat intake and saturated fat intake in women showed an inverse association with the risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality. They concluded that this finding does not support the idea that high fat intake is detrimental to longevity in women.

So, hesitantly, keto is terrible for men but fine enough for women? Like we weren't already outliving them in general. I'd just be dying to know why, though. You don't just casually tell me dietary requirements noticeably differ by sex and then never elaborate

[-] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah but which fats? They vary wildly in toxicity and function

[-] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 year ago

Indeed. And eating bacon is not the same as eating avocado.

[-] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep, even olive oil can behave undesirably in the presence of heat, unless mixed with a small amount of butter. It's these intricacies that ruin all studies that just look at "fat" consumption

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Rendered long pig fat is the best.

[-] Lafuma300@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

An industry-financed epidemiological study; we're shaking in our boots I tell ya.

[-] VeganSchnitzel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Where is it written that it is financed by industry? That's not in the article or in the part of the original study I can access.

[-] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately almost all these studies are financed by some lobbying group or food industry group. There's a disturbing amount of misinformation and studies out there. What's "healthy" seems to change every 5-10 years. Low fat foods just had more sugar, which all the studies show is bad for you.

The obvious answer is always that anything you know isn't healthy, fat, sugar, simple starches, dairy should all be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet and people need to eat an appropriate amount of calories. Eat more vegetables and healthy fruits. Less processed food. Ignore anything that's weird trendy bullshit.

[-] Pipoca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

From the article:

However, this study shows that low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets may not be the healthiest strategy for promoting longevity, as their short-term benefits could potentially be outweighed by long-term risk.

If you read the study, the lowest mortality is around 50% of calories from carbohydrates. There's a u-shaped curve, although low carb seems more dangerous than high carb.

That seems to suggest something like the Mediterranean diet or a traditional Japanese diet, not very low fat diets.