Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Low-carbohydrate diet article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Low-carbohydrate diet: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Intro

I'd like to suggest that the intro is too short. It was originally longer but has been whittled away due to the fact that there is so little agreement about what is and is not "low carb". I'd like to reopen the discussion with the assertion that, in spite of the fact that the term is used in a lot of different ways, the article should pick a particular definition and mostly stick to it. The intro should clarify that definition while mentioning that other usages exist. Comments (else I'll take a stab at it)?

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

This article has been tagged with "Cleanup", "Refimprove", and "Weasel" since the beginning of the year (the February dates on them are inaccurate). I'd like to suggest that leaving the tags around indefinitely is not appropriate. May I suggest that we try to remove these by the beginning of March. To that end, anybody who has a concern either

  • Fix it.
  • Comment here with a specific request for improvement.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, as long as the article lacks references, the "Refimprove" banner is appropriate and should not be removed. I agree that the other banners could be removed. My reasoning is that the "Refimprove" banner doesn't only advise editors that the article needs additional sources, but it also tells the casual reader to take the info in the article with a big grain of salt. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "Cleanup" and "Weasel" banners, but left the "refimprove" banner in place. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the article now has tons of citations and references. The Refimprove citation is removed as it is no longer appropriate. If there are specific concerns please note these with local Fact citations or, if absolutely necessary, a section-specific banner. Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essential Nutrients

Phenylalanine, regarding the added discussion of "essential nutrients", I appreciate the contribution but had a couple of concerns.

  • First, is there truly a formal list of essential nutrients (the Wikipedia article not withstanding)? Poking around I find lists which include carbohydrates as essential nutrients (e.g. the book Nutrition Through the Life Cycle). The point is that if there is not a generally accepted list that says carbohydrates are not "essential nutrients" then this statement has no meaning.
  • The other thing is simply that, as phrased, the statement kind of implies something a little misleading. That is, although it does not explicitly state this, it comes off sounding like the scientific consensus says you can be healthy without carbohydrates. I think this would need to be rephrased to remove this implication.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, carbohydrates are not essential nutrients, and the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats.[1][2][citation needed]"
You're right. I'll leave the statement here so that it can be rephrased. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other controversies

Hi, just wanted to check this line:

"One of the occasional side effects of a ketogenic diet is a noticeable smell of ammonia in the urine, perspiration, and breath. This is caused by the body's attempt to normalize blood pH by excreting excess ketone bodies, derived from the conversion of excess dietary protein".

Is the noticable smell not due to excess acetone, a breakdown product of Acetoacetic Acid? I'm pretty sure I remember reading this. It's also been described as smelling like 'paint stripper' in another wikipedia article, which contains acetone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Study

Weight and Anthropometric Outcomes

Mean 12-month weight change was –4.7 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], –6.3 to –3.1 kg) for Atkins, –1.6 kg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.4 kg) for Zone, –2.2 kg (95% CI, –3.6 to –0.8 kg) for LEARN, and –2.6 kg (95% CI, –3.8 to –1.3 kg) for Ornish and was significantly different for Atkins vs Zone (Figure 2).

Note, at the 12-month point the difference is not statistically significant except for Atkins vs Zone. i.e. one low-carb diet beat another. Rather than quote this rather complicated stats from the paper it makes sense to simply say "The 12-month weight change was significantly different for Atkins vs Zone, but not between Atkins, Ornish, and Learn." In a scientific section it's the statistical significant results that count. Look carefully at the CIs for Atkins and Learn/Ornish. There is an overlap which is why the authors point out there is significantly different for Atkins vs Zone, ( but not for the others). i.e. Atkins was not statistically significant better than the others. This is an accurate summary of the weight-loss conclusion at 12 months.

It should be noted that this is the Low-carb diet article, and thus from a Low-Carb perspective the low-carb diets did the best and worst. The summary of the Stanford Study should reflect that I guess. Macgruder (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a somewhat biased interpretation of the results. In fact it is really a strawman argument, essentially saying that all low-carb diets are exactly the same so if you get to different results for two different variants then the results for either can be applied to both.
What the study effectively implies (but certainly doesn't prove) is that following the low-carb principles very strictly may lead to greater weight loss whereas following the principles loosely is far less effective (in fact many doctors have argued that you should either be strict about low carb or not follow it at all since the "in between" can be potentially harmful).
This study does lend significant evidence that Atkins approach has merit. But obviously a larger (and longer) study is necessary to reduce the error bands sufficiently to be confident about the implications of the results.
--Mcorazao (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Here is a direct quote from the paper:
"It could not be determined whether the benefits were attributable specifically to the low carbohydrate intake vs other aspects of the diet."
Further, I think that it does not lend 'significant evidence'. As the authors say in their analysis, there is no statistical difference in weight loss between the top three diets. Yes, they did say Atkins was 'favourable' but they qualify this in the body by saying the differences are not statistically significant for many/some of the factors and this is ultimately what counts in science.
A note about terminology : '"A statistically significant difference" simply means there is statistical evidence that there is a difference; it does not mean the difference is necessarily large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word.' Thus I tend to be careful about using (and interpreting) the word 'significant'. A study may say the difference is (statistically) significant, but this doesn't mean it is 'there is a significant(i.e. substantial) difference' :-) So I try to avoid the word or preface it with 'statistically'. Macgruder (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Macgruder, your logic is not consistent. First you claim the Stanford and Duke studies aren't relevant. Then you argue that we should go to only the JAMA article. Then you MAKE UP an alleged rule that one should not quote but paraphrase (which is ridiculous). You argue that I am cherry picking the results, which is wrong since I directly quoted the entire relevant part in question. You also argue that the quotes are confusing. And when I contend that we should use the news release from Stanford (which is a summation or, if you will, a paraphrase of the JAMA piece) you argue that that is not acceptable. You appear not to have an understanding of the statistical data and I haven't had a statistics course since I was an undergrad. This is why we should stick with the news release. Mcorazao appears to essentially agree with me on the interpretation of the Stanford study. It is you who does not have consensus, so please cease your reverts. And it should be noted that Stanford thinks that the Atkins diet was the most effective since they entitled their news release "STANFORD DIET STUDY TIPS SCALE IN FAVOR OF ATKINS PLAN." --Lifeguard Emeritus (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)