earliet this year a minor publication otherwise known as the New England Journal of Medicine chose to publish a study which apparently showed that regardless of mutrient content , all that mattered was calories in the fight agains flab.

The study in question discribed one of the diets as Low Carb but in facf the participants all had significantly more than 100 grams of carbs a day. Now whilst it was true that they had less carbs than the low fat group the actaully number of carbs was hurdly low. As there is no strict definition of low carb , nothing can be done in the public arena to explain why it is misleading to discribed that paritcular diet as low carb.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of reading in the journal Diabetes another study which apprently showed how low carbing made no difference wot weight out come and infact suggested that it had negative implications. Apart from the fact that the study was funded by the Sugar Board , that well known carbohydrate organisation it was also interesting to read that the low carb group were getting on average 300 grams of carbs a day.

Anypne with the most basic knowledge of human biochemistry would know that :-

To go into ketosis – (which is the unique state that allows the body to burn fat fast and brings with it many beneifts to CVD risk and Diabetes ) requires less than 60grams of carbs per day.

To control insulin , without ketosis it is usual to limit the intake of carbs to about 100 grams a day which means a diet rich in vegetables and fruit but not alot of starch.

How is it then that a journal like Diabetes can publish a report which is so misleading since most people will read the headline title and the summary and will not bother to read in detail the actual trial which happened to only cover a handful of people. Talk about being misleading.

Perhaps the most improtant thing to do now is to have a proper definiton of low carb and stop this abuse.