Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Mandi Smallhorne wrote:
>
>
>>A recent Nature article (18 March) refers to concerns about safety of =
>>low-carb diets: =20
>>'One recent review of the safety of low-carbohydrate diets reeled off an =
>>alarming list of potential problems: "Complications such as heart =
>>arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, =
>>osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of =
>>physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term =
>>restriction of carbohydrates in the diet."'
>
>
> These are the standard criticisms of low-carb dieting. Most don't have
> much research support.
>
>
>>Is anybody on the list able to point me in the direction of any similar =
>>review naming possible complications from the 'standard' diet - low-fat, =
>>high-carb?
>
>
> There's a newsgroup called <alt.support.diet.low-carb> that has a FAQ
> that includes a lot of direct, anecdotal and other kinds of
> information, and links to way too much other stuff, including medical
> material. It's unabashedly pro lo-carb but, keeping that in mind, it's
> still worth the ride. <http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm>

Well, and years ago, when I had first started low carbing, and was
dazzled by the results, I was also taking Argumentation and Debate at
the local University.  I had to do a scientific argument, so of course I
did low carb dieting.  I was required to argue both sides, so I spent
*hours* searching PubMed for any evidence that those 6-11 servings of
grain per day were good for *anything* -- I ran "carbohydrate
hypertension" "carbohydrate atherosclerosis" "carbohydrate NIDDM," etc,
etc, etc.  I found some evidence that if you're going to eat all that
starch, you'd do best to limit fats.  But I found *nothing* to convince
me there was *any* benefit to eating all that carbohydrate in the first
place.

Dana  (8 1/2 years low carbing, and still alive and healthy, thank you.)