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.)