最近報章媒體登的火熱的文章,可以否定低碳或生酮飲食嗎？潘忠興 醫師

最近報章媒體登的火熱的文章,可以否定低碳或生酮飲食嗎？

潘忠興 醫師2018.08.22

*美國研究：中年人低碳多肉飲食　有短命風險?

https://tw.news.appledaily.com/international/realtime/20180817/1413058/

http://health.ltn.com.tw/article/world/breakingnews/2522508

*Lancet origin article:Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality:a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext#%20

*潘忠興醫師評論及感想：

國內外報章媒体登的火紅的刺胳針雜誌所載文章（Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality :a propective cohort study），可以否定低碳或生酮飲食嗎？

#問題一：文章內容的研究的嚴整性及限制，如有無控制健康或疾病同質性？

答:以問卷式來研究易因個人主觀因素而記錄失真。對於造成死亡的心臟血管硬化因子，控制的相關疾病因子只有糖尿病太少，其他的相關因子如高血壓，低密度膽固醇，高密度膽固醇，自由基的影響則未控制，如此會造成誤差。以每曰碳水化合物比率分六組，每組間人數差太多。另補充图一的統計存活分析，碳水化合物每日55-65%，P 值=7，未達統計信賴標準，資料被忽視，如何解釋？

#問題二：有無過度推論?

答:這篇文章的原始設計是相關分析(Association study),相關分析只能看出有無相關性及相關強度,無法當因果分析(Linkage study)而做因果推論.如只能說使用每日碳水化合物30%以下的人與,壽命較50-55%人減少4年有關 .但不能說每日碳水化合物30%以下的人因此造成,壽命較50-55%人減少4年.也可能原來已有不健康或疾病狀況而採用每日碳水化合物30%以下,當然它的壽命會較短.所以正確的統計,應是比較各每日碳水化合物使用比率的組別,研究期間增加或減少的壽命.

#結論 一：文章提及平常人最健康飲食為每日碳水化合物50%，太高太低都不好，動物性蛋白質及油脂劣於植物性。所以接近常醣常好油的生酮飲食方式：碳水化合物50%，好油40%，蛋白貿10%。

#結論二 ：任何飲食方式都需考量能量，營養素，體質，過敏，共振等個人因素。進一步了解如下

http://www.dr-peterpan.com.tw/product-detail-2033277.html)

*Do low-carb diets lead to early death? (The ARIC/Lancet Study Explored)

https://youtu.be/Ce6eHcUOc4s

*KenDBerryMD

2018年8月19日发布

订阅 20万

Do low-carb diets really lead to early death? Here is my response to the recent article published in the Lancet Journal of Public Health. I've included links below because I want you to actually read the study and verify what I'm saying. This topic is so important, and this field of science is so dubitable, that you can't take anyone's word about it, you need to read it yourself. Harvard University currently is highly esteemed in the fields of medicine and nutrition research. The Lancet is currently highly esteemed in the fields of medicine and nutrition publication. But, if they don't both stop publishing rubbish such as this as valid science from which we can glean valuable information, the reputations of both will suffer soon. Main-stream media's blind, thoughtless parroting of whatever Harvard and the Lancet say is actually crippling both institutions, and destroying their credibility. Your one life and your health are too important to entrust blindly and thoughtlessly to "expert opinion" you need to read and watch and research for yourself, and listen to your own body. Lancet Article: https://goo.gl/YSyi2K Article about Dr Willett: https://goo.gl/V1Qte1 Average Main-Stream Article: https://goo.gl/8z7pdH -------.