Rumors: eat staple food fast? Do not use the authority of the document to bring the goods

The point of view is that when the carbohydrate energy supply ratio (the ratio of the energy supplied by a productive nutrient to the total dietary energy intake) reaches more than 60%, the mortality rate Will rise. 2, but note that it does not mean that the carbohydrate energy supply is less than 40% when the mortality rate will decline; more can not explain the carbohydrate energy supply than less than 5% of the very low carbohydrate diet (“ketogenic diet” ), With a lower risk of death. 3, only “Lancet” this study as the basis, began to advocate “away from carbohydrates,” “unrestrained eat more fat,” are extrapolated. 4, most people do not need to worry about carbohydrate energy supply than the high may bring the problem, because everyone’s carbohydrate energy supply is likely to reach less than 60%. 5, nutrition has never been a blindly asked to “eat xx” “eat xx” discipline, but a focus on the balance and scope of the discipline. Fat Ye Hao, good carbohydrates, protein Ye Hao, are in a suitable range of more appropriate, too much too much are not good. A recent study shows that carbohydrate intake may increase the overall mortality rate [1], the study of a release, interpretation of articles come from, many of them there are many titles and excessive interpretation of the title , Especially in an article entitled “Lancet latest research, carbohydrate, fat and cardiovascular disease relationship, do not know how many people face the face? “The article is called, directly began to advocate low-carbohydrate diet, so that the interpretation of the wrong place in the end? The key to the study “The Lancet” is concerned with the relationship between fat and carbohydrate intake and cardiovascular disease and death. In this study, all the subjects were grouped according to the carbohydrate energy supply ratio. The first row of the white area was 46.4%, 54.6%, 60.8%, 67.7% and 77.2% respectively. (picture from the original http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext, more true team finished) spread the article “eat staple food Fast “do not fly. There is also a hazard ratio on the right side of this table, and the other groups of the five groups are compared with the first group. For example, the red box in the figure below represents 1.2.2% of the carbohydrate energy Of the overall risk of death is about 1.28 times the energy accounted for 46.4% of the people. However, it should be noted that the number range below the brackets in 1.28 below, as long as this range contains 1, then this risk is statistically insignificant. Such as the figure below 0.83-1.18, contains 1.00, that is not significant; 1.16-1.60, both than 1, to prove that the risk is statistically significant. Changes in cardiovascular disease-related trends are not statistically significant. Only all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular disease mortality were statistically significant. The rightmost P of the table is important, and it represents whether the relationship between the two variables is statistically significant. It can be seen that major cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, Stroke, and cardiovascular mortality are greater than 0.05. What does this table tell? The increase in all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality was not significant when the intake was within the range of available carbohydrate-to-energy ratios recommended by the current dietary guidelines. Although the all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular disease mortality were statistically significant, but then look at the changes in different groups, the mortality rates were 4.1,4.2,4.5,4.9,7.2, the front are relatively stable, to the fifth group There is a sudden (if you are not sensitive to the figures, here with excel made a map): What does this mean? Note that if you only see the middle two carbohydrate intake within the recommended range of the dietary guidelines (54.60% and 60.80%), the trend of rising mortality is roughly equal to none. How to interpret the conclusion of “Lancet” One of the conclusions of this study is that high carbohydrate intake may cause all-cause mortality increases. However, this “high” is as high as more than 60%; and in the carbohydrate-to-energy ratio rose to 60% before the death risk did not significantly increase the trend. In addition, the most significant increase in the risk of death in this study was the group with a carbon-water supply ratio of 77%. What is this concept? China in the last century 60’s a poor and white, can not afford to eat when the fat, a light physical activity of adults, have to eat almost a full three pounds of white rice, white bread and a class of things in order to one day carbohydrate for the top 77% of this order of magnitude! And for the study said more than 60% of the energy supply, for the current Chinese people, especially the urban Chinese people, has long been basically no problem. Although this study, the Chinese people have a higher dietary carbohydrate energy ratio, but in fact the conclusions of this single study and previous national multi-national survey of far from the conclusion. This difference may be related to the study of their own sampling methods, dietary measurement methods caused by the error. In fact, according to the survey of nutrition and health status of Chinese residents, since the reform and opening up, China’s dietary carbohydrate energy supply has been declining along the way, and as early as 2011, it has slipped to only 54.3% [2].In addition, since the study did not have a carbohydrate-to-energy ratio of less than 42.6%, the mortality rate in the three lower quintiles was not significantly statistically significant, and we could not It is inferred when the carbohydrate energy supply ratio is less than 40% when the mortality rate would be the case – not to mention “ketogenic diet” (less than 5% of the carbohydrate energy ratio) under what would be the case. The study authors also point out this in the discussion section. If you see the carbohydrate energy supply than high to 60% or more will increase the risk of death, it is considered low carbohydrate to do, according to this logic, BMI more than 24 began to appear negative health effects, it would not be a weight of 0 The most healthy How should normal people eat? Nutrition has never been a blindly asked to “eat xx” “eat xx” discipline, but a focus on the balance and scope of the discipline. Fat Ye Hao, good carbohydrates, protein Ye Hao, are in a suitable range of more appropriate. “Chinese residents dietary nutrient recommended intake” 2013 version that the carbohydrate energy ratio of the acceptable range is 50% -65%, the acceptable range of fat is 20% -30%. If high, low, are unreasonable. So, whether it is blindly remove fat, or blindly remove carbohydrates, do not meet the modern nutrition ideas. Nutrition The so-called “eat less fat”, it is not no lower limit, as mentioned above, at least 20% of the energy to ensure that dietary energy from fat, can not affect health. And now we Chinese people face the problem is that carbohydrate energy supply is declining, fat for energy more and more high, from 21.8% in 1991, all the way up to 32% in 2011, even in the big city reached 36.9 % [2]; this change in the dietary pattern, coupled with reduced physical activity, are China in recent years, the incidence of obesity and chronic disease incidence of explosive growth [3]. Summary: So, our dietary guidelines are largely correct and there is no need to deliberately reduce the dietary carbohydrates. Always remember that the focus of dietary health lies in the diversity and balance of food. REFERENCES [1] Dehghan M, Mente A, Zhang X, et al. Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study [J]. The Lancet, 2017. [2] Zhai F Y, Du S F, Wang Z H, et al. Dynamics of the Chinese diet and the role of urbanicity, 1991-2011 [J]. Obesity Reviews, 2014, 15 (S1): 16-26. [3] Yang G, Kong L, Zhao W, et al. Emergence of chronic non-communicable diseases in China [J]. The Lancet, 2008, 372 (9650): 1697-1705.

Article By :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *