Low-Carb Critics, Read This: 120+ Studies Say You’re Dead Wrong

Introduction: The Low-Carb Controversy

For years, low-carb diets have been surrounded by controversy. From accusations of being “fad diets” to fears of long-term health risks, they’ve faced intense scrutiny despite the growing number of people finding success with them—especially when paired with intermittent fasting. But a newly published scientific review in the journal Nutrients may help shift the narrative once and for all.

The article, titled “Myths and Facts Regarding Low-Carbohydrate Diets”, compiles and analyzes decades of research to offer an evidence-based response to the most common criticisms of low-carb lifestyles.

Spoiler alert: the science is overwhelmingly in favor.

What Kind of Study Is This?

This is a narrative scientific review, meaning it doesn’t present new experimental data, but instead summarizes existing studies—including over 120 references drawn from:

~35 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

~20 Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews

~25 Observational and Epidemiological Studies

Guidelines from institutions like the ADA and AHA

Mechanistic and physiological studies

Not sure what these mean? Here's a simple breakdown:

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Considered the gold standard. People are randomly assigned to different groups to test the effects of a specific intervention (like a low-carb diet). This helps reduce bias.

Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews: These combine data from multiple RCTs or studies, offering high-level insights by identifying consistent patterns across many experiments.

Observational Studies: These track people's behaviors and health outcomes over time, but without controlling the variables. They show associations, not causation.

(These are the same types of studies that anti-LCIF critics often rely on—usually drawing correlations without proving cause. For example: observing that people who eat more red meat have higher heart disease rates, without proving it was the meat that caused it.)

Narrative Reviews (like this one): These compile and explain what we already know from previous studies. They’re valuable for putting data into perspective but depend on the authors' judgment in selecting and interpreting sources.

About the Journal: How Credible Is Nutrients?

Nutrients is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by MDPI, one of the largest and most transparent academic publishers today. It’s indexed in major scientific databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. While MDPI has its critics due to its high publication volume, Nutrients specifically has built a solid reputation in the field of nutrition science.

This means the paper underwent expert review before publication, adding an important layer of credibility.

Top Myths Debunked

Here are some of the key myths the article addresses—and the evidence-backed facts that replace them:

Myth #1: Low-Carb Means High Protein

Fact: Most low-carb approaches, especially ketogenic diets, are actually moderate in protein and high in healthy fats. High-protein versions exist but are not the norm.

Myth #2: Low-Carb Diets Are Dangerous for Heart Health

Fact: The review cites multiple studies showing improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL (“good” cholesterol), and insulin sensitivity among low-carb eaters.

Myth #3: Keto Flu Is a Sign the Diet Is Harmful

Fact: Symptoms like fatigue or headaches during the early transition are temporary and largely due to electrolyte imbalance, not toxicity or danger.

Myth #4: There’s No Evidence for Long-Term Safety

Fact: The review cites studies with durations of up to 2 years, showing sustained improvements in weight, glycemic control, and cardiovascular risk markers.

Institutional Support: It’s Not Fringe Anymore

The article emphasizes that major health organizations like the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Heart Association (AHA) now recognize low-carb diets as valid medical nutritional therapy, especially for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

This is a huge shift. What was once considered “radical” is now part of the mainstream toolkit for managing chronic disease.

Why Some Experts Still Oppose LCIF

Despite overwhelming scientific and real-world support, many doctors, registered dietitians, fitness coaches, and other wellness professionals remain vocal critics of LCIF and low-carb approaches. Let’s not sugarcoat it: the resistance often stems from ego, outdated education, financial incentives, or fear of losing authority.

Here are the most common reasons:

They were trained under outdated guidelines. Many professionals were taught that low-fat, high-carb diets are the gold standard. Instead of updating their views based on new evidence, they cling to what they know—because re-learning would mean admitting they were wrong all along.

They rely on weak studies. A lot of anti-LCIF arguments are based on observational studies, which only show correlations—not causation. Yet these are often used to demonize red meat, saturated fat, and fasting without real scientific rigor.

Their income depends on the status quo. Some sell carb-based meal plans, supplements, or services that LCIF makes irrelevant. Others are sponsored by companies or organizations that thrive on traditional dietary models.

They fear losing influence. When ordinary people heal themselves with LCIF, it threatens the authority of “experts” who can no longer claim exclusive control over nutrition knowledge.

They’ve never tried it—and they talk anyway. Many critics have zero firsthand experience doing LCIF properly. Yet they speak as if they know the consequences, relying on fear-mongering rather than facts.

Let’s be clear: not all professionals are like this. Some have humbled themselves, updated their knowledge, and now advocate low-carb and IF proudly. But those who continue to bash LCIF despite the evidence? They’re either uninformed… or unwilling to accept the truth because LCIF exposes the flaws in everything they built their reputation on.

Professionals Who Humbled Themselves and Switched to Low-Carb or LCIF

Here are just a few examples of respected professionals who publicly admitted they were wrong and now advocate low-carb or LCIF:

Dr. Tim Noakes – Former high-carb sports advocate turned LCHF champion

Dr. Ken Berry – Used to follow standard medical advice; now a leading keto/carnivore doctor

Dr. Jason Fung – Nephrologist who pioneered therapeutic fasting for diabetes reversal

Dr. Eric Westman – Shifted from conventional advice to low-carb based on patient results

Franziska Spritzler, RD – A registered dietitian now known as “The Low Carb Dietitian”

Dr. Caryn Zinn (RD, PhD) – Converted from conventional dietetics to low-carb sports nutrition

Mark Sisson & Thomas DeLauer – Fitness professionals who ditched carb loading for keto and fasting

Maria Emmerich – Former mainstream nutritionist turned best-selling low-carb author

Ben Azadi & Danny Vega – Health coaches who rebranded after personal healing via LCIF/keto

These people chose humility over ego, and truth over comfort.

Is There a Hidden Agenda?

You might be wondering: Who funded this review?

Interestingly, the article does not list any funding source or conflict of interest, which could suggest it was written independently—though it’s always fair to seek transparency.

Regardless, the authors reference dozens of peer-reviewed studies and guidelines, showing a clear effort to ground their conclusions in solid evidence, not opinion or industry bias.

Why This Matters for LCIF Advocates

As someone who teaches LCIF (Low-Carb Intermittent Fasting), I know how often people are bombarded with misinformation—especially by those who still cling to outdated nutrition models. This paper is an excellent resource for educators, practitioners, and anyone who wants to defend their lifestyle with facts.

Beyond the science, I personally manage a low-carb Facebook group with over 2 million members—a massive, living archive of user-generated testimonials from Filipinos and other individuals who’ve experienced real health transformations. The results speak for themselves.

It’s no longer about “belief.” It’s about science—and the undeniable real-world results backing it up.

Bottom Line: Science Has Our Back

Whether you’re doing LCIF for fat loss, better energy, or long-term disease prevention, this study should give you renewed confidence. It shows that:

The health benefits are real

The fears are mostly unfounded

The science is catching up with what many of us have already experienced firsthand.

Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available information, verified sources, and the author's independent analysis and opinion. It is not intended to defame, mislead, or misrepresent any individual, organization, or public official. Readers are encouraged to think critically and verify facts independently.