frozenveg wrote:GL is right. Just as an example of how people (and their doctors) view "carbs," a work associate who has diabetes said at a potluck a few weeks back, "I have eaten my limit of 'carbs,' so pass me the broccoli and celery." I couldn't let it pass, and told her the veggies were almost 100% carbs, and she looked at me like I had 3 heads.
The ignorance of people sometimes astounds me. I was grocery shopping and ran into a friend who was on a low-carb diet. The grocery store had recently started carrying angus beef and the were heavily promotng it. My friend did not know if she had ever had angus beef and wanted to be sure it was okay on her low-carb diet. She asked the lady at the meat counter if angus beef was low-carb. I thought she was making a joke and I laughed. The woman behind the counter answered very seriously that she did not know so she ran off the food label and handed it to my friend who decided that angus beef was just as low-carb as the beef she had been eating. It was only then that I realized that my freind was dead serious. She thought that some animals might produce muscles that contained carbohydrates.
Back to the subject though, I agree that one really must read the study, not the abstract to see if the conclusions seem reasonable. I have read many abstracts or articles in magazines or newspapers that compare diets and found that what was being called "low-fat" or "low-carb" was often no such thing. Or that people were not really following the diet they said they were following.