The website is not a science blog, but just a dude interpreting a health paper.

Maybe they're right. Or not. I frequently find these people cherry pick whatever they want. Or worse, the paper is just a small sample and not yet ready for society... But news pounce on it because it's "trendy".

But right now, this website doesn't have a reputation that I trust, and put them in the same category as a health blogger who recommends shoving avocados in your butt to look more youthful.

Edit: this was also posted on the "News" Lemmy instance group. I'm surprised they also identified the BS that I smelled when I read this. Come on Science... Do better.

Seriously, everything will kill you. Just do whatever the fuck makes you happy until then.

What about just carbohydrates and still eating fats?

here is the study directly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316623721986?via%3Dihub

food frequency questionnaire (how accurate are old people at reporting "What" they actually ate?)

in this cohort review, Low Carb is <40% of daily food intake as carbohydrates.

This finding reminds me of the studies that found people who drank a little alcohol lived longer than those who drank no alcohol. Further investigation finds that the no alcohol group included reformed alcoholics, who has already done enough damage to their systems to shorten their life expectancy, and this extra group was enough to skew the figures.

So I think we need to ask: are there reasons to think taking <40% of calories as carbs is selecting for a group with shorter life expectancy? Maybe - anorexia would be one, although I’ve no idea of its prevalence among Japanese men.

~~The paper makes no mention of considering this sort of thing.~~ edit: correction because I can’t read the paper.

This found opposing results between sexes with no mention of any additional lifestyle contributing factors.

what about protein?