Author Topic: Type II Diabetes  (Read 7632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6808
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2018, 04:07:53 PM »
If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic

This kind of statement is uncalled for.

Why's that?

Because the causes of diabetes often have genetic and economic components, hence it's not necessarily the victim's fault. And besides that, victim blaming is small-minded and belligerent behavior. 


With his diet LM is probably at zero risk for developing TIID. If he followed the SAD (Standard American Diet) his risk would be much higher.

You have no credentials or authority on which to be making such statements. You're just parroting the hype of fad diet promoters.


FWIW, I also don't consider that victim blaming.
IMO, following that diet would be unwise, foolish, and, indeed, silly.

I don't care about your ill-informed opinions.


IMO, if you follow the USDA dietary guidelines which are the basis for the mainstream position on diet and nutrition, and upon which the entire food supply and delivery system of the western world are based, and you develop TIID, it's not your fault, as the victim.
It's the fault of the USDA; the mainstream nutrition science and medical communities that gave you the green light to eat a diet so high in carbs.

I don't care about your stupid conspiracy theories.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 04:40:49 PM by John Albert »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2018, 05:32:21 PM »

Thankfully you're not a doctor giving medical advice to anyone, thus all you can do is scream into the wilderness of a skeptics forum.  I just hope zero people read it and pay attention to it, since your advice is shit.

Care to be specific? Can you point to a single piece of advice I've given in this thread that is not supported by evidence?

Quote

You remind me of my friend who is a 9/11 truther.  He's perfectly sane in every other way, follows scientific advice on everything else, but he, along with his merry band of 9/11 loons, totally believe this conspiracy.  You're the same way with this crap.  Come back to me when the mainstream scientific advice changes on this topic, then I'll pay attention.  Otherwise, you're just the same as my 9/11 truther friend.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

Quote
I'll read what you write on other topics and even engage in discussion with you, but on this one, I've seen your bunk for so many years that it's just noise now.   The only reason I post in these threads is so that new people don't come in here and see your completely bereft diet advice and think that it's something to consider. 

Oh, another one who thinks people who read skeptical forums are so stupid that they need to be protected from following advice posted in a internet forum.

Quote
It's not.  Its the same thing as Jenny McCarthy's vaccine advice, Gwyneth Paltrow's personal care advice, or the Food Babe's diet advice.  In other words total crap.  I've bolded the loaded language in your post, just so everyone can clearly see what you're doing....

More bullshit and you know it's bullshit.

There are a ton of studies, clinical trials, reviews and meta-analyses that show Jenny McCarthy's advice is dangerous, deadly and causes harm.

There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets. Not a single one.

And Gwyneth Paltrow and the food babe have their things, that are totally and completely unsupported by any evidence.

I have posted numerous links to studies and peer reviewed articles that support the efficacy and safety of LCHF diets, for both weight control, and treatment and prevention of TIID and other conditions.

The very worst that could be said about LCHF diets is that after 1 year, their weight loss results are only slightly better than the best results from any other diet. (And their effectiveness for risk factors for chronic disease have a larger edge after a year). (And, even then results are based on "Intent to Treat" analysis. If the same results have been looked at through "per protocol" analysis LCHF diets would do significantly better, according to some experts in the field who are hoping to get both built in to the protocol for future studies)




You have fallen into a fairly common false dichotomy among skeptics: It's either the mainstream position (whatever you think that might be) or it's total crap (Jenny McCarthy; homeopathy; acupuncture; phrenology; Paltrow; etc., etc.)

That's fallacious and it's wrong.

To smear LCHF diets and the alternate theory of diet and nutrition with the same brush as those you have to ignore all the studies that show its effectiveness; forget that there's no studies showing it's not safe and effective, and at the same time assume the mainstream position is correct (even though it was adopted against the recommendation of the scientific community and has little or no evidence to support it), and then ignore the epidemic increases in the rates of overweight and obese people and the new epidemic of TIID, that have directly resulted from the implementation of the USDA guidelines that are at the heart of the mainstream position.

And at this point, we're not even sure if that's still the mainstream position. In some areas of science and health (vaccinations; climate change, for example) we have evidence, polls and statistics published in peer reviewed journals that show us what the mainstream position is.

There is none of that for diet and nutrition. You don't know what the majority opinion of obesity experts; endocrinologists or others in the field is because that hasn't been studied.

You're literally basing your health on an assumption about what the mainstream is, when that has not actually been studied and reported in an objective way.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 06:05:34 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2018, 06:15:44 PM »
If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic

This kind of statement is uncalled for.

Why's that?

Because the causes of diabetes often have genetic and economic components, hence it's not necessarily the victim's fault. And besides that, victim blaming is small-minded and belligerent behavior. 


As I said before, that's not victim blaming. The victims are following the mainstream guidelines. They're eating at restaurants and buying food, and following recipes, etc., etc, all based on the same, failed high carb high grain high sugar advice that directly led to these epidemics.

It's not the victims who are blamed .Yes there are genetic components. No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap. But, whatever the other components in the development of TII Diabetes, the risk drops to near zero for anyone on a LCHF diet.

Quote
Quote
With his diet LM is probably at zero risk for developing TIID. If he followed the SAD (Standard American Diet) his risk would be much higher.

You have no credentials or authority on which to be making such statements. You're just parroting the hype of fad diet promoters.

Apparently the credentials and authority standard doesn't apply to you?

Quote

FWIW, I also don't consider that victim blaming.
IMO, following that diet would be unwise, foolish, and, indeed, silly.

I don't care about your ill-informed opinions.
If I state a fact that you don't like you go back to your sad refrain about credentials, but if I qualify something as my opinion you dismiss that as well.

Quote
IMO, if you follow the USDA dietary guidelines which are the basis for the mainstream position on diet and nutrition, and upon which the entire food supply and delivery system of the western world are based, and you develop TIID, it's not your fault, as the victim.
It's the fault of the USDA; the mainstream nutrition science and medical communities that gave you the green light to eat a diet so high in carbs.

I don't care about your stupid conspiracy theories.

Right, you don't like what I say so you try to categorize it like the 911 truthers or whatever.

You know what, I don't care about your adoration for what you think is the mainstream position on diet and nutrition

« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 06:18:04 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2018, 09:36:47 PM »

Thankfully you're not a doctor giving medical advice to anyone, thus all you can do is scream into the wilderness of a skeptics forum.  I just hope zero people read it and pay attention to it, since your advice is shit.


There is a large and expanding contingent of doctors, consultants and credentialed researchers that is giving the advice that CS is relating, BTW.  Virtually every study of diets in the last decade show that some form of LCHF eating comes top in weight loss, maintenance and blood markers for disease.  This diet advice will again become the norm, as it was a century ago when T2D was a rare disease and obesity was an oddity.  So much for genetics.

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6808
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2018, 01:16:57 AM »
The victims are following the mainstream guidelines. They're eating at restaurants and buying food, and following recipes, etc., etc

Whether or not they "follow mainstream guidelines," "buy food," "eat at restaurants," "follow recipes" is all irrelevant. You're blaming diabetics for having a medical condition that they might not have been able to avoid, due to genetic, economic, and cultural factors. That's exactly what victim blaming is. Like blaming sub-Saharan villagers for having a high AIDS rate or blaming women for getting raped because they dress a certain way, it's small-minded and belligerent. 


No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap.

What?!? You just argued that there are no economic components, and then proceeded to concede to my point by listing a number of those economic components.

Foods high in carbs are very cheap, which is a big reason why they're so popular with people who don't have a lot of money for their grocery budget. Eating too many carbs is very risky behavior for somebody who's genetically predisposed to type II diabetes, and poor people tend to eat diets high in carbs because they have little economic alternative. Being literally unable to afford a clinical lower-carb diet may limit their culpability in having the disease.

Hence, it's a dick move to victim-blame them.


Apparently the credentials and authority standard doesn't apply to you?

No, because I'm not the one giving out medical advice.


If I state a fact that you don't like you go back to your sad refrain about credentials, but if I qualify something as my opinion you dismiss that as well.

Like I said before, it has nothing to do with what I do or don't like regarding dietary choices. In the absence of evidence or credentials your opinion is useless, and some of the things you're saying are factually incorrect.

It would be perfectly fine to say something like, "I've been on a LCHF diet for x years, and this is my experience," but you have no business throwing around unqualified claims about diet and health. Pretending to such authority without credentials makes you an unqualified charlatan promoting medical advice without a license.


There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets. Not a single one.

Well that's an outright lie. Here are three that I came across, in about 5 minutes of Googling:

     Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Negative effect of a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet on small peripheral artery reactivity in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.

Reduced Dietary Intake of Carbohydrates by Obese Subjects Results in Decreased Concentrations of Butyrate and Butyrate-Producing Bacteria in Feces

I know you didn't make that bold statement just by mistake, because we've already discussed at least one of those studies at length in another thread.


Quote
I don't care about your stupid conspiracy theories.

Right, you don't like what I say so you try to categorize it like the 911 truthers or whatever.

You know what, I don't care about your adoration for what you think is the mainstream position on diet and nutrition

You don't even know my position on diet and nutrition, because I'm not the guy going around advising people on diet. 

Like I said before, this is not about my opinions of low-carb diets.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 02:27:13 AM by John Albert »

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6808
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2018, 01:46:16 AM »
There is a large and expanding contingent of doctors, consultants and credentialed researchers that is giving the advice that CS is relating, BTW.  Virtually every study of diets in the last decade show that some form of LCHF eating comes top in weight loss, maintenance and blood markers for disease.  This diet advice will again become the norm, as it was a century ago when T2D was a rare disease and obesity was an oddity.

That may or may not be true. Either way, appeals to the future are not a reasonable argument because we're incapable of seeing into the future.


So much for genetics.

Even if what you said above is true, this is an ill-informed opinion that does not logically follow.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 02:28:08 AM by John Albert »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2018, 11:17:24 AM »
The victims are following the mainstream guidelines. They're eating at restaurants and buying food, and following recipes, etc., etc

Whether or not they "follow mainstream guidelines," "buy food," "eat at restaurants," "follow recipes" is all irrelevant. You're blaming diabetics for having a medical condition that they might not have been able to avoid, due to genetic, economic, and cultural factors. That's exactly what victim blaming is. Like blaming sub-Saharan villagers for having a high AIDS rate or blaming women for getting raped because they dress a certain way, it's small-minded and belligerent. 

Look I'm just one of the guys standing by the side of the road with warning signs trying to wave drivers off the intersection. LM is the guy taking a completely different route, but can see the carnage at the intersection.

I don't blame the victims for not seeing the warnings, especially when there's guys like you shouting at them to "ignore all distractions,"" just follow the signals" and " those guys are traffic engineers."

No I don't blame the victims.

Quote
No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap.

What?!? You just argued that there are no economic components, and then proceeded to concede to my point by listing a number of those economic components.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Quote


Apparently the credentials and authority standard doesn't apply to you?

No, because I'm not the one giving out medical advice.

Actually, you've done the same thing I've done, linked to sites with diets and strategies for weight loss.

In your book when I do it it's medical advice when you do it doesn't count.

Quote
If I state a fact that you don't like you go back to your sad refrain about credentials, but if I qualify something as my opinion you dismiss that as well.

Quote
It would be perfectly fine to say something like, "I've been on a LCHF diet for x years, and this is my experience," but you have no business throwing around unqualified claims about diet and health. Pretending to such authority without credentials makes you an unqualified charlatan promoting medical advice without a license.

x=8

Again you are accusing me of pretending to have authority and credential that I have never claimed to have.

What do you mean by "unqualified claims?" Every claim I make is well qualified and quantified and supported by evidence.


Quote

There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets. Not a single one.
Well that's an outright lie. Here are three that I came across, in about 5 minutes of Googling:


The first and third articles are low carb high protein diets, where carb content is replaced by protein.

The second article does not look at the kind of LCHF ketogenic diet I advocate, where carb content is at most 15% of calories (usually below 10%; for me about 5%). The lowest carb percentage in that diet was 29%, nearly twice the carb content of LCHF diets. Well above the threshold for ketosis for nearly everyone.


Quote
I know you didn't make that bold statement just by mistake, because we've already discussed at least one of those studies at length in another thread.

No that was no mistake, and no I don't believe we discussed any of those since you've been here. If you have a link to this other thread I'd be interested in seeing it.


Quote
You don't even know my position on diet and nutrition, because I'm not the guy going around advising people on diet. 

Aside from the links you've posted and the advice you've given.

Quote
Like I said before, this is not about my opinions of low-carb diets.


I should be flattered to have my own personal stalking-troll following me around from thread to thread dropping ad hominem arguments where ever I go, but it's getting tiresome.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 11:34:59 AM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6808
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2018, 12:22:35 PM »
Look I'm just one of the guys standing by the side of the road with warning signs trying to wave drivers off the intersection. LM is the guy taking a completely different route, but can see the carnage at the intersection.

I don't blame the victims for not seeing the warnings, especially when there's guys like you shouting at them to "ignore all distractions,"" just follow the signals" and " those guys are traffic engineers."

I didn't accuse you of not believing you're right. No doubt Jenny McCarthy believes she's saving the world too.


Quote
No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap.

What?!? You just argued that there are no economic components, and then proceeded to concede to my point by listing a number of those economic components.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Poor people trying to raise a family on a low income often cannot afford to adhere to a clinical diet. Your arguments just keep getting more and more dishonest.

Lonely moa and you both engaged in victim-blaming people who suffer from T2D, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. Just act like a grownup, admit you were wrong, and move on.
 

Actually, you've done the same thing I've done, linked to sites with diets and strategies for weight loss.

"Actually" no, I have not. I have never promoted any particular strategy for weight loss or management of any medical condition.

Do I have opinions about the best way to lose weight? Sure.

But I'm not a doctor, so I don't go around pretending to advise others about what they should do. If somebody asks, I suggest they go see a doctor.


What do you mean by "unqualified claims?" Every claim I make is well qualified and quantified and supported by evidence.

If that were the case, then I wouldn't be giving you so much grief about it. You have said a lot of things that are factually incorrect.

Some of the things you've been very wrong about are high school health class level nutritional science. Like the definitions of starches and sugars, where they occur in nature, how they're metabolized in the body, the importance of dietary fiber in maintaining a healthy digestive tract, etc. The things you've said about those subjects betrays a below-average understanding of the subject of nutrition.

Nevertheless, you have a tendency to make reductive, overly simplistic and general statements like "simple carbs are bad and should be avoided" which is not consistent with the prevailing medical science, but common parlance among promoters of low-carb fad diets.

When medical studies contradict your own opinions, you attack them with nitpicky critiques about their methodology which you clearly don't understand because you are not trained in that field. You are not a doctor, a dietitian or a medical researcher. You're just a guy who did a fad diet and lost a bunch of weight, and who now assumes that all of medical science is wrong about nutrition and his diet is the best solution for everybody.


The first and third articles are low carb high protein diets, where carb content is replaced by protein.

Another lie. The first one does not specify carb content being replaced by protein.


The second article does not look at the kind of LCHF ketogenic diet I advocate, where carb content is at most 15% of calories (usually below 10%; for me about 5%).

Now you're moving the goalposts. You originally said:

     
There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets. Not a single one.

I spent less than 5 minutes on Google and found two. And like I said, you knew of the existence of at least one of those studies because we've discussed it before.


I should be flattered to have my own personal stalking-troll following me around from thread to thread dropping ad hominem arguments where ever I go, but it's getting tiresome.

What you should do is quit with the fad diet evangelizing and dispensing health advice that you're not qualified to give. Stick to your own experience, and defer to the experts for the rest.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 12:42:36 PM by John Albert »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2018, 12:41:51 PM »
Look I'm just one of the guys standing by the side of the road with warning signs trying to wave drivers off the intersection. LM is the guy taking a completely different route, but can see the carnage at the intersection.

I don't blame the victims for not seeing the warnings, especially when there's guys like you shouting at them to "ignore all distractions,"" just follow the signals" and " those guys are traffic engineers."

I didn't accuse you of not believing you're right. No doubt Jenny McCarthy believes she's saving the world too.

Non sequitor

Quote
No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap.

What?!? You just argued that there are no economic components, and then proceeded to concede to my point by listing a number of those economic components.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Quote
Poor people trying to raise a family on a low income often cannot afford to adhere to a clinical diet. Your arguments just keep getting more and more dishonest. 


What is a clinical diet? There is a correlation between poverty and obesity/TIID, but that is not causation as you claimed it was. The root cause is consumption of carbs. FWIW, I spend a lot less on food now than before.
Quote
Actually, you've done the same thing I've done, linked to sites with diets and strategies for weight loss.

"Actually," no I have not. I have never promoted any particular strategy for weight loss or management of any medical condition.

I'm sure that was you who linked to the Mayo Clinic diet page.

 
Quote
What do you mean by "unqualified claims?" Every claim I make is well qualified and quantified and supported by evidence.

If that were the case, then I wouldn't be giving you so much grief about it.

Well, I agree you shouldn't be. Maybe you don't understand what "unqualified claims" means.

Quote
The first and third articles are low carb high protein diets, where carb content is replaced by protein.
The first one does not specify carb content being replaced by protein.

Look closer. Maybe read it?

The second article does not look at the kind of LCHF ketogenic diet I advocate, where carb content is at most 15% of calories (usually below 10%; for me about 5%).
Quote
Now you're moving the goalposts. You originally said:

     
There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets. Not a single one.

I spent less than 5 minutes on Google and found two. And like I said, you knew of the existence of at least on of those studies (the first one), because we've discussed it before.

From more than 6 years now I have been advocating for exactly one kind of weight loss diet. Low Carb, High Fat, Moderate Protein, Ketogenic. The LCHF ketogenic diet that I advocate starts with carbs at less than 5% of calories and may go as high as 15% of calories (some people go as high as 20, but that's not what I advocate).  The diet also eliminates all but trace amounts of sugar (sucrose; HFCS; etc.) grains and starchy foods. The protein remains moderate, and calories from fat replace calories from carbs.

That has been the goalpost set in stone from the start. I refer to that as LCHF or LCHF Ketogenic because I'm too lazy to type the whole thing out. And for the most part I don't have to because it's clear to anyone with any sense.

There are some who will label a diet with less than 40% of calories "low carbohydrate", but that is not the LCHF diet I advocate. And there are other flavors of diet with some form of reduced carb, increased proteins, etc. that don't come close to LCHF that I advocate.
Quote
I should be flattered to have my own personal stalking-troll following me around from thread to thread dropping ad hominem arguments where ever I go, but it's getting tiresome.

What you should do is quit with the fad diet evangelizing and dispensing health advice that you're not qualified to give.

Thanks for the advice I'll give it all the consideration it is worthy of.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6808
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2018, 01:13:31 PM »
Quote
No there are not "economic components." There may be correlations relating to income, ect. but those go back to the carb component of the diets. High carb and highly processed food is dirt cheap.

What?!? You just argued that there are no economic components, and then proceeded to concede to my point by listing a number of those economic components.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Now you're just making more and more obtuse distractions to weasel your way out of your disgraceful victim-blaming. Just act like a grownup, admit you were wrong, and move on.


What is a clinical diet?

A diet recommended by a doctor or dietitian for the treatment of a specific medical condition. 


There is a correlation between poverty and obesity/TIID, but that is not causation as you claimed it was. The root cause is consumption of carbs.

There you go with the reductive overgeneralizations again. All cases of obesity are not attributable to just carbs. You make these kinds of general, reductive statements all the time without any evidence and on no personal qualifications. It clearly shows that you don't know what you're talking about.


FWIW, I spend a lot less on food now than before.

The fact that you spend less money on food now than you did before is completely irrelevant to another person's economic situation.

This is another one of your big problems when discussing dietary issues. You tend to make the subject all about yourself, ignoring the fact that everybody is not the same as you.

Everybody does not have the same genetic makeup as you. Everybody does not have the same metabolism as you. Everybody does not have the tolerances for the same foods as you. Everybody does not have the same income level and grocery budget as you. Everybody did not grow up in the same culture as you, or have the same food preferences as you. All these factors (and probably more) influence the success or failure of a given dietary regimen.


Quote
Actually, you've done the same thing I've done, linked to sites with diets and strategies for weight loss.

"Actually," no I have not. I have never promoted any particular strategy for weight loss or management of any medical condition.

I'm sure that was you who linked to the Mayo Clinic diet page.

No, I linked to the Mayo Clinic as an example of an extremely well-respected medical research organization that does not advocate a low-carb diet. I did not explicitly tell anyone to go and follow their dietary guidelines.

Again, this is not about me being opposed to low-carb diets. This is me being opposed to you giving out dietary medical advice with no credentials whatsoever, when it's clear to everybody but yourself that you're largely ignorant about the subject of nutrition.

 
From more than 6 years now I have been advocating for exactly one kind of weight loss diet. Low Carb, High Fat, Moderate Protein, Ketogenic.

I don't care. You said:

     
There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets.
[bolding mine]

Diets, in the plural. In that statement you did not specify your own particular, personal version of low carb high fat diet.

Then after I presented the studies that showed harm from LCHF diets, you moved the goalposts to say:

     
The second article does not look at the kind of LCHF ketogenic diet I advocate

What it comes down to is, you made another overly simplistic, general statement of the type that you typically make. And of course it was incorrect, as your overly simplistic, general statements tend to be. Your lack of specificity and nuance and your penchant for reductive overgeneralization tend to give you away as a fad diet hype man instead of a medical professional. 

Another thing you seem unwilling to recognize is that a lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence. Just because no studies to date have shown harm from your particular diet, that is not a tacit endorsement that it's safe.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 02:09:16 PM by John Albert »

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11880
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2018, 03:27:35 PM »
There is a correlation between poverty and obesity/TIID, but that is not causation as you claimed it was. The root cause is consumption of carbs.

There you go with the reductive overgeneralizations again. All cases of obesity are not attributable to just carbs. You make these kinds of general, reductive statements all the time without any evidence and on no personal qualifications. It clearly shows that you don't know what you're talking about.



I know, right?  I mean if you look at North Korea 95%+ of their calories come from rice, which is mostly carbs and they're a nation of obese people who can barely get off the couch!   ::)
#non-belief denialist

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11880
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2018, 03:30:50 PM »
And those damn Irish, what the hell those guys were a bunch of obese people between 1600 and 1835.  The men ate FOUR to FIVE POUNDS of potatoes TWICE daily!

How they were able to even move around is amazing!

http://www.dochara.com/the-irish/food-history/food-in-ireland-1600-1835/

#non-belief denialist

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2018, 03:32:33 PM »
I know, right?  I mean if you look at North Korea 95%+ of their calories come from rice, which is mostly carbs and they're a nation of obese people who can barely get off the couch!   ::)

Point taken. I should have specified which carbs: Sugar (sucrose and HFCS) and  processed flours will make you fat.

Rice and other complex carbs will keep you fat.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #73 on: February 09, 2018, 03:39:14 PM »
Quote
What is a clinical diet?

A diet recommended by a doctor or dietitian for the treatment of a specific medical condition. 

And they are all equally expensive?

Quote


Quote
Again, this is not about me being opposed to low-carb diets.



Since when do you get to decide what "this" is about?

From more than 6 years now I have been advocating for exactly one kind of weight loss diet. Low Carb, High Fat, Moderate Protein, Ketogenic.
Quote
I don't care. You said:

There is not one single clinical trial, review of studies or meta-analysis in peer reviewed literature showing harm from LCHF diets.

Diets, in the plural. In that statement you did not specify your own particular, personal version of low carb high fat diet.


I specified a range of macronutrient proportions and other criteria that constitute a LCHF ketogenic diet.

There are numerous diets (yes, plural) that fit into that range. And none have ever been found to be harmful.

Quote
Another thing you seem unwilling to recognize is that a lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence. Just because no studies to date have shown harm from your particular diet, that is not a tacit endorsement that it's safe.

Which is why I constantly point out the dozens of RCTs and and even more  peer review articles that have found it safe and effective.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2018, 11:36:11 AM »
Here are the results of a 1 year clinical trial for a specific intervention for TIID, compared to Ordinary Care.

The important thing to note here is that under Ordinary Care nearly all results measured were worse, and overall the health of the Ordinary Care subjects degraded. The disease is progressive and Ordinary Care only slows the progression. (Requiring smaller increases in medication than no treatment at all).

This intervention reversed nearly all symptoms in most subjects, allowing for reductions (and in some cases elimination) of medication.

They are extending the trial to 5-years now.  (FWIW, 1-year is considered long term for this, and is longer than most studies used to justify standard of care for TIID.)



This is an article from the clinic that conducted the study, describing the intervention, and the findings....

One Year Clinical Trial Outcomes Provide Evidence for Changing the Way We Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes – Blog | Virta Health

And here is the peer review study.

Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at 1 Year: An Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study | SpringerLink
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.