Author Topic: Type II Diabetes  (Read 7629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11880
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2018, 02:28:31 PM »
I'm happy you're mostly talking to yourself, but for anyone else still reading, this is called cherry picking data.

Please continue.
#non-belief denialist

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2018, 02:54:03 PM »
I'm happy you're mostly talking to yourself, but for anyone else still reading, this is called cherry picking data.

Please continue.

Do you actually know what cherry picking is?

This is a recent study directly on topic.

If you're suggesting it's cherry picked, then that would mean there are numerous studies that contradict these findings, and I selected the only one that agrees with my position.

So, if you know of any such studies, feel free to post them and prove me wrong.

If you don't know of any such studies, then your post is just more bullshit.
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 Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11880
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2018, 04:06:52 PM »
I'm happy you're mostly talking to yourself, but for anyone else still reading, this is called cherry picking data.

Please continue.

Do you actually know what cherry picking is?

This is a recent study directly on topic.

If you're suggesting it's cherry picked, then that would mean there are numerous studies that contradict these findings, and I selected the only one that agrees with my position.

So, if you know of any such studies, feel free to post them and prove me wrong.

If you don't know of any such studies, then your post is just more bullshit.

You acknowledge every time you post that your dietary advice is contrary to the 'mainstream'

That's all we need to know.  That means, by definition, that you are cherry picking.  If you weren't, your 'advice' would comport with the mainstream.  Simple logic.

#non-belief denialist

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2018, 05:22:55 PM »

You acknowledge every time you post that your dietary advice is contrary to the 'mainstream'

That's all we need to know.  That means, by definition, that you are cherry picking.  If you weren't, your 'advice' would comport with the mainstream.  Simple logic.

What do you consider "mainstream"?  I thought rigorous studies published in credible peer review journals might just be considered "mainstream", or maybe large numbers of medical doctors in clinical settings using  the LCHF diet and fasting strategies (successfully) might be as well.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline AQB24712

  • Not a Euphemism.
  • Global Moderatrix
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8076
  • Did you just call me..."Bacon girl"?
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2018, 06:26:53 PM »
Tangent:  Every time I read or hear the phrase "low-carb, high-fat" or the word "ketogenic" or the abbreviation "LCHF," my stomach just roils, because it all sounds so very damn unappetizing.

/tangent
"There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind."  Kurt Vonnegut
"You can bet your last money it's all gonna be a stone gas, honey."  Don Cornelius
"Wow! You spark up my entire thinking faculty."  A scammer/bot on a dating site

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16439
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2018, 06:31:19 PM »
Tangent:  Every time I read or hear the phrase "low-carb, high-fat" or the word "ketogenic" or the abbreviation "LCHF," my stomach just roils, because it all sounds so very damn unappetizing.

/tangent
Thats only because you havent been converted fat adapted.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2018, 06:35:28 PM »
I'm happy you're mostly talking to yourself, but for anyone else still reading, this is called cherry picking data.

Please continue.

Do you actually know what cherry picking is?

This is a recent study directly on topic.

If you're suggesting it's cherry picked, then that would mean there are numerous studies that contradict these findings, and I selected the only one that agrees with my position.

So, if you know of any such studies, feel free to post them and prove me wrong.

If you don't know of any such studies, then your post is just more bullshit.

You acknowledge every time you post that your dietary advice is contrary to the 'mainstream'

That's all we need to know.  That means, by definition, that you are cherry picking.  If you weren't, your 'advice' would comport with the mainstream.  Simple logic.

I would agree that's how it should be. But your logic is flawed.  Your logic assumes that since that position is mainstream it's supported by evidence.

Suppose the mainstream position was arrived at without evidence to support it?

And in all the years since, that position has never been validated by evidence, but the alternate theory has? (And suppose that during the decades we have been following the mainstream advice, we also suffered (and continue to suffer) from a growing obesity epidemic, an epidemic in Type II diabetes and epidemics in what they have started calling ABCD.  (Adiposity-Based Chronic Disease)

That's what I have been arguing for some time here and elsewhere. That's also, exactly, what Gary Taubes, Robert Lustig, etc. argue.

And they've be raising that issue for years.

Again, I would love to see all this evidence that supports the mainstream position, or that contradicts the evidence for the Alternate Theory, or disputes the effectiveness of LCHF ketogenic diets for treatment of TII Diabetes.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 11:31:43 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 CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2018, 06:36:22 PM »
Tangent:  Every time I read or hear the phrase "low-carb, high-fat" or the word "ketogenic" or the abbreviation "LCHF," my stomach just roils, because it all sounds so very damn unappetizing.

/tangent

Tangent:  And they call you "bacon girl?"  ;D
/tangent

(Actually, I never realized that might be an issue. Definitely food for thought (no pun intended))
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: 6806
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #83 on: February 12, 2018, 07:13:48 PM »
I would agree that's how it should be. But your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes that since that position is mainstream it's supported by evidence.

Are you suggesting that medical science is not evidence-based? That all the world's medical science researchers are just making up results?


Suppose the mainstream position was arrived at without evidence to support it?

So again you're alleging some kind of conspiracy to ignore the science, or else trump up false science? Do you believe that all the world's health organizations have ulterior motives to suppress valid data and promote anti-scientific diets?


And in all the years since, that position has never been validated by evidence, but the alternate theory has?

What's "the alternate theory"? There have been a great many theories about dietary health over the past century or more.

I don't think anyone has argued that LCHF diets are necessarily known to be bad or harmful per se. But some of the specific allegations you've made in your "position" are not supported by any evidence that you've shown. Some have even been contrary to the preponderance of evidence.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 08:25:31 PM by John Albert »

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11880
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #84 on: February 12, 2018, 09:44:50 PM »
I remember every possible diet over the years.  One was so popular that Weird Al spoofed a song about it. 
#non-belief denialist

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6806
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #85 on: February 12, 2018, 09:48:15 PM »
One of the very first fad diets, back in the 19th century, was actually a LCHF diet called the "Inuit Diet."

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2018, 11:12:44 PM »
Tangent:  Every time I read or hear the phrase "low-carb, high-fat" or the word "ketogenic" or the abbreviation "LCHF," my stomach just roils, because it all sounds so very damn unappetizing.

/tangent




Stop by for breakfast sometime... the first meal is about 1300all going well.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2018, 11:13:23 AM »
I would agree that's how it should be. But your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes that since that position is mainstream it's supported by evidence.

Are you suggesting that medical science is not evidence-based? That all the world's medical science researchers are just making up results?

Here you are doing exactly what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing. You are going from the specific to the general. We were talking about a specific position.

I have said numerous times in these threads that if the standard for evidence for nutrition science were as rigorous as the standards for other health sciences (cancer; pharmaceuticals; neurology) we'd be much better off. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Nutrition is not seen as a medical field. There is no medical specialty for nutrition. It's barely taught in medical schools. The US government body responsible for setting policies and guidelines is the Department of Agriculture.

This is not how we handle any other medical or scientific field, Nutrition has special pleadings and gets special treatment.

Quote
Suppose the mainstream position was arrived at without evidence to support it?

So again you're alleging some kind of conspiracy to ignore the science, or else trump up false science? Do you believe that all the world's health organizations have ulterior motives to suppress valid data and promote anti-scientific diets?


I'm not making any conspiratorial allegations.

I am pointing out that the US Senate Agriculture Committee drafted the US Dietary Guidelines over the objections of their own scientists and the Johnson Nixon Administrations National Science advisor. (I posted a video a while back of some of the scientific/political back and forth from those committee meetings). The guidelines were drafted by a non-scientist (himself a follower of a specific vegetarian diet that was popular at the time (a fad diet). The food pyramid, and the macronutrient proportions recommended by the USDA were based on those guidelines and have been in place for decades, with only minor changes.

This is actually not disputed.

The guidelines set proportion of carbs in the diet at a range of 40-65% of calories.

There has never been a single study showing that a diet with carbs in that range is healthier than a diet with 20% or less carbs. (At the time the guidelines were adopted the average carb percentage was estimated to 25%, currently it's close to 50%). During the course of that increase, we have moved to an epidemic of obesity and TIID.

The argument is those epidemics are a result of an untested population wide intervention that was not based on science.
Quote
And in all the years since, that position has never been validated by evidence, but the alternate theory has?

What's "the alternate theory"? There have been a great many theories about dietary health over the past century or more.

It's usually referred to as the Insulin-Carbohydrate hypothesis. The premise is that the root cause of excess fat storage is the level of carbohydrates in the diet (especially sugar and other fast carbs) and their effect on insulin.
Quote

I don't think anyone has argued that LCHF diets are necessarily known to be bad or harmful per se. But some of the specific allegations you've made in your "position" are not supported by any evidence that you've shown. Some have even been contrary to the preponderance of evidence.

Specifically?

Which ones? 

I would argue the opposite. Pretty much every aspect of the alternate theory is well supported by evidence, where many of the central tenants of the mainstream theory are not and have never been.

One clue is that the mainstream has had positions on specific nutrients (dietary cholesterol; fats (other than saturated and trans); eggs; salt) that they adopted at the same time as the dietary guidelines, but have only recently realized they were wrong. The alternate hypothesis suggests they are also wrong about saturated fat; sugar and carbs in general.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:27:47 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: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #88 on: February 14, 2018, 03:15:24 PM »
Reversing Type 2 diabetes starts with ignoring the guidelines...

Here's a link to an interview with Halberg. She provides more details on their clinical study.



1364: Dr. Sarah Hallberg Shares Results Of Virta Study Of Ketogenic Diet On Type 2 Diabetes | The Livin La Vida Low-Carb Show

Quote
Dr. Sarah Hallberg from VirtaHealth.com is the medical director at Virta Health. She is also the medical director and founder of the Medically Supervised Weight Loss Program at Indiana University Health Arnett and an adjunct professor of clinical medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
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: 6806
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #89 on: February 14, 2018, 04:33:50 PM »
I would agree that's how it should be. But your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes that since that position is mainstream it's supported by evidence.

Are you suggesting that medical science is not evidence-based? That all the world's medical science researchers are just making up results?

Here you are doing exactly what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing. You are going from the specific to the general. We were talking about a specific position.

Okay, so not all the world's medical science researchers are making up results, but just most of the world's science researchers who study nutrition.

Is that a more fair assessment?


I have said numerous times in these threads that if the standard for evidence for nutrition science were as rigorous as the standards for other health sciences (cancer; pharmaceuticals; neurology) we'd be much better off. But it's not, and it's not even close.

I know you've said that, and you've never provided any evidence to support that assertion.


Nutrition is not seen as a medical field. There is no medical specialty for nutrition. It's barely taught in medical schools.

"Nutrition" is not seen as a medical field, because the medical specialty is called "Dietetics." Again with the dishonest semantic arguments.

Speaking of which, "barely" is a weasel word.

A mere 10 minutes on Google have shown this claim to be false.

http://nutrition.med.harvard.edu
https://www.ynhh.org/about/innovation-initiatives/training-opportunities/dietetic-internship.aspx
https://www.ihn.cumc.columbia.edu/education/phd-nutrition-and-metabolic-biology
http://www.mayo.edu/mayo-clinic-school-of-health-sciences/careers/dietetics
https://www.uvmhealth.org/medcenter/Pages/Departments-and-Programs/Nutrition.aspx
http://www.kumc.edu/school-of-health-professions/dietetics-and-nutrition.html
https://www.loyolamedicine.org/nutrition-services
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/academic-programs/graduate-programs-human-nutrition/
https://medicine.stonybrookmedicine.edu/dietetic_intern
https://www.ynhh.org/about/innovation-initiatives/training-opportunities/dietetic-internship.aspx
https://hrs.osu.edu/academics/graduate-programs/ms-in-allied-health/program-details/combined-masters-internship-program
http://dietetics.landfood.ubc.ca
http://sph.unc.edu/nutr/unc-nutrition/
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Education/HealthCareCareerPrograms/DieteticInternship/Pages/ProgramInformation.aspx

Some institutions teach nutrition & dietetics in their medical schools (if they have one), others classify it under Health Sciences, Human Health Sciences, or Nature Science. At any rate, whether it's taught at a nominal "medical school" is irrelevant to your (false) claim that the standards of evidence for nutrition science are less rigorous then those for other health sciences.


The US government body responsible for setting policies and guidelines is the Department of Agriculture.

Since the 1990 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act, the US Dietary Guidelines are actually developed jointly between the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services.

So even if both of those US government agencies are compromised by the evils of "Big Aggro," what about the rest of the world? What about academia? Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't hold water.


This is not how we handle any other medical or scientific field, Nutrition has special pleadings and gets special treatment.

This is another vague and weaselly statement of personal opinion which is not even objectively verifiable. And we've already discussed the fact that you have no professional credentials and have demonstrated a significant ignorance about the subject of nutrition in general. So your own personal opinion doesn't hold much weight on its own. 


I am pointing out that the US Senate Agriculture Committee drafted the US Dietary Guidelines over the objections of their own scientists and the Johnson Nixon Administrations National Science advisor. (I posted a video a while back of some of the scientific/political back and forth from those committee meetings). The guidelines were drafted by a non-scientist (himself a follower of a specific vegetarian diet that was popular at the time (a fad diet). The food pyramid, and the macronutrient proportions recommended by the USDA were based on those guidelines and have been in place for decades, with only minor changes.

This is actually not disputed.

That happened back in 1969! Do you know how many times the US Dietary Guidelines have been revised since then?


The guidelines set proportion of carbs in the diet at a range of 40-65% of calories.

There has never been a single study showing that a diet with carbs in that range is healthier than a diet with 20% or less carbs. (At the time the guidelines were adopted the average carb percentage was estimated to 25%, currently it's close to 50%).

The fact that it hasn't been proven more healthy does not mean that it's necessarily less healthy. That's an argument from ignorance.

The current guidelines do not specify a particular ratio of macronutrients. As the USDA website clearly states:

Quote from: the USDA website
Previous editions of the Dietary Guidelines focused primarily on individual dietary components such as food groups and nutrients. However, people do not eat food groups and nutrients in isolation but rather in combination, and the totality of the diet forms an overall eating pattern. The components of the eating pattern can have interactive and potentially cumulative effects on health. These patterns can be tailored to an individual’s personal preferences, enabling Americans to choose the diet that is right for them. As a result, healthy eating patterns and their food and nutrient characteristics are a focus of the recommendations in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines.
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines

It does says that people should restrict their consumption of refined grains to less than 50% of their total grain intake.


During the course of that increase, we have moved to an epidemic of obesity and TIID.

Over the intervening 47 years since 1970, Americans have also seen several other transformative changes in lifestyle besides the increase in carb intake. And I'm not even arguing that excessive carbohydrate intake is not a factor in the obesity epidemic. It's fairly well-known to play a major role.

But you seem determined to convince everybody that the carbs are the only cause, to the exclusion of all other factors, and that a severely carb-restricted diet is optimal for everyone regardless of all other considerations. I'm saying that is demonstrably incorrect because we know for a fact that some people can eat lots of carbs with no tendency to obesity or other health problems, and there are even some cultures which maintain perfectly healthy lives on diets that consist mostly of carb-heavy staple foods. 


The argument is those epidemics are a result of an untested population wide intervention that was not based on science.

That argument is overly reductive, and you've shown zero evidence to prove it.


It's usually referred to as the Insulin-Carbohydrate hypothesis. The premise is that the root cause of excess fat storage is the level of carbohydrates in the diet (especially sugar and other fast carbs) and their effect on insulin.

And that hasn't been unequivocally proven either. As I pointed out, insulin levels, insulin sensitivity, and fat production also vary from individual to individual due to hereditary factors.


Pretty much every aspect of the alternate theory is well supported by evidence, where many of the central tenants of the mainstream theory are not and have never been.

Yet again you're reducing the entire discipline of nutritional studies down to a false dichotomy. There are not just two competing theories in all of nutrition. You're engaging in a severe form of "either-or" thinking, along with the conspiratorial "us versus them" mentality that goes along with it.

That kind of attitude is a common hallmark of extreme ideological bias.


One clue is that the mainstream has had positions on specific nutrients (dietary cholesterol; fats (other than saturated and trans); eggs; salt) that they adopted at the same time as the dietary guidelines, but have only recently realized they were wrong. The alternate hypothesis suggests they are also wrong about saturated fat; sugar and carbs in general.

Science is always in the process of revising its views in the light of new evidence. That is an entirely reasonable approach when a preponderance of new evidence contradicts a previously-held belief.

But again, you're engaging an argument from ignorance by saying, "they were wrong about all that other stuff, so they're probably wrong about this too!" 

A handful of studies does not constitute overwhelming evidence, no matter how much you want to believe.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 05:15:13 PM by John Albert »