Author Topic: Type II Diabetes  (Read 7624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2018, 05:09:31 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?

It's still a misrepresentative straw man of what I'm saying. Is one stupid straw man argument more fair than another? That's not for me to say.

Quote

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.

But as an answer to your ridiculous question, that should be fine.


Quote
Iknow 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.

So If I use unqualified statements I'm accused of absolutes. If I use qualified statements it's weasel words.

And again, I'm flattered to have my own personal stalking troll, but wouldn't it be better to talk about Type II Diabetes in a Type II Diabetes thread?


Quote
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.linkedin.com/userp/title/clinical-dietitian-at-the-university-of-vermont-medical-center
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.

I'll look at those links when I have time, but I guess since you're in the thread I need to point out that when speaking of what is taught in medical schools, I meant what medical schools teach med students studying to be doctors. The fact that dietitians are taught at the same campus is irrelevant. (And I suspect you're the only one confused by that.)

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

OK, I'll give you that. But what about the rest of the world? What about academia? Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't hold water.

It's not a conspiracy theory. Several countries actually have written into their laws (or have until recently) that their nutrition policy follows the US. Plus, the UN and the WHO during the time these policies were enacted were mostly supported by US funds and the US set policy.
Quote
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 that is, as far as I can tell just a personal opinion and not even verifiable in evidence. 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. 

So you don't know, don't have a response, have nothing new to add to the discussion, and can only repeat your sad refrain. Got it.

Quote
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?
7.

The core advice on macronutrient proportions was not changed until the most recent, which they opted for "eating patterns" they consider healthy, but is actually another aspect untested by rigorous science, and each of the patterns they recommend employs macronutrient compositions that are consistent with the current guidelines.

Quote
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.

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

Why do you flip my argument?  My argument is that the diet they are promoting has not been proven healthier. And the point is that to make those kinds of sweeping recommendations that change the eating habits of the population without having evidence that it's safer.

Quote
(At the time the guidelines were adopted the average carb percentage was estimated to 25%, currently it's close to 50%).

The guidelines established back in 1970? There have been revisions to those guidelines in 1979, 1984, 1992, 2005, 2011, 2015, and 2016.
That is factually incorrect. Go back to google.

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

Americans have also seen some major changes in lifestyle and physical activity level, even besides the increase in carb intake. I'm not arguing that excessive carbohydrate intake are not a factor in the obesity epidemic.

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 foods. 
So basically you misrepresent my position, apply it in as if it I were claiming it was a 100% absolute, and then argue against that.  I think that's pretty much the textbook definition of straw man argument.
Quote
Quote
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.

Apparently you don't understand what reductive means either.

If you read my statement I was describing what the argument is. That is the argument, and there is a very strong correlation and good reason to assume cause and effect.


Quote
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.

So here, you ask a question and I provided the answer, and your response is that it hasn't been "unequivocally proven". WTF?  Who claimed that?

And since when do skeptics consider "unequivocally proven" to be a thing, much less a criteria for discussion?

Quote
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.

That's an absolute bullshit representation of what you just quoted.
Quote
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.

And another misrepresentation. My argument is there was never evidence to support those aspects of the dietary guidelines. As each of those were studied they were dropped. Macronutrient proportion is no different from the other.

The issue here is the way the policy was developed, implemented and modified.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 05:12:58 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.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2018, 06:28:52 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?

It's still a misrepresentative straw man of what I'm saying. Is one stupid straw man argument more fair than another? That's not for me to say.

So then why don't you explain yourself more clearly, instead of just hurling accusations that I'm misrepresenting you?

You've insinuated that some person, party or parties is making up unscientific results. Spill the beans! Let's hear your version of how the whole scam has been going down since 1977.


So If I use unqualified statements I'm accused of absolutes. If I use qualified statements it's weasel words.

No, it's weasel words when you make vague statements on your own authority using language that implies that what you're saying is just general knowledge, when in fact it isn't.

I never accused you of "absolutes."


The US government body responsible for setting policies and guidelines is the Department of Agriculture.
It's not a conspiracy theory.

You're insinuating that the agriculture industry is conspiring with the US government and the medical establishment to make people sick and fat by telling us lies and feeding us stuff that's bad for our health. And you're citing a historical investigation into illegal government lobbying in the 1960s to prove it, with no more recent evidence than that. To me that sounds no different than any other classic conspiracist froth.

By the way, it's not just the USDA that sets the US Dietary Guidelines. 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? 


Several countries actually have written into their laws (or have until recently) that their nutrition policy follows the US. Plus, the UN and the WHO during the time these policies were enacted were mostly supported by US funds and the US set policy.

Several countries? Which specific countries allow the US to dictate their nutritional guidelines? Please provide evidence to support these claims. 


The core advice on macronutrient proportions was not changed until the most recent, which they opted for "eating patterns" they consider healthy, but is actually another aspect untested by rigorous science, and each of the patterns they recommend employs macronutrient compositions that are consistent with the current guidelines.

Evidence?

Have you even looked at the 2015-2020 recommendations? They make no mention whatsoever about "macronutrient compositions" or specify any proportions of foods according to macronutrients. 


Why do you flip my argument?  My argument is that the diet they are promoting has not been proven healthier.

The reason I "flipped your argument" is because you said "has not been proven healthier" without specifying "healthier than what"?  It sounded like you meant it hadn't been proven healthier than your preferred diet.

At any rate, you haven't supplied any evidence for this assertion. I mean, you're still accusing the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines of telling people to eat more than 50% carbs, which they're clearly not doing.
 

And the point is that to make those kinds of sweeping recommendations that change the eating habits of the population without having evidence that it's safer.

How do you know they have no evidence? Do you know what materials they reviewed in order to come to their conclusion about what constitutes a healthy diet? If so, then please share it with us.


Quote
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.

Apparently you don't understand what reductive means either.

You said (as plainly visible right there in the quote bubble above):

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

Which means you're attributing an "intervention" as the cause of the obesity and T2D epidemics. Assigning a single cause to two very complex medical conditions is a perfect example of something "reductive," ie. you're reducing two very complex things each with a number of different causes down into a single cause.


If you read my statement I was describing what the argument is.

So you think that saying, "the argument is x" is substantially different than saying "I'm arguing x," and that somehow absolves you of any responsibility to show evidence or take criticism for the claim?

That is the argument, and there is a very strong correlation and good reason to assume cause and effect.

So it's not your argument, it's just the argument? Is that some kind of a disclaimer?

I'm not interested in your own uninformed opinions about what constitutes a "good reason to assume." I'm interested in the evidence.


Quote
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.

So here, you ask a question and I provided the answer, and your response is that it hasn't been "unequivocally proven". WTF?  Who claimed that?

And since when do skeptics consider "unequivocally proven" to be a thing, much less a criteria for discussion?

I suppose "unequivocally" was not the best choice of word. What I meant to say was that it hasn't been demonstrated true under all (or even most) circumstances.


Quote
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.

That's an absolute bullshit representation of what you just quoted.

Nope, it is not a bullshit representation, it's apt.

You often talk about nutrition in terms of "the mainstream theory" and "the alternate theory" as if it's a clear-cut dichotomy between two contradictory sides and everybody must choose one.

And then you go on to assume that anybody who criticizes any of your reasoning, your claims or your conclusions must be an anti-LCHF naysayer. That kind of either-or thinking is a hallmark of a committed ideologue.


My argument is there was never evidence to support those aspects of the dietary guidelines. As each of those were studied they were dropped.

You've shown no evidence to support any of those claims.


Macronutrient proportion is no different from the other.

Evidence? Show me where on the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion's website the current Dietary Guidelines recommend specific macronutrient proportions.


The issue here is the way the policy was developed, implemented and modified.

Again with the unevidenced conspiracy.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 03:04:29 PM by John Albert »

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2018, 07:33:18 PM »

This thread was derailed by discussions of the USDA Dietary Guidelines and they come up so often I think they deserve their own topic.


My response to the latest post is there.
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.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2018, 07:37:29 PM »
Your evasiveness when asked for evidence is noted.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #94 on: March 08, 2018, 01:34:21 PM »
More evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes


The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Quote
Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.
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.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2018, 01:34:08 PM »
More evidence supporting LCHF diets over the standard care diet for Type 2 Diabetes


The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Did you actually read the study? Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Quote
Reducing dietary carbohydrate may produce clinical improvements in the management of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the true effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on HbA1c independent of medication reduction and to address known issues with adherence to this dietary intervention. Clarity is needed regarding appropriate classification of a low-carbohydrate diet.
[bolding and italics mine]

Furthermore:

Quote
Dietary adherence was an issue in most studies. A very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day) seems unrealistic in this population, however, a low-carbohydrate diet (<130 g/day) appears to be achievable. Improved clinical outcomes were observed in some studies as a result of achieving a low- or moderate-carbohydrate diet.

Fifteen out of 18 studies were considered high risk of bias, with performance bias being a common issue.

It clearly says that adherence is a problem, the majority (5/6) of the studies have a high risk of bias, and the results are inconclusive.

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."

This is what you're putting up as evidence?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2018, 02:38:37 PM by John Albert »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #96 on: March 11, 2018, 04:02:44 AM »

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."


Millions of humans consume less than 50 g/day of carbohydrates. How is this unrealistic?
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline RubyDuckman

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #97 on: March 11, 2018, 08:51:24 AM »

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."


Millions of humans consume less than 50 g/day of carbohydrates. How is this unrealistic?
Millions, you say.

Out of over seven billion.  That screams unrealistic for the overwhelming majority.

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #98 on: March 11, 2018, 03:10:03 PM »

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."


Millions of humans consume less than 50 g/day of carbohydrates. How is this unrealistic?
Millions, you say.

Out of over seven billion.  That screams unrealistic for the overwhelming majority.


Actually all the study said is that it was unrealistic for the population of the study (Obese individual with TIID).

And it's not surprising that they'd make comments like that. It's not based on any comparative study data, and the purpose of the study in the first place was to show that LCHF diets were not appropriate for TIID.

Good on them for publishing results opposite of what they expected.
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 RubyDuckman

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #99 on: March 11, 2018, 08:39:18 PM »

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."


Millions of humans consume less than 50 g/day of carbohydrates. How is this unrealistic?
Millions, you say.

Out of over seven billion.  That screams unrealistic for the overwhelming majority.


Actually all the study said is that it was unrealistic for the population of the study (Obese individual with TIID).

And it's not surprising that they'd make comments like that. It's not based on any comparative study data, and the purpose of the study in the first place was to show that LCHF diets were not appropriate for TIID.

Good on them for publishing results opposite of what they expected.
Not based on comparative study data? It was a meta analysis.

Quote
Adherence appeared to be particularly problematic for those studies who set out to achieve a very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g carbohydrate per day), with only one out of the six trials that prescribed a very low-carbohydrate diet being able to achieve this target as an average value in the LCIA [26]; this study prescribed <20 g/day and achieved an average carbohydrate intake of 49 g/day. It does appear that a low-carbohydrate diet of <130 g carbohydrate per day is achievable as the average carbohydrate intake at trial end from the aforementioned 12 studies was 106 g per day (Supplementary Table 7).

They claimed it was unrealistic because that is what the data showed.



Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk


Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Type II Diabetes
« Reply #100 on: March 11, 2018, 09:35:39 PM »

It also says that a "very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g/day)" like the kind of diet that you doggedly promote on this forum, "seems unrealistic."


Millions of humans consume less than 50 g/day of carbohydrates. How is this unrealistic?
Millions, you say.

Out of over seven billion.  That screams unrealistic for the overwhelming majority.


Actually all the study said is that it was unrealistic for the population of the study (Obese individual with TIID).

And it's not surprising that they'd make comments like that. It's not based on any comparative study data, and the purpose of the study in the first place was to show that LCHF diets were not appropriate for TIID.

Good on them for publishing results opposite of what they expected.
Not based on comparative study data? It was a meta analysis.
Yes, so we don't get any comparative data on adherence for other diets in the study.

Quote
Quote
Adherence appeared to be particularly problematic for those studies who set out to achieve a very low-carbohydrate diet (<50 g carbohydrate per day), with only one out of the six trials that prescribed a very low-carbohydrate diet being able to achieve this target as an average value in the LCIA [26]; this study prescribed <20 g/day and achieved an average carbohydrate intake of 49 g/day. It does appear that a low-carbohydrate diet of <130 g carbohydrate per day is achievable as the average carbohydrate intake at trial end from the aforementioned 12 studies was 106 g per day (Supplementary Table 7).

They claimed it was unrealistic because that is what the data showed.


So strict adherence may not have been possible with some, but two things, first, the diets with below 50g that didn't reach that goal, certainly did better at controlling carb intake than the others, and much more than the diets in their comparison with a 130g or higher limit.

While the studies they included with <50g may not have achieved strict adherence, they did achieve a better control of carb intake.

Also, a number of LCHF diets have built into them a ramping up of carb intake as a dieter reaches a their target weight. If that's the case with some of these then final g per day may not be a good indicator of adherence.

The interpretation and effect of a low-carbohydrate diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

                                    Trial duration                                   LCIA         
Author                                            Carbohydrate prescribed   Carbohydrate consumed    
                                                       g/day           % TEI   g/day   % TEI
Westman  et al. (2008)   24 weeks      <20                        49       13
Tay et al. (2014)           24 weeks       <50            14       56.7      14
Tay et al. (2015)            12 months    <50             14       74        16.6
Mayer et al. (2014)       48 weeks      <20                         75.9     17.8
Goldstein et al. (11)      12 months    25-40                     85        19.7

Jonasson et al. (2014)   6 months                                20              86.5     25
Guldbrand et al. (2012)   24 months                            20              96.9     31
Daly et al. (2006)         3 months      70                                 109.5   34
Yamada et al. (2013)    6 months           <130                         125.7   29.8
Davis et al. (2009)        12 months    5 gInc.                         137.1   33.4
Larsen et al. (2011)      12 months                              40              166.4   41.8
Esposito et al. (2009)    48 months                              <50            209.4   44.2
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 11:17:21 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.

Online John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #101 on: March 12, 2018, 07:20:33 AM »
it's not surprising that they'd make comments like that. It's not based on any comparative study data, and the purpose of the study in the first place was to show that LCHF diets were not appropriate for TIID.

Good on them for publishing results opposite of what they expected.

Nothing in that article indicates that the researchers were trying to show that LCHF diets are not appropriate for TIID, and the study clearly does not conclude that LCHF diets are superior to "the standard care diet," as you claimed it did.

In fact, the study doesn't even look at LCHF diets at all.

It clearly says that there may be an advantage to moderate-low carb diets, but the results of are inconclusive. It also says that researcher bias is a likely problem in 15 out of the 18 studies, and recommends that more research is needed, especially with regard to problems of patient adherence to the low-carb regimens.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 01:04:10 PM by John Albert »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Type II Diabetes
« Reply #102 on: March 28, 2018, 04:12:38 AM »
Something that type II diabetics might be interested in.  Not news, actually.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09wr9q9
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Type II Diabetes
« Reply #103 on: May 07, 2018, 11:11:24 AM »
https://healclinics.com/

These clinics use a supervised LCHF diet to treat TIID

Quote
The HEALcare low-carbohydrate program provides remission from type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes without medication or insulin. You’ll receive personalized, expert-guided diet and nutrition support plus medical supervision until meds can be eliminated. HEALcare is designed to help you stop being a “patient” and enjoy a healthy, normal life.
*Many patients experience results as quickly as one week. Results vary by individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 11:15:36 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.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11954
Type II Diabetes
« Reply #104 on: October 05, 2018, 11:08:35 AM »
https://www.endocrinology.org/endocrinologist/129-autumn18/features/endogenous-insulin-its-role-in-the-initiation-progression-and-management-of-diabetes/
Quote

‘Balanced’ diet and other lifestyle modifications continue to be advanced as first-line therapies for type 2 diabetes, despite evidence that traditional lifestyle approaches do not reliably or robustly alter the course of disease.15 People are encouraged by government agencies to achieve a negative energy balance by increasing exercise and reducing calorie intake, but the environment in which we live makes this nearly impossible for most, and clinical evidence in favour of this approach is lacking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 11:11:36 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.

 

personate-rain