Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: CarbShark on January 19, 2018, 12:30:21 PM

Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2018, 12:30:21 PM
Type II Diabetes was relatively rare until recently. Now it's reached epidemic proportions.

U.S. Diabetes Surveillance System (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/diabetes/DiabetesAtlas.html)

(Note, it's important to make the distinction between Type I and Type II. They are completely different conditions and have very little in common)

In my own family, my oldest sister reversed her TIID with bariatric surgery.

Another sister is on daily insulin injections with hers.

A sister-in-law has T2D that went unchecked for years and has numerous complications, including amputations, and is in a wheelchair. She had bariatric surgery and that helped but she did not go into full remission.

I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic 8 years ago, and have successfully avoided the disease.

Type II Diabetes is a progressive disease, and the current standard of care, using medication, exercise and moderate diet modification, only slow its progression.

There are only two treatments that have been found to lead to remission in a significant number of patients:

A low-carb ketogenic diet and bariatric surgery.

So here's some information to consider.

Pubmed advanced search for: (Type II diabetes) AND ketogenic diet 

(If you suspect I'm "cherry picking," do these searches yourself. I'd be happy to read any contradicted studies you find)

Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized trial of a moderate-carbohydrate versus very low-carbohydrate diet in overweight adults with type 2 diabetes ... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269731)
Quote
In a 12-month trial, adults with elevated HbA1c and body weight assigned to an LCK diet had greater reductions in HbA1c, lost more weight, and reduced more medications than those instructed to follow an MCCR diet.

Induced and controlled dietary ketosis as a regulator of obesity and metabolic syndrome pathologies. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28433617)
Quote
The results demonstrated that the change over time from week 0 to week 10 was significant (p=0.001) in the ketogenic group for weight, body fat percentage, BMI, HgA1c and ketones. All variables for the ketogenic group out-performed those of the exercise and non-exercise groups, with five of the seven demonstrating statistical significance.



An Online Intervention Comparing a Very Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations Versus a Plate Method Diet in Overweight Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/)
Quote
Individuals with type 2 diabetes improved their glycemic control and lost more weight after being randomized to a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and lifestyle online program rather than a conventional, low-fat diabetes diet online program. Thus, the online delivery of these very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and lifestyle recommendations may allow them to have a wider reach in the successful self-management of type 2 diabetes.


Short-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of a very low-calorie-ketogenic diet interventional weight loss program versus hypocaloric diet in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048014/)
Quote
The interventional weight loss program based on a VLCK diet is most effective in reducing body weight and improvement of glycemic control than a standard hypocaloric diet with safety and good tolerance for T2DM patients.


Low carbohydrate and ketogenic diets in type 2 diabetes : Current Opinion in Lipidology (https://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology/Citation/2015/12000/Low_carbohydrate_and_ketogenic_diets_in_type_2.16.aspx)



Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet before bariatric surgery: prospective evaluation of a sequential diet. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25005809)
Quote
OPOD, including 10 days of a VLCKD, was safe and effective in morbidly obese patients, and it seems to be promising in morbidly obese patients with and without T2DM scheduled for laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Effect of low-calorie versus low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet in type 2 diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594)
Quote
This study shows the beneficial effects of a ketogenic diet over the conventional LCD in obese diabetic subjects. The ketogenic diet appears to improve glycemic control. Therefore, diabetic patients on a ketogenic diet should be under strict medical supervision because the LCKD can significantly lower blood glucose levels.


Pubmed advance search for (Type II diabetes) AND bariatric surgery


Metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in obese individuals. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29224190)
Quote
Several bariatric operations originally designed to promote weight loss have been found to powerfully treat type 2 diabetes, causing remission in most cases, through diverse mechanisms additional to the secondary consequences of weight loss.

Three-year result of efficacy for type 2 diabetes mellitus control between laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass compared with laparoscopic Roux-en-Y ... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29184879)


Effect of bariatric surgery on diabetic nephropathy in obese type 2 diabetes patients in a retrospective 2-year study: A local pilot. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153006)
Quote
This study shows that bariatric surgery significantly improves diabetic nephropathy in obese type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects. The results suggest that in our local type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, it is possible not only to improve metabolic parameters, but also to reverse what may be considered established microvascular complications by means of bariatric surgery.

 

Recent advances in understanding/managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664973/)
 

Long-Term Outcomes of Three Types of Bariatric Surgery on Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Control and Remission. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718983/)
Quote
For all three surgeries, diabetes remission was higher than the baseline after 5 years; mean BMI and HbA1c decreased considerably during the first year postoperatively and remained lower than basal values throughout follow-up. Early improvements were greatest for RYGB, though the advantage over the other operations diminished with time.

Predictors of remission of diabetes mellitus in severely obese individuals undergoing bariatric surgery: do BMI or procedure choice matter? A meta-... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25361217)
Quote
Bariatric surgery determines similar diabetes remission rates in patients with BMI of 35 kg/m2 or more or BMI of less than 35 kg/m2. Baseline BMI is unrelated to diabetes remission. The association of baseline waist circumference with glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction is likely due to selection bias. Bariatric or metabolic effects of the surgical procedures appear independent, and different indices are needed to predict them.

This thread is open to everyone and anyone. Any intelligent, thoughtful discussion relevant to the topic is welcome.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on January 19, 2018, 12:33:48 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2018, 01:17:53 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.

Interesting. Have they tested HA1c? (That's a more reliable diagnosis than FBS)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on January 19, 2018, 02:28:07 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.

Interesting. Have they tested HA1c? (That's a more reliable diagnosis than FBS)
About once a year somebody wants to "run a series of tests" on me. I let 'em.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2018, 02:42:25 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.

Interesting. Have they tested HA1c? (That's a more reliable diagnosis than FBS)
About once a year somebody wants to "run a series of tests" on me. I let 'em.

I'm just wondering what the result would have been. Do you know if they ran an insulin sensitivity test? (you would have had to drink something yucky, then a blood test a couple hours later)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on January 19, 2018, 05:19:06 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.

Interesting. Have they tested HA1c? (That's a more reliable diagnosis than FBS)
About once a year somebody wants to "run a series of tests" on me. I let 'em.

I'm just wondering what the result would have been. Do you know if they ran an insulin sensitivity test? (you would have had to drink something yucky, then a blood test a couple hours later)
I think I've done that one. Of course I'm 66.6 years old, so I've done everything at one point or another. Some doc from SLU wanted me to test every hour for 24 hours. "No, and fuck no."
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Billzbub on January 22, 2018, 04:47:01 PM
I've had Type II since 1998. Never took any meds, my blood sugar never gets over 150. No ill effects. My doctors are puzzled.

Interesting. Have they tested HA1c? (That's a more reliable diagnosis than FBS)
About once a year somebody wants to "run a series of tests" on me. I let 'em.

I'm just wondering what the result would have been. Do you know if they ran an insulin sensitivity test? (you would have had to drink something yucky, then a blood test a couple hours later)
I think I've done that one. Of course I'm 66.6 years old, so I've done everything at one point or another. Some doc from SLU wanted me to test every hour for 24 hours. "No, and fuck no."

I wish I could lend you my Dexcom continuous glucose sensor for 3 days.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 25, 2018, 04:41:42 PM
I just recently started getting web ads from a local chiropractor who has some kind of diabetes prevention program he's selling.

Also on his site:  "stop using dryer sheets immediately!"  "the amazing benefits of turmeric" and "reasons to avoid GMO at all costs"
Just surprised, I haven't seen chiropractors go after this market before.


I'm going to stick to the more conventional prevention plan.  And there's no way I'm doing LCHF.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 25, 2018, 05:15:07 PM
I'm going to stick to the more conventional prevention plan.  And there's no way I'm doing LCHF.

If you don't mind me asking:

What's the plan?

How is it working out for you?

Why not LCHF?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: PANTS! on January 25, 2018, 05:22:40 PM
I just recently started getting web ads from a local chiropractor who has some kind of diabetes prevention program he's selling.

Also on his site:  "stop using dryer sheets immediately!"  "the amazing benefits of turmeric" and "reasons to avoid GMO at all costs"
Just surprised, I haven't seen chiropractors go after this market before.


I'm going to stick to the more conventional prevention plan.  And there's no way I'm doing LCHF.


He's fucking right about the tumeric.  It got my kids to eat chicken, and compliment me on it.  That is a gob-smacking benefit.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: PANTS! on January 25, 2018, 05:23:27 PM
I'm going to stick to the more conventional prevention plan.  And there's no way I'm doing LCHF.

If you don't mind me asking:

What's the plan?

How is it working out for you?

Why not LCHF?

Because Diabetus is actually caused by consumer expectations, and fiat currency.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 25, 2018, 05:38:43 PM

If you don't mind me asking:

What's the plan?

How is it working out for you?

Why not LCHF?

The plan is CDC T2 Prevention lifestyle changes.
I signed up with a web support group health plan through my insurance company - only for a week so far out of a year.  Includes counselling with a nutritionist.
I am just barely Pre-D  with A1C=5.8 a year and a half ago. Just now getting serious.
I'm vegetarian, wife is vegan - I know LCHF could still be done, it won't happen.

I don't have a high genetic component, and I am pretty active outside of my desk job... and I'm overweight but not obese, so I think if I just get my BMI down I will avoid this disease. 
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 25, 2018, 06:51:02 PM

If you don't mind me asking:

What's the plan?

How is it working out for you?

Why not LCHF?

The plan is CDC T2 Prevention lifestyle changes.

Hmmm...

Quote
I signed up with a web support group health plan through my insurance company - only for a week so far out of a year.  Includes counselling with a nutritionist.

Nutritionist or dietician? (I'd qualify as a nutritionist; dieticians are different)

Quote
I am just barely Pre-D  with A1C=5.8 a year and a half ago. Just now getting serious.

Yes, that's Pre. IIRC anything above 5 or 5.5 is pre-D depending on who you ask.

Quote
I'm vegetarian, wife is vegan - I know LCHF could still be done, it won't happen.

Does that mean you mean you can't have bacon?  ???

Quote
I don't have a high genetic component, and I am pretty active outside of my desk job... and I'm overweight but not obese, so I think if I just get my BMI down I will avoid this disease.


Genetic component is vastly overstated, IMO. It's basically a disease of insulin resistance.

There is a correlation between obesity and TIID, but there's no evidence that one causes the other.

There are plenty of TIIDs with normal BMIs and plenty of Obese people without TIID.

II think it's likely they're both caused by the same thing: Insulin resistance.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 25, 2018, 07:08:37 PM


1.  Nutritionist or dietician? (I'd qualify as a nutritionist; dieticians are different)

2.  Yes, that's Pre. IIRC anything above 5 or 5.5 is pre-D depending on who you ask.

3.  Does that mean you mean you can't have bacon?  ???

4.  There is a correlation between obesity and TIID, but there's no evidence that one causes the other.

5.  There are plenty of TIIDs with normal BMIs



1.  NDTR   Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

2.  5.6 is good  6.4 is diabetic  all the charts I've seen say the same.

3.  Bacon holds no appeal for me.

4.  Pre-D's that lose weight are far less likely to go Full-D.

5.  Yeah, small fraction. 
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 11:55:29 AM

1.  NDTR   Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

2.  5.6 is good  6.4 is diabetic  all the charts I've seen say the same.

4.  Pre-D's that lose weight are far less likely to go Full-D.

5.  Yeah, small fraction.


1. So basically care supervised by a dietician.

2. 5.6 to 6.4 is at risk or pre-diabetes. 6.5 is TIID

Screening and Monitoring of Prediabetes | outpatient.aace.com (http://outpatient.aace.com/prediabetes/screening-and-monitoring-prediabetes)

4 & 5

The point is that it may not be the weight issue that causes TIID. There is a correlation, but if both the excess weight and TIID are caused by the same thing (say, too much sugar and highly refined grains, for the sake of argument) then almost any weight loss plan will reduce those.

Plus, 15% is not what I'd call a small fraction. It's significant enough to rule out overweight/obesity as a requirement for diagnosis.

Diabetes can strike—hard—even when weight is normal - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publishing (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/diabetes-can-strike-hard-even-when-weight-is-normal-201208085121)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on January 26, 2018, 12:59:45 PM
No now, again, we're letting a fad-diet enthusiast solicit medical advice on a skeptics forum?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 01:15:00 PM
No now, again, we're letting a fad-diet enthusiast solicit medical advice on a skeptics forum?

I don't think you mean solicit medical advice.

Are you a moderator? Then you are not letting anyone do anything.

And, there is a difference between:

Medical advice

Diet and nutrition advice

None of what I post is medical advice, most of what I post is information.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath on January 26, 2018, 01:32:50 PM
Most of what you post on this topic is crap.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 26, 2018, 01:34:52 PM

Screening and Monitoring of Prediabetes | outpatient.aace.com (http://outpatient.aace.com/prediabetes/screening-and-monitoring-prediabetes)
[/url]

From your link, this was interesting:
(https://i.imgur.com/5WqEXUz.jpg)

I'm borderline on a couple of these items, but worst case is I'm a 15.  Losing not much weight drops me to 11, and there's nothing else in there I can change (for the better)...   those are good odds.  That's where I want to be before my next physical, that's what my program suggests as my goal.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Harry Black on January 26, 2018, 01:43:10 PM
No now, again, we're letting a fad-diet enthusiast solicit medical advice on a skeptics forum?
I also would class it as medical advice. But its not against any rules.
Even with actual medical professionals on here, we are all just taking them at their word.
It should go without saying that no one should take medical advice from and internet forum, regardless of whether or not the author claims any credentials.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 01:56:49 PM

Screening and Monitoring of Prediabetes | outpatient.aace.com (http://outpatient.aace.com/prediabetes/screening-and-monitoring-prediabetes)

From your link, this was interesting:

I'm borderline on a couple of these items, but worst case is I'm a 15.  Losing not much weight drops me to 11, and there's nothing else in there I can change (for the better)...   those are good odds.  That's where I want to be before my next physical, that's what my program suggests as my goal.

I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 26, 2018, 02:00:54 PM
I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.

I figured history of glucose elevation means even a few FG>100 even a long time ago... 5 points that will never go away.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
No now, again, we're letting a fad-diet enthusiast solicit medical advice on a skeptics forum?
I also would class it as medical advice. But its not against any rules.
Even with actual medical professionals on here, we are all just taking them at their word.
It should go without saying that no one should take medical advice from and internet forum, regardless of whether or not the author claims any credentials.

Yeah, we can all make up our own definitions of any term we want. But "medical advice" is a specific term used in medicine and in law.


Medical advice - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_advice#cite_note-2)
Quote
Medical advice is the provision of a formal professional opinion regarding what a specific individual should or should not do to restore or preserve health.[1] Typically, medical advice involves giving a diagnosis and/or prescribing a treatment for medical condition.[2]
Medical advice can be distinguished from medical information, which is the relation of facts. Discussing facts and information is considered a fundamental free speech right and is not considered medical advice. Medical advice can also be distinguished from personal advice, even if the advice concerns medical care.

If I were to tell you: Go on a LCHF diet to lose weight that would be diet advice, that falls under the category of personal advice. (FWIW, I rarely do even that).

If I were to tell you: Go on a LCHF diet to reduce your risk for TIID; CVD; Metabolic Syndrome; Cancer; etc., that would constitute medical advice.

If I were to tell you LCHF diets have been found to reduce the risks for TIID etc. that would be information.

If I were to tell you a low fat diet would make you live longer, that would also be information, even though it's incorrect.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 02:06:34 PM
I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.

I figured history of glucose elevation means even a few FG>100 even a long time ago... 5 points that will never go away.

That is a little vague. My FBG was never over 110, so I didn't count that.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 26, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.

I figured history of glucose elevation means even a few FG>100 even a long time ago... 5 points that will never go away.

That is a little vague. My FBG was never over 110, so I didn't count that.

That's motivated reasoning.  You're a 13.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on January 26, 2018, 02:21:56 PM
None of what I post is medical advice, most of what I post is information.

You have no medical qualifications, yet you started this thread entitled "Type II Diabetes" and are using it to promote your fad diet to people with a life-threatening medical condition.

Most of the "information" you post about nutrition is ill-informed, reductive, and contrary to the dietary recommendations of most medical institutions.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 04:41:04 PM
I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.

I figured history of glucose elevation means even a few FG>100 even a long time ago... 5 points that will never go away.

That is a little vague. My FBG was never over 110, so I didn't count that.

That's motivated reasoning.  You're a 13.

I don't think 110 is considered elevated.


Hyperglycemia (High Blood Sugar) Causes and Symptoms in Diabetes (https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/diabetes-hyperglycemia#1)

Quote
Blood sugar control is at the center of any diabetes treatment plan. High blood sugar, or hyperglycemia, is a major concern, and can affect people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes . There are two main kinds:
Fasting hyperglycemia. This is blood sugar that's higher than 130 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) after not eating or drinking for at least 8 hours.
Postprandial or after-meal hyperglycemia. This is blood sugar that's higher than 180 mg/dL 2 hours after you eat. People without diabetes rarely have blood sugar levels over 140 mg/dL after a meal, unless it’s really large.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 26, 2018, 05:28:47 PM

I don't think 110 is considered elevated.


Hyperglycemia (High Blood Sugar) Causes and Symptoms in Diabetes (https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/diabetes-hyperglycemia#1)

Quote
High blood sugar, or hyperglycemia, is a major concern, and can affect people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes . There are two main kinds:
Fasting hyperglycemia. This is blood sugar that's higher than 130 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) after not eating or drinking for at least 8 hours.


I think a diagnosis of Pre-D indicates that you've been told you had elevated glucose.
If you have FPG>130 you already HAVE diabetes - there's no need to evaluate your risk score.

I found quite a few research papers verifying the accuracy of this risk score - I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before, it seems to be well accepted.  But nothing I found actually defined what "elevated" means.

Edit - here's one:

Quote
5. Raised plasma glucose, defined as fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 100 mg/dl.

Still doesn't specify a time range though... seems like those 5 points ought to stop counting after a few years of healthy FPG readings.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 26, 2018, 05:58:23 PM

I don't think 110 is considered elevated.


Hyperglycemia (High Blood Sugar) Causes and Symptoms in Diabetes (https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/diabetes-hyperglycemia#1)

Quote
High blood sugar, or hyperglycemia, is a major concern, and can affect people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes . There are two main kinds:
Fasting hyperglycemia. This is blood sugar that's higher than 130 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) after not eating or drinking for at least 8 hours.


I think a diagnosis of Pre-D indicates that you've been told you had elevated glucose.
If you have FPG>130 you already HAVE diabetes - there's no need to evaluate your risk score.

I found quite a few research papers verifying the accuracy of this risk score - I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before, it seems to be well accepted.  But nothing I found actually defined what "elevated" means.

My diagnosis was based on HgA1c. As I said my FBG was never above 110.

That said, I've seen several places now that indicate that a FBG between 100 and 125 is a risk factor for TIID, so, you're probably right, I do have a history of "elevated" blood glucose, which makes me a 13.

Which means I've really got to stick to this diet (as if I needed more encouragement).
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on January 28, 2018, 11:54:07 AM
U.S. News is wrong about what constitutes the best diet (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-taubes-teicholz-us-news-best-diet-problems-20180128-story.html)

Quote
Early results of a current trial reported that Type 2 diabetes symptoms can be reversed in just 10 weeks on such a diet. Subjects suffering from diabetes were educated about carbohydrates and coached over the study period. They effectively cured themselves of their disease, something that mainstream medicine does not even believe possible.
These are preliminary results, but many other studies on low-carb diets contain positive results that are similarly encouraging for people with nutrition-related diseases. Low-carbohydrate diets have now been tested in at least 78 clinical trials on nearly 7,000 people, including a wide variety of sick and well populations, mainly in the U.S. Thirty-two of these studies have lasted at least six months and six trials went on for two years, enough time to demonstrate the lack of any negative side effects. In virtually every case, the lower-carb, higher-fat diets did as well or better than competing regimens. The cumulative evidence shows that low-carb diets are safe and effective for combating obesity, highly promising for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, and they improve most cardiovascular risk factors.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa on January 29, 2018, 12:27:22 PM

Screening and Monitoring of Prediabetes | outpatient.aace.com (http://outpatient.aace.com/prediabetes/screening-and-monitoring-prediabetes)

From your link, this was interesting:

I'm borderline on a couple of these items, but worst case is I'm a 15.  Losing not much weight drops me to 11, and there's nothing else in there I can change (for the better)...   those are good odds.  That's where I want to be before my next physical, that's what my program suggests as my goal.

I'm an 8, but it's all age and family history.

4. Age.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2018, 03:03:06 PM
Reversing Type 2 diabetes starts with ignoring the guidelines | Sarah Hallberg | TEDxPurdueU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on February 01, 2018, 04:48:15 PM
<snip>

1.  Big Pharma is invested in keeping you sick.
2.  Doctors are reluctant to admit they've been wrong all this time.
3.  PALEO - because cave men.
4.  Pay no attention to the dangers of high fat... fake news.

I have no doubt this doctor has had good results with seriously ill people who require extreme interventions.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
<snip>

1.  Big Pharma is invested in keeping you sick.
2.  Doctors are reluctant to admit they've been wrong all this time.
3.  PALEO - because cave men.
4.  Pay no attention to the dangers of high fat... fake news.

I have no doubt this doctor has had good results with seriously ill people who require extreme interventions.

Did you actually watch it?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on February 01, 2018, 06:43:31 PM

Did you actually watch it?

Yeah - I contend that is an accurate synopsis.

Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2018, 07:26:23 PM

Did you actually watch it?

Yeah - I contend that is an accurate synopsis.



1.  Big Pharma is invested in keeping you sick.
2.  Doctors are reluctant to admit they've been wrong all this time.
3.  PALEO - because cave men.
4.  Pay no attention to the dangers of high fat... fake news.

I have no doubt this doctor has had good results with seriously ill people who require extreme interventions.

She didn't mention "Big Pharma"

She didn't impune the motives of doctors at all.

She didn't mention the Paleo diet

She didn't discuss the "dangers of high fat"

But other than that yes.

(She runs an obesity clinic at a major university, and does treat patients who are seriously ill (T2D; obesity) and do require interventions (a dietary change is not extreme; lifetime of medicines and surgery is)

You know a lot has been made about how the mainstream position is that High Carb diets are best and LCHF diets are bad or the worst.

But I wonder if there has been any polling among doctors, or any weighted polling. Meaning more weight given to doctors who are experts in the field. (Such as running an obesity clinic.).

Hallberg is one of several physicians running obesity clinics at major universities or hospitals who advocate LCHF ketogenic diets, and I'm wondering if there are more of those than obesity clinics don't recommend LCHF Ketogenic diets. (That have been around a few years).
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Friendly Angel on February 01, 2018, 08:52:34 PM
She didn't mention "Big Pharma"


She didn't call it Big Pharma, but

(https://i.imgur.com/VV6YWfR.jpg)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 12:47:26 PM
More medical advice about a life-threatening condition, coming from the fad diet enthusiast who has no credentials whatsoever.

Is this really a skeptics forum, or what?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2018, 01:24:11 PM
1. More medical advice about a life-threatening condition...

2. ...coming from the fad diet enthusiast who has no credentials whatsoever.

3. ...Is this really a skeptics forum, or what?


1. I do not post medical advice. There are legal definitions of what constitutes medical advice and information. If you claim to be a skeptic you should try to inform yourself.

2. A fad is generally a temporary phenomena. The diet I advocate has been used and advocated for over 150 years. The Atkins diet has been used and advocated for over 45 years. I've been on LCHF diet for 8 years now, and have been advocating it in these forums for most of that time. So go ahead and use the word "fad" to marginalize a diet you don't like. Just keep in mind that using rhetorical tricks like that is not skeptical discourse.

3. Sometimes I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
1. This is not about the law. If you were breaking a law, your posts would be deleted by the admins as a rules violation. That argument is a red herring.

2. Some fads last for several decades. The fact that low-carb diets have been around for 150 years (they've actually been around for thousands of years), that does not preclude them from being a fad right now.

3. The question "is this really a skeptics forum" was rhetorical.


For as long as you continue to give out advice on medical issues on these forums, I'm going to keep posting reminders that you have no medical credentials and are ill-informed on the subject of nutrition beyond what information you've memorized from the promoters of low-carb diets.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2018, 02:12:17 PM
1. This is not about the law. If you were breaking a law, your posts would be deleted by the admins as a rules violation. That argument is a red herring.

I'm glad we agree that I'm not breaking the law in that my posts don't legally constitute medical advice. 

So we can assume there is a special John Albert definition of medical advice?

Quote
2. Some fads last for several decades. The fact that low-carb diets have been around for 150 years does not preclude them from being a fad right now.

So a fad is whatever you don't like and want to minimize. It's as if words have no meanings to you.

Quote
3. The question "is this really a skeptics forum" was rhetorical.

So the one good question you asked was insincere. Got it.


Quote
For as long as you continue to give out advice on medical issues on these forums, I'm going to keep posting reminders that you have no medical credentials and are ill-informed on the subject of nutrition beyond what information you've memorized from the promoters of low-carb diets.


Seriously, you're going to follow me around on the forums posting the same message? Isn't that "spillover"? Isn't that a violation of the forum rules?

You must have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of the members of this forum.

Without your protection you seem to assume they would all follow my advice like a flock of mindless sheep.

How can we ever thank you?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 02:28:22 PM
I'm glad we agree that I'm not breaking the law in that my posts don't legally constitute medical advice. 

There are plenty of dishonest, misleading and harmful things that don't necessarily run afoul of the law. If breaking the law is your sole criterion for ethics, then somebody ought to be keeping an eye on you.


So we can assume there is a special John Albert definition of medical advice?

What you choose to assume is not under my control. 


So a fad is whatever you don't like and want to minimize.

Nope. "Fad diets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad_diet)" are certainly a widely recognized thing. Low-carbohydrate evangelism is a recognized example.


It's as if words have no meanings to you.

Words have usages.


So the one good question you asked was insincere.

Not at all. Rhetorical does not mean insincere.


Seriously, you're going to follow me around on the forums posting the same message? Isn't that "spillover"? Isn't that a violation of the forum rules?

No, it's not. Posting occasional reminders that a particular poster is pretending to certain dietary and/or medical knowledge without credentials is not "spillover."


You must have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of the members of this forum.

I do not consider the members of this forum as a collective unit with a singular, uniform level of intelligence, so no. 


How can we ever thank you?

I'm not looking for any thanks or congratulations. I just find it deeply concerning when I see somebody without qualifications advising others on health issues. Consider it a pet peeve. Outside of that, I have no personal issues with you.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2018, 02:51:27 PM
Quote
I'm glad we agree that I'm not breaking the law in that my posts don't legally constitute medical advice. 

There are plenty of dishonest, misleading and harmful things that don't necessarily run afoul of the law. If breaking the law is your sole criterion for ethics, then somebody ought to be keeping an eye on you.


For the purpose of protecting all these stupid forum members who would be following diet advice from an internet post.
Quote
So we can assume there is a special John Albert definition of medical advice?

What you choose to assume is not under my control. 

What, then, is your definition of medical advice?

Quote
So a fad is whatever you don't like and want to minimize.

Nope. "Fad diets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad_diet)" are certainly a widely recognized thing, and low-carbohydrate evangelism is a recognized example.


You realize that anyone can edit a wiki page, right? Even a CarbShark!
Quote
It's as if words have no meanings to you.

Words have usages.

And you are misusing words, to make your points deceptively. Well played, skeptic.

Quote
So the one good question you asked was insincere.

Not at all. Rhetorical does not mean insincere.

Actually, it does. A rhetorical question is not a sincere question.

Quote
Seriously, you're going to follow me around on the forums posting the same message? Isn't that "spillover"? Isn't that a violation of the forum rules?

No, it's not. Posting occasional reminders that a particular poster is a known charlatan pretending to certain dietary and/or medical knowledge without credentials is not "spillover."

We shall see, I guess.

Quote
You must have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of the members of this forum.

I do not consider the members of this forum as a collective unit with a singular, uniform level of intelligence, no. 


So you're just protecting the stupid and ignorant ones.

How can we ever thank you?
Quote
I'm not looking for any thanks or congratulations. I just find it deeply concerning when I see somebody without qualifications advising others on health issues. Consider it a pet peeve. Outside of that, I have no personal issues with you whatsoever.
That was a rhetorical question, but thanks for the answer.  It's a personal pet peeve, and you see it as your duty to continuously repeat this needless information to protect the morons who participate in the forums from following "medical advice" in forum posts. Got it.

(What are your medical qualifications? When I post links to diet information you think I'm giving medical advice, but when you do it, why is that any different?)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 02:54:56 PM
OMG...

Now I see that CarbShark just went and edited Wikipedia to remove his favorite diet from the list of Fad Diets.

(https://i.imgur.com/hVnIOBh.png)

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 02:59:21 PM
...aaand it's already been undone.

(https://i.imgur.com/vDwkpMU.png)

At least some Wikipedia editor is paying attention.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2018, 03:24:15 PM
OMG...

Now I see that CarbShark just went and edited Wikipedia to remove his favorite diet from the list of Fad Diets.

Yup. It doesn't belong there, and there will be some discussion on that page. Feel free to chime in that I'm not a doctor.

I'm actually an editor on a number of wiki pages and hadn't seen that one. Thanks for the heads up. 

Let's see what happens to your authoritative source.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 06:08:41 PM
I only posted it as an "authority" on the fact that fad diets are a generally-recognized thing.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2018, 07:52:54 PM
I only posted it as an "authority" on the fact that fad diets are a generally-recognized thing.

And that's logical? I'd consider that an ad populum argument, or an argument from false authority. I mean we've just proven than anybody can edit those pages!
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 06, 2018, 09:28:32 PM
I only posted it as an "authority" on the fact that fad diets are a generally-recognized thing.

And that's logical?

It' a reasonable rebuttal to your obtuse argument that me calling something a "fad" is a concept that I just made up arbitrarily.

         
Quote
2. Some fads last for several decades. The fact that low-carb diets have been around for 150 years does not preclude them from being a fad right now.

So a fad is whatever you don't like and want to minimize. It's as if words have no meanings to you.

Remember? That's the claim that I cited Wikipedia as a source to rebut.


I'd consider that an ad populum argument, or an argument from false authority.

It's not an "argument from popularity" or "argument from false authority" to cite a popular source to prove that the concept of "fad diets" is not a thing I just made up.


I mean we've just proven than anybody can edit those pages!

You edited the page, and the topic moderator stepped in and reversed your edits within a matter of minutes. You as a single individual don't get to decide what the general public (including medical professionals) calls a fad diet.

The moderators of contentious topics on Wikipedia are quite vigilant, and for good reason. They often set up alert systems to notify them whenever ideologically-motivated people such as yourself edit the Wiki in a dishonest attempt to win Internet arguments or erase opinions that conflict with their beliefs.

Besides, I never said that I didn't like low-carb diets. Please stop trying to make this into an issue of me having some bias against low-carb diets, because I don't. I've done the low-carb diet thing myself several times. My objection is not about low-carb diets per se.

My objection is that you have zero credentials to be dispensing advice about nutrition and health issues like diabetes. In other conversations you've demonstrated that your knowledge of human nutrition is extremely limited, and obviously entirely informed by promoters of these fad diets. You're clearly an evangelist for a certain diet, and towards that end you say a lot of things that are patently untrue. Such misinformation can be dangerous when people might use it to make decisions related to their health.

Like I said before, I have nothing personal against you, beyond that particular inclination to give out health advice and push your diet on others.

This is one of those topics where skepticism has far greater consequences than mere bickering about the existence of ghosts or bigfoot or outer space aliens.
Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 07, 2018, 12:57:06 AM
I have never claimed to have whatever credential or qualification you think you need to have to have an opinion on this, and that’s totally your problem.  You’re insisting on making it everyone’s problem because you think everyone but you is so dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 07, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
Again, you're projecting. I never accused anyone of being dumb.

But you started this thread entitled "Type II Diabetes," for discussing that potentially deadly medical condition, and then proceeded to fill it with evangelism for the fad diet of which you're enamored.

All I'm doing is interjecting the appropriate disclaimers that you're so disinclined to state on your own.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 07, 2018, 01:26:32 PM
If I had ever claimed any of the things you're pointing out, then that would be reasonable. I haven't I never have, and whenever asked I make that clear.

So you have taken upon yourself to alert all these people, who must be dummies if they need your help figuring not taking information provided on an internet forum as medical advice from a professional.

Your conduct borders on harassment, and is certainly spillover.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Harry Black on February 07, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Moderator Comment If anyone feels that another users post is breaking the rules then please submit it for moderation. Action will be taken as appropriate.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 07, 2018, 04:38:18 PM
Moderator Comment If anyone feels that another users post is breaking the rules then please submit it for moderation. Action will be taken as appropriate.
If it continues, I will
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa on February 08, 2018, 02:39:17 AM
T2D has flourished under the advice of credentialed experts.

T2D has shown to be reversible under the care of credentialed experts.

If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic, I surely turn to those experts that have shown success with the disease, not the experts that led me there.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath on February 08, 2018, 04:57:38 AM
Burzynski claims success in cancer treatment too.  But then again birds of a feather. 
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 08, 2018, 03:10:32 PM
If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic

This kind of statement is uncalled for.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath on February 08, 2018, 03:29:59 PM
Yea.  I kind of completely ignored that. 

“If you’re silly enough to let yourself be robbed.....”
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark on February 08, 2018, 03:41:58 PM
If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic

This kind of statement is uncalled for.

Why's that? 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.

FWIW, I also don't consider that victim blaming.

If you're driving down the road and approach an intersection with a green light and as you go through the intersection you're hit by a truck, who also had a green light, whose's fault is it? Yours? The Truck's? Or maybe the people in charge of the lights who gave you the signal it was safe to proceed.

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.

IMO, following that diet would be unwise, foolish, and, indeed, silly.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath on February 08, 2018, 03:54:23 PM
If I was silly enough to allow my body to become diabetic

This kind of statement is uncalled for.

Why's that? 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.

FWIW, I also don't consider that victim blaming.

If you're driving down the road and approach an intersection with a green light and as you go through the intersection you're hit by a truck, who also had a green light, whose's fault is it? Yours? The Truck's? Or maybe the people in charge of the lights who gave you the signal it was safe to proceed.

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.

IMO, following that diet would be unwise, foolish, and, indeed, silly.

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.

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.  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.  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....
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa 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.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23372809)

Negative effect of a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet on small peripheral artery reactivity in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850317)

Reduced Dietary Intake of Carbohydrates by Obese Subjects Results in Decreased Concentrations of Butyrate and Butyrate-Producing Bacteria in Feces (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828662/)

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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Escape_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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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 (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath 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!   ::)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath 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/

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.)

(https://blog.virtahealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1-year-Outcomes-Table@2x-718x1024.png)

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 (https://blog.virtahealth.com/one-year-clinical-trial-outcomes-provide-evidence-for-changing-the-way-we-care-for-patients-with-type-2-diabetes/)

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 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13300-018-0373-9)
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath 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.

Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: AQB24712 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
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Harry Black 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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) (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/873874)

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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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))
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: Belgarath 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. 
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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."
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa 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


(https://i.imgur.com/Uf7p7lH.jpg)

Stop by for breakfast sometime... the first meal is about 1300all going well.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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 (http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/16958/1364-dr-sarah-hallberg-shares-results-of-virta-study-of-ketogenic-diet-on-type-2-diabetes/)
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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nutrition_Monitoring_and_Related_Research_Act_of_1990), the US Dietary Guidelines are actually developed jointly (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines) 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nutrition_Monitoring_and_Related_Research_Act_of_1990), the US Dietary Guidelines are actually developed jointly (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines) 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 (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines)? 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 (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov) 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert on February 14, 2018, 07:37:29 PM
Your evasiveness when asked for evidence is noted.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)
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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4?WT.ec_id=EJCN-201803&spMailingID=56149350&spUserID=NjY3Mjc5MTQxNQS2&spJobID=1361240825&spReportId=MTM2MTI0MDgyNQS2)

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?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa 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?
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: RubyDuckman 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
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: RubyDuckman 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

Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0019-4#MOESM8)

                                    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
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: John Albert 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 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9556600.html#msg9556600).

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.
Title: Re: Type II Diabetes
Post by: lonely moa 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
Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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
Title: Type II Diabetes
Post by: CarbShark 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