Official diabetes diet misinformation - any candidates for the Darwin Awards?
Replies
-
I was reading this yesterday: http://staywell.walgreens.com/post/141841098065/myths-facts-children-diabetes
But it doesn't seem to want to load today, otherwise I would quote it. The summary is that they are pointing out how type 1 used to be thought of as a children's disease, but we know that adults get it as well. It goes on to address the increase of type 2 diagnosis in children. The article properly points to genetics for type 1... but then says type 2 is caused by family history. The explanation is that children are taught poor dietary and exercise habits and therefore get type 2. Walgreens implies that type 2 is caused by genes, but when you read their explanation, the detail does not match the headline. Sure, bad habits can get passed to the next generation, but they need to stop implying in the headers that it is genetic.4 -
This is a quote from an article about how the ADA is changing requirements around whose money they will take. The bolding is mine. They just don't get it.
"The new guidelines do not allow the ADA to renew sponsorship deals with several food companies that violate the association's rules. For example, the ADA's sponsorship deal with Hershey -- which allowed the chocolate maker to use the ADA logo on its sugar-free chocolate candy -- could not be renewed because the candy is high in fat, and Hershey also makes a number of other unhealthy chocolate products that diabetics should avoid."
Full article at the link below.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021183_the_ADA_type-2_diabetes.html
There is both good and bad in this article, but that line about fat just shows how far these yahoos have their heads stuck where the sun don't shine.4 -
That's a pretty interesting. The ADA (at least Dr. Kahn) is saying, themselves, Diabetes (assuming Type 2?) is preventable? Quote from the link above:
"Dr. Richard Kahn, a top ADA executive, said the association accepts large donations from drug companies because it believes pharmaceutical drugs are the best option for treating diabetics who lack the discipline to eat healthier and exercise more.
"Ninety percent of the people out there still can't lose 10 percent of their body weight and keep it off for four years," Kahn said".
0 -
That's a pretty interesting. The ADA (at least Dr. Kahn) is saying, themselves, Diabetes (assuming Type 2?) is preventable? Quote from the link above:
"Dr. Richard Kahn, a top ADA executive, said the association accepts large donations from drug companies because it believes pharmaceutical drugs are the best option for treating diabetics who lack the discipline to eat healthier and exercise more.
"Ninety percent of the people out there still can't lose 10 percent of their body weight and keep it off for four years," Kahn said".
This is one of the reasons I have always suggested renaming type 1 to something completely different. Too often, type 1 is conflated with type 2. Yes, most type 2's can improve their circumstances by losing weight. It astounds me that 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese, type 2 diabetes is becoming as common as a simple cold, and yet people (and organizations) are still demonizing dietary fat.2 -
@kpk54 the problem with Dr. Kahn's quote is he is likely still in the camp the way to lose weight and "eat healthier" means eating low fat with lots of whole grains given that is the ADA view and he is a top exec there.1
-
@cstehansen, Of course he's in that camp. He wants that money from the drug companies.
1 -
cstehansen wrote: »@kpk54 the problem with Dr. Kahn's quote is he is likely still in the camp the way to lose weight and "eat healthier" means eating low fat with lots of whole grains given that is the ADA view and he is a top exec there.
Right? No wonder those flat-earthers at the ADA treat the possibility of achieving dietary control of BG and IR as if it were on par with winning at Powerballs.™1 -
@cstehansen, Of course he's in that camp. He wants that money from the drug companies.
As Dr. Bernstein points out, it's not just "support" from the Good Samaritans at Pfizer, but also the fear of lawsuits from hypoglycemic reactions to more sensible advice ("risk management") and the stubborn clinging to childhood beliefs ("tradition", aka, "inertia") that underlie the ADA's decades-long, and lamentably-successful, public misinformation campaign.
1 -
cstehansen wrote: »
"The new guidelines do not allow the ADA to renew sponsorship deals with several food companies that violate the association's rules. For example, the ADA's sponsorship deal with Hershey -- which allowed the chocolate maker to use the ADA logo on its sugar-free chocolate candy -- could not be renewed because the candy is high in fat, and Hershey also makes a number of other unhealthy chocolate products that diabetics should avoid."
It's not all bad... At least if I see the ADA logo (the Hyperglycemia Seal), I know not to eat it.4 -
@cstehansen, Of course he's in that camp. He wants that money from the drug companies.
As Dr. Bernstein points out, it's not just "support" from the Good Samaritans at Pfizer, but also the fear of lawsuits from hypoglycemic reactions to more sensible advice ("risk management") and the stubborn clinging to childhood beliefs ("tradition", aka, "inertia") that underlie the ADA's decades-long, and lamentably-successful, public misinformation campaign.
Certainly. If the ADA changed what they've been advocating all these years for diet all hello might break loose in the courts with lawsuits.1 -
@cstehansen, Of course he's in that camp. He wants that money from the drug companies.
As Dr. Bernstein points out, it's not just "support" from the Good Samaritans at Pfizer, but also the fear of lawsuits from hypoglycemic reactions to more sensible advice ("risk management") and the stubborn clinging to childhood beliefs ("tradition", aka, "inertia") that underlie the ADA's decades-long, and lamentably-successful, public misinformation campaign.
Certainly. If the ADA changed what they've been advocating all these years for diet all hello might break loose in the courts with lawsuits.
Along with the instant gratification need in our society (just give me a pill/shot), the lawsuit happy nature of so many is among our biggest societal ills. Perhaps the only way to get the ADA to change is to have major medical lawsuit reform making it much more difficult to sue if the treatment/recommendations have reasonable scientific backing and have sufficiently low max payouts. The multi-million dollar award because someone burned themselves with McDonald's coffee comes to mind.
Everyone who reads this thread has seen the scientific backing for proper treatment using LCHF diet. It isn't like the recommendation isn't reasonably backed up.0 -
-
That's a pretty interesting. The ADA (at least Dr. Kahn) is saying, themselves, Diabetes (assuming Type 2?) is preventable? Quote from the link above:
"Dr. Richard Kahn, a top ADA executive, said the association accepts large donations from drug companies because it believes pharmaceutical drugs are the best option for treating diabetics who lack the discipline to eat healthier and exercise more.
"Ninety percent of the people out there still can't lose 10 percent of their body weight and keep it off for four years," Kahn said".
Oh geez! He is definitely of the "you did this to yourself, you lazy glutton" camp.
Makes me ill!0 -
Here's an interesting article from an MD who's been smoking everything but his shoes:
http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of-type-2-diabetes/
It's not the carbs that's bad for you, it's the fat.....
because people are imagining their success on LCHF. Doctors..... 0 -
Here's an interesting article from an MD who's been smoking everything but his shoes:
http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of-type-2-diabetes/
It's not the carbs that's bad for you, it's the fat..... because people are imagining their success on LCHF. Doctors.....
No, none, nada, zip articles referenced from peer-reviewed studies should make anyone question the validity of this article. He did reference some poorly conducted studies.0 -
Here's an interesting article from an MD who's been smoking everything but his shoes:
http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of-type-2-diabetes/
It's not the carbs that's bad for you, it's the fat..... because people are imagining their success on LCHF. Doctors.....
I couldn't resist and had to post on the comments of this article. Reading it jacked up my blood pressure. How can this quack post this in good conscience on a site with the name "Nutrition Facts" without being struck by lightning? Of course, I included a link to an actual medical study in my response and challenged him on his lack of such.
Edit: I wonder how long until they remove my posts.3 -
@cstehansen - One of them is still there.
It's hard to argue with people who've found a certain diet to be most beneficial to them, whether its LF or LC.
The idea that many of us here eating LCHF have been able to move our BG, A1c, insulin, etc., down into a much better range than eating LFHC, however, is met with the counter-argument that LCHF only addresses "an aspect" of T2D and not "the cause." Hmm. Not sure what it would take to persuade someone in that camp that LC actually does work for many T2Ds....
At worst, LCHF will not work for some people. The jury will be out for a while on exactly what the long-term consequences are of eating LCHF for which subgroups of the diabetic population....0 -
@cstehansen - One of them is still there.
It's hard to argue with people who've found a certain diet to be most beneficial to them, whether its LF or LC.
The idea that many of us here eating LCHF have been able to move our BG, A1c, insulin, etc., down into a much better range than eating LFHC, however, is met with the counter-argument that LCHF only addresses "an aspect" of T2D and not "the cause." Hmm. Not sure what it would take to persuade someone in that camp that LC actually does work for many T2Ds....
At worst, LCHF will not work for some people. The jury will be out for a while on exactly what the long-term consequences are of eating LCHF for which subgroups of the diabetic population....
Both are gone now. Whether or not LCHF works is not the point. There is no evidence I have found anywhere (and I have been a researcher on a mission for months) that high fat without being paired with high carb has ANY correlation, let alone causation in relation to diabetes. Posting this is reckless and irresponsible. He is only doing this to sell books.0 -
cstehansen wrote: »Both are gone now. Whether or not LCHF works is not the point. There is no evidence I have found anywhere (and I have been a researcher on a mission for months) that high fat without being paired with high carb has ANY correlation, let alone causation in relation to diabetes. Posting this is reckless and irresponsible. He is only doing this to sell books.
Whatever the motivation, the simplistic proclamation, "Fat is the Cause of Type 2 Diabetes" without any sort of qualification is just as you say, reckless and irresponsible.
(FYI, looks like one of yours is still there.)
0 -
According to the terms on the website, disagreement is welcome as long as it is not inflammatory, so I re-posted my comments in as constructive a way as I could as follows:
"Please share the medical research backing this claim as all the research I can find shows exactly the opposite - at least that which is in peer reviewed medical and nutritional journals. All the research I can find shows carbohydrate intake, especially sugar and refined carbohydrates, correlate to T2 Diabetes. There is research showing fat on the liver can cause insulin production to be reduced. Fructose (which is a sugar) is shown to be a cause of fatty liver disease as it is processed in the liver and does not increase insulin production like glucose and other sugars.
However, the claim that fat reduces insulin sensitivity is a claim I can't find as that is a condition where the liver ends up over producing insulin and therefore would not correlate to fatty liver where insulin production decreases. Given fat does not cause an insulin response, eating fat without carbohydrates would not lead to a rise in blood glucose, so the statement that the fat would lead to excess blood glucose because it inhibits insulin secretion doesn't make sense. If you aren't eating carbohydrates, or are eating only a very low amount, then your BG clearly would not become elevated.
Please help me square the circle you have stated in this article of eating high fat low carb raising blood sugar when the blood sugar comes from eating carbs."2
