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 -
It's really sad how many people are going to read that and believe it and turn to carbs possibly making their situation worse. This article popped up on my Flipboard new feed so you know it's getting tons of hits. I'm almost dropped my phone when I read the title.
I know since I've started LCHF, I've never had so much energy, mental clarity, my mood is better, and my weight is melting off. I just feel more healthy all around. Apparently all this awesomeness is gonna give me T2D. We shall see, my next A1C is in February.
0 -
He actually does have a couple of study abstracts linked in the article:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/535594 (subscription only - I couldn't read the whole thing)
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/535594 (this one had 23 non-obese and non-diabetic participants)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/ (this one doesn't list the number of subjects, unless I missed it)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10334314 (this one had 7 participants and the only conclusion was that high FFA values slowed the glucose transfer by 120 minutes).
The biggest problem with his whole line of reasoning (besides his obvious vegan/vegetarian bias) is that while the studies do show that fats can have an effect on insulin and blood sugar uptake, his entire conclusion is based on people still eating lots of carbs as part of their diet and depending on the body's energy coming from glucose and not from ketones. As long as the energy source is ketones, all of his arguments against fat fall flat (say that three times fast ).
edited to add the links.1 -
A recent theory I heard that was based on a study, which I didn't note down, as I was driving and podcasting, but they said that for some folks, insulin resistance develops not just from an overload of sugar in the bloodstream and diet, but from cellular energy overload - meaning that the cells ended up so stuff of energy, even of fat sources and such - and that OVERALL energy overload caused the cells to refuse not just glucose, but fat as well, and even some protein sources. And of course, the body then attempts to create more insulin to force the glucose in, generating insulin resistance from a position of cellular energy overload, not just glucose overload. It really made a lot of sense with the way my own IR developed...and why if I overeat calories, even on keto, I stay higher on the insulin side of numbers, with or without having added glucose in my system...2
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »A recent theory I heard that was based on a study, which I didn't note down, as I was driving and podcasting, but they said that for some folks, insulin resistance develops not just from an overload of sugar in the bloodstream and diet, but from cellular energy overload - meaning that the cells ended up so stuff of energy, even of fat sources and such - and that OVERALL energy overload caused the cells to refuse not just glucose, but fat as well, and even some protein sources. And of course, the body then attempts to create more insulin to force the glucose in, generating insulin resistance from a position of cellular energy overload, not just glucose overload. It really made a lot of sense with the way my own IR developed...and why if I overeat calories, even on keto, I stay higher on the insulin side of numbers, with or without having added glucose in my system...
Interesting.
Now that you mention it, I recall Dr. Bernstein saying that meal size is can be an important factor in keeping BG under control - not from a calorie counting standpoint, but from volume. He explained that in diabetics, a glucose spike will result from a large portion of high-fiber carbs, protein, fat - or even gravel (!). If it's gravel, there's obviously nothing of nutritional value to dump into the bloodstream or force into storage, so the insulin produced after the initial glucagon surge presumably contributes to IR. (Moral - don't eat rocks. That much I'm pretty confident about......)
1 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »A recent theory I heard that was based on a study, which I didn't note down, as I was driving and podcasting, but they said that for some folks, insulin resistance develops not just from an overload of sugar in the bloodstream and diet, but from cellular energy overload - meaning that the cells ended up so stuff of energy, even of fat sources and such - and that OVERALL energy overload caused the cells to refuse not just glucose, but fat as well, and even some protein sources. And of course, the body then attempts to create more insulin to force the glucose in, generating insulin resistance from a position of cellular energy overload, not just glucose overload. It really made a lot of sense with the way my own IR developed...and why if I overeat calories, even on keto, I stay higher on the insulin side of numbers, with or without having added glucose in my system...
Interesting.
Now that you mention it, I recall Dr. Bernstein saying that meal size is can be an important factor in keeping BG under control - not from a calorie counting standpoint, but from volume. He explained that in diabetics, a glucose spike will result from a large portion of high-fiber carbs, protein, fat - or even gravel (!). If it's gravel, there's obviously nothing of nutritional value to dump into the bloodstream or force into storage, so the insulin produced after the initial glucagon surge presumably contributes to IR. (Moral - don't eat rocks. That much I'm pretty confident about......)
I heard Dr Bernstein say this as well. It actually had me reconsidering my 16/8 IF schedule because I am cramming in 3200-3500 calories into such a small window. I was wondering if I would be better off going back to 3 meals a day to reduce the size of the meals. Or, I guess the other option is to figure out how to burn fewer calories. The problem is I don't sit still well, so even if on the weekend when I don't go to the gym and "take it easy" my fitbit still says I burn 2800+. I can't imagine getting to the point of only burning 2000-2500. Before finding out I was diabetic last year, I had just gotten my fitbit and quickly saw burning 4500 calories a day was about my minimum, so I have already cut activity way back. This may explain why so many endurance athletes end up with T2D without being significantly overweight - along with all those years of carb-loading for events.3 -
Seems there is much more to be learned which is one thing I heard repeated by many of the speakers of the keto summit.2
-
Credit where credit is due.....
From ADA's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes - 2016:Carbohydrates
Studies examining the ideal amount of carbohydrate intake for people with diabetes are inconclusive, although monitoring carbohydrate intake and considering the blood glucose response to dietary carbohydrate are key for improving postprandial glucose control.0 -
Credit where credit is due.....
From ADA's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes - 2016:Carbohydrates
Studies examining the ideal amount of carbohydrate intake for people with diabetes
are inconclusive, although monitoring carbohydrate intake and considering
the blood glucose response to dietary carbohydrate are key for improving postprandial
glucose control.
Sure, they are inconclusive, but the 60 g per meal they recommend is way outside of the results of any of the research.0 -
cstehansen wrote: »Credit where credit is due.....
From ADA's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes - 2016:Carbohydrates
Studies examining the ideal amount of carbohydrate intake for people with diabetes
are inconclusive, although monitoring carbohydrate intake and considering
the blood glucose response to dietary carbohydrate are key for improving postprandial
glucose control.
Sure, they are inconclusive, but the 60 g per meal they recommend is way outside of the results of any of the research.
This is not a plug for 50g/meal. It's "YMMV, use your meter!" That's pretty much my formula, too.
Sometimes (rarely perhaps) the glass is half full....0 -
But @RalfLott, is it half full of sugary soda?? 1
This discussion has been closed.