Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?

1246789

Replies

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,259 Member
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/

    This isn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement.
    Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part. Rather, consider the code Fung has unlocked in this book and his previous one as potential options for some people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, and then form your own opinion based on specific patients’ needs.
    Also, this review is not written by the American Diabetes Association. It's a review published in an ADA journal and it was written by a blogger who has diabetes and is a consumer advocate but claims no medical or scientific experience or training.
    This blog does not provide medical information or advice. I write about my own experiences of living with diabetes but please don’t think that you should take on board what I’m doing and apply it to you.

    Fair.
    But I think “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,259 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,259 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

    While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.

    And some people have had success with the approach.
    Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”

    Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.

    I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.

    The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.

    Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.

    From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.

    My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.

    And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.