Low Carb Diets Dangerous

[lucylocket61]

No that is not good information when someone stated on this thread to one member they were risking their life eyes and limbs by what they are doing that to me was trying to scare them Of course people want good information that helps them to make a decision and that is what is usually given on here but that did not come under good information it was scary with absolutely no proof it is true

can I have a link to the post you are referring to?

 

[lucylocket61]

No that is not good information when someone stated on this thread to one member they were risking their life eyes and limbs by what they are doing that to me was trying to scare them Of course people want good information that helps them to make a decision and that is what is usually given on here but that did not come under good information it was scary with absolutely no proof it is true

choosing to eat high carbs is risking life and limbs. do you disagree with that? its a fact. High carbs = complications. Not for some, but for all. Its why type 2 is considered progressive and amputations and blindness is considered inevitable at some point in the future by those health care professionals pushing the eatwell plate/escalating meds route. Those are facts demonstrate over a 40 year period.

 

[Mike d]

can I have a link to the post you are referring to?

Post # 124 ... and she's right

 

[lucylocket61]

Post # 124 ... and she's right

by 'she' you mean @Indy51 ?

**** right she's right!!!! no scaremongering there, just a factual response on the outcome of the plan @Tannith has decided on.

 

[Guzzler]

I am sure those doing the Newcastle diet will keep up with the latest news about it but that is another subject .Nothing is an excuse for telling people they will suffer terrible complications if they do not do it a certain way because none of us can know that

The truth of the matter is that we all live with the risks of complications, we may choose not to think about those complications but ignoring those risks due to fears promulgated by spurious pseudo science serves only to cause harm. The member in question has stated the intent to take this study at face value and raise the level of carbs in her diet thereby heightening her risk of all the complications mentioned. In my opinion, stating what those complications are is fair.

 

[Indy51]

What @Pinkorchid calls "scaremongering", I call "matter of fact". Sue me.

Edited to add: One can only talk about probabilities, not certainties.

 

[Oldvatr]

There is no such thing as an "informed decision" made in ignorance of presented facts.

presented facts are not always correct as we have seen in this study. An informed choice is only good if the data that is used to make the choice is the best available, and it is the function of this forum to analyse these 'facts' and discuss how reliable the data might be, and so how strong a foundation they may be for making those choices.

GIGO = Garbage In => Garbage Out.

 

[Indy51]

When it comes right down to it, my take is that @Tannith made up her mind about all of this a long time ago and is just using this study (despite how flawed it is) to give herself a "reason" to do what she had already decided to do anyway. Just a matter of human nature and cognitive dissonance. Her beliefs about the "dangers" of saturated fat are just too deep to be overcome. Her choice. Her consequences.

What I don't understand is her attempts to convert the rest of us to her way of thinking. Anyone who has achieved what a lot of us on this forum have achieved via LCHF aren't suddenly going to forget what this way of eating has done for us - not in the face of our personal experience. You can't unknow what you've experienced first hand.

 

[Oldvatr]

No that is not good information when someone stated on this thread to one member they were risking their life eyes and limbs by what they are doing that to me was trying to scare them Of course people want good information that helps them to make a decision and that is what is usually given on here but that did not come under good information it was scary with absolutely no proof it is true

But if a GP says it then thats fine. If our favouite guru/ blogger/ newspaper says it then it too is fine, and indeed this latter stance is what said member was intending to do, despite all the good information presented to them by this thread. That is indeed their choice to make, and it is therefore reasonable to remind them where their chosen pathway may take them. Indeed we could be considered negligent to withhold some vital piece of info in our posession that could be detrimental to their future life.

There is no point in being namby pamby about it - diabetes takes no hostages and it killed my mother. This is not the local knitting circle and diabetic care needs more than just a recipe swapmeet to survive. We may be uncomfortable thinking of complications, but consider them we must because bad stuff happens even to the best of us. At least with this Forum we have tools we can use to give us a better chance than our forebears had, and we can make choices they prayed for but did not get. I am lucky I have diabetes - it could have been much worse At least I have a fighting chance,

 

[bulkbiker]

absolutely no proof it is true

There is plenty of "proof" that uncontrolled high blood sugars can lead to blindness and amputations.. for heavens sake we have had threads on the forum recently about people having bits of themselves cut off due to gangrene caused by out of control blood sugar levels. So there is plenty of proof that it is true. Hiding that truth from people when it may in fact be the stimulus they need to take control of their health would , in my opinion, be pure negligence. Yet this is what you seem to be advocating. We can all be nice and cuddly about Type 2 but let's not forget than it is killing some people whether you like to admit it or not.

 

[Mike d]

presented facts are not always correct as we have seen in this study. An informed choice is only good if the data that is used to make the choice is the best available, and it is the function of this forum to analyse these 'facts' and discuss how reliable the data might be, and so how strong a foundation they may be for making those choices.

GIGO = Garbage In => Garbage Out.

You need to differentiate between this "study" and the experts on THIS SITE who live with this condition who might know a lot better. HUGE difference. I know what to ignore and what to accept

 

[Oldvatr]

You need to differentiate between this "study" and the experts on THIS SITE who live with this condition who might know a lot better. HUGE difference. I know what to ignore and what to accept

But most of the people reading this thread or watching the news programs are not experts. Some are Newbies, some only recently diagnosed, We have to consider all combinations here.

We have experienced people doing most of the discussiom here, but I emphasise experienced, but not expert by any means. Most here are not medically trained or qualified, but the substance of the thread is very technical and most struggle to understand the intricacies of some of the arguments. The language used in the study is by its very nature very obscure and not usual parlance, We are decoding a foreign language as best we can. However, many here have not made up their mind, and are seeking guidance and do not have the expertise to distill the good from the bad. If you find the report easy to understand, then perhaps you could join in and share the benefit of your knowledge as to why you choose to ignore some or accept others, It is an open forum and you are welcome to join in.

 

[lucylocket61]

But most of the people reading this thread or watching the news programs are not experts. Some are Newbies, some only recently diagnosed, We have to consider all combinations here.

We have experienced people doing most of the discussiom here, but I emphasise experienced, but not expert by any means. Most here are not medically trained or qualified, but the substance of the thread is very technical and most struggle to understand the intricacies of some of the arguments. The language used in the study is by its very nature very obscure and not usual parlance, We are decoding a foreign language as best we can. However, many here have not made up their mind, and are seeking guidance and do not have the expertise to distill the good from the bad. If you find the report easy to understand, then perhaps you could join in and share the benefit of your knowledge as to why you choose to ignore some or accept others, It is an open forum and you are welcome to join in.

an expert is:

a person with a high level of knowledge or skill relating to a particular subject or activity :

according to the dictionary.

I would say we have a lot of experts on here. One does not need qualifications to be expert at something. I know of many medically trained and qualified persons who are not experts in type 2 diabetes, for example, or any other specialization.

my two consultants dealing with my other health issues both say I am the expert on my conditions and often know far more about it than they do in some ways.

the experts here are decoding and advising the new ones or those with less technical understanding. This gives us the accurate information to make informed decisions.

that is why I listen to the experts on here. Not to follow blindly, but to get the information I need and learn from their experiences.

 

[Pinkorchid]

Just to make it clear my post was not in any way against giving people good information and advice of course they should get that and there is plenty of it on the forum that was never in dispute as far as I am concerned. Also it was not anything to do with the study because if we disagree with that we can choose to ignore it so some will and some won't .
The facts we know is that low carb will lower BG levels and hopefully lower the risk of complications so yes of course that is the good information newbies should be given to help them decide what to do. .
The one and only thing I disagreed with was telling someone who has decided to do something different that they will have complications when we have no idea if they will Yes warn people that it is a possibility if they do not know that already and that low carb could help to lower the risk but we can't say they will certainly be the ones to get complications if they do not do low carb because we don't know that and that was all my post was about

 

[Pinkorchid]

There is plenty of "proof" that uncontrolled high blood sugars can lead to blindness and amputations.. for heavens sake we have had threads on the forum recently about people having bits of themselves cut off due to gangrene caused by out of control blood sugar levels. So there is plenty of proof that it is true. Hiding that truth from people when it may in fact be the stimulus they need to take control of their health would , in my opinion, be pure negligence. Yet this is what you seem to be advocating. We can all be nice and cuddly about Type 2 but let's not forget than it is killing some people whether you like to admit it or not.

I never said hide the truth yes by all means warn people of the possibility of getting complications just do not say they will if they do not do low carb because we do not know that
Think of those who for whatever reason probably medical are not able to do low carb surely seeing a post telling someone they will certainly have life threatening complications if they do not do low carb is going to worry the life out of them wondering if that will be them is that what we want to do frighten those who can't do low carb

 

[bulkbiker]

I never said hide the truth yes by all means warn people of the possibility of getting complications just do not say they will if they do not do low carb because we do not know that
Think of those who for whatever reason probably medical are not able to do low carb surely seeing a post telling someone they will certainly have life threatening complications if they do not do low carb is going to worry the life out of them wondering if that will be them is that what we want to do frighten those who can't do low carb

Who can't "do" low carb? I'm not asking who can't do Carnivore or Keto just who can't cut some carbs out of their diet? Those non essential carbs that no-one needs to eat.
No-one has said that people will get anything - risk has been mentioned which as we all know is true.
Please stop mis-representing what people have said, it is one of my personal bugbears, and I have noticed more people doing it on the forum recently.

 

[lucylocket61]

The one and only thing I disagreed with was telling someone who has decided to do something different that they will have complications when we have no idea if they will

thats the trouble.

All the evidence on this website and other places tells us that they will get complications from higher carbs. Its inevitable. The avoidable part of the complications that a lower carb diet will prevent. The evidence is there. They will work their way through the medications and get complications.

Its like telling someone who smokes that they will get complications due to the smoking. Now, they may have other illnesses along the way, genetic ones or ones unrelated to smoking. But the smoking related part of their health will be compromised in some way, and smoking affect many other healing mechanisms in their bodies. its not a straight line, our bodies are complicated.

Bottom line= higher carb intake, based on the 'evidence' of a wrong study, will cause avoidable complications.

 

[lucylocket61]

telling someone they will certainly have life threatening complications if they do not do low carb is going to worry the life out of them wondering

maybe, maybe not. But it is giving them the information to make informed decisions.

As I have said before, low carb is 130g a day or under. Not an unreasonable target.

 

[Indy51]

Thinking that this is probably a good place to point people to the newly-vamped Blood Sugar 101 page on Complications of various types:

https://www.bloodsugar101.com/complications

 

[Tannith]

I never said hide the truth yes by all means warn people of the possibility of getting complications just do not say they will if they do not do low carb because we do not know that
Think of those who for whatever reason probably medical are not able to do low carb surely seeing a post telling someone they will certainly have life threatening complications if they do not do low carb is going to worry the life out of them wondering if that will be them is that what we want to do frighten those who can't do low carb

Thank you very much Pink Orchid for your concern. But you need not worry about me. I am a big girl and can read the article for myself. I would not necessarily reject all the findings of a study simply because the leader is WFPB. Anyway none of you need care about my raising my carbs. I have had to abandon the idea already. Simply because I have not been able to find any practical way of cutting the equivalent amount of calories from fats without reducing my proteins. Most of the "disposable" fats I eat are incorporated in the proteins I have with my salads ie chicken ,fish and eggs, and not separable from them. And I already have a minimum of olive oil on my salad. I don't see anywhere else I can cut many calories from fat to make up for the increase in calories from the muesli bread - I already keep fat to a minimum, and don't want to put back the weight I lost on Newcastle Diet.