• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Daily Mail Strikes Again

D

Dancing Badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
83
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Your thoughts please. According to an article in the Daily Wail, we need to eat at least 80 percent of our calories before 1pm; the article also helpfully includes at the end the diagram of the NHS Eatwell plate. I hope there's no real scientific evidence for this claim because I rarely feel the need to eat anything substantial before lunchtime.

www.dailymail.co.uk

New study finds certain diet may cut risk of type 2 diabetes

The team, led by scientists from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, recruited 10 people with obesity and high blood sugar levels for their study.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

(Disclaimer: I read the DM with caution, often through half-closed eyes, and then only because it's free. I like to think it would lose at least 50 percent of its readers if it retreated behind a paywall.)
 
My thoughts are: That's complete rubbish.
Yes, Time Restricted Eating works better than a normal 3 meals per day plus snacking, but choose the fasting period so it matches the period of your greatest carbohydrate sensitivity!

Reasons for thinking this:-

1. We know by sad experience that the Eatwell plate doesn't prevent T2 Diabetes - rather it is likely to push those who are susceptible to T2D over the edge!

2. Type 2 diabetics are a very disparate group. While some of us are at our most carbohydrate sensitive in the evening, many (I think it's the majority) are at our most carb sensitive in the mornings. This means it is better for us to eat later in the day in order to keep our Blood Glucose low - even if we eat exactly the same food in the same quantity.

3. I got into T2 remission by using a Low Carb way of eating (no calorie reduction) and eating a small breakfast of 2 boiled eggs, followed by a meat/fish/egg/cheese salad at around 1pm and a large dinner. So the vast bulk of calories after 1pm. After I became 'fat adapted' I was no longer hungry at breakfast time, so just skipped that meal and so now rarely have any calories at all before 1pm!
 
I can't get my head around this?
Why, would you want to follow a diet that doesn't include your circumstances?
Why, would you eat something that is not by choice?
Why would anyone want to follow a diet that has been ridiculed by anyone with intelligence and their health interests as a primary goal?
Why would anyone listen to someone who is persuaded by self interested parties?


And more importantly, read a rag, that is known to be a total bag of lies from cover to cover, even if it is free!
I shake my head that anyone, after the last decade or more can justify actually laying eyes on this printed garbage. Haven't they done enough damage to our country?
 
I dislike articles like this. Quoting one small study for a quick headline.

I manage my diet by eating two meals a day (no snacks). And have heard before that eating earlier in the day as opposed to later is better for blood glucose control. E.g. eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinner.

For me personally though, it works better with my appetite and lifestyle to skip breakfast and just eat lunch and dinner. So I'll be sticking to my current routine.
 
Antje77 said:
Only one single word which would have been caught in the forum bad word filter, and a mild one at that.
Click to expand...
I’m not on the “job” anymore. (Neither are you.) & wish as a “box ticking” exercise if possibly, to break just one..
it’s a YouTube video. The comedic value highlights a tragedy in misinformation Within context tabloid press shodyness. I’ve seen the sensationalism..
all types of diabetic can be victim of this in the press.
 
Jaylee said:
I’m not on the “job” anymore. (Neither are you.) & wish as a “box ticking” exercise if possibly, to break just one..
it’s a YouTube video. The comedic value highlights a tragedy in misinformation Within context tabloid press shodyness. I’ve seen the sensationalism..
all types of diabetic can be victim of this in the press.
Click to expand...
I completely agree on all of your points, and I think the video sends a strong and valuable message.
 
Dancing Badger said:
Your thoughts please. According to an article in the Daily Wail, we need to eat at least 80 percent of our calories before 1pm; the article also helpfully includes at the end the diagram of the NHS Eatwell plate. I hope there's no real scientific evidence for this claim because I rarely feel the need to eat anything substantial before lunchtime.

www.dailymail.co.uk

New study finds certain diet may cut risk of type 2 diabetes

The team, led by scientists from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, recruited 10 people with obesity and high blood sugar levels for their study.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

(Disclaimer: I read the DM with caution, often through half-closed eyes, and then only because it's free. I like to think it would lose at least 50 percent of its readers if it retreated behind a paywall.)
Click to expand...
Well, the study is junk. I can say that with some certainty because they had a total of only ten individuals, all of whom were already overweight/obese and had high blood sugar levels (according to the report). How you can claim that this method would "prevent" T2 diabetes I have no idea.

You might find this link an interesting read, particularly relevant to the huge amount of junk "science" currently available through "news" outlets on the internet.

gizmodo.com

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.

“Slim by Chocolate!” the headlines blared. A team of German researchers had found that people on a low-carb diet lost weight 10 percent faster if they ate
gizmodo.com gizmodo.com
 
I think it's easy to misunderstand journalism.

In any paper regardless of reputation, health writing is just one of many jobs where someone is tasked with producing however many words in however short a time (often very short) on any particular theme. These make for entertaining reading but should never be regarded as "truth". Journalistic truth is rather like that other mirage "scientifically proven". What information like this does do is give us the incentive to check around it if the subject is one that interests us. Thus even with the "research" we should read critically and with our bullshine counter to hand. Such information is very useful if it leads us to questioning the research, the biases, and the balance. But we should never take anything we read in the papers or hear on the media or read on social sites as "truth" until we have mentally challenged it.
 
Outlier said:
I think it's easy to misunderstand journalism.

In any paper regardless of reputation, health writing is just one of many jobs where someone is tasked with producing however many words in however short a time (often very short) on any particular theme. These make for entertaining reading but should never be regarded as "truth". Journalistic truth is rather like that other mirage "scientifically proven". What information like this does do is give us the incentive to check around it if the subject is one that interests us. Thus even with the "research" we should read critically and with our bullshine counter to hand. Such information is very useful if it leads us to questioning the research, the biases, and the balance. But we should never take anything we read in the papers or hear on the media or read on social sites as "truth" until we have mentally challenged it.
Click to expand...
Internet "journalists" Phil Space and Phillippa Page need to have something to put on their websites, preferably without enagaging brain or any hard work. Junk science meets that need.
 
Outlier said:
I think it's easy to misunderstand journalism.

In any paper regardless of reputation, health writing is just one of many jobs where someone is tasked with producing however many words in however short a time (often very short) on any particular theme. These make for entertaining reading but should never be regarded as "truth". Journalistic truth is rather like that other mirage "scientifically proven". What information like this does do is give us the incentive to check around it if the subject is one that interests us. Thus even with the "research" we should read critically and with our bullshine counter to hand. Such information is very useful if it leads us to questioning the research, the biases, and the balance. But we should never take anything we read in the papers or hear on the media or read on social sites as "truth" until we have mentally challenged it.
Click to expand...
Do your own research has never been more relevant than it is today. The internet is a good thing in many ways, but for those who take everything at face value it's a minefield of misinformation and serious mischief.
 
We call it the Daily Fail in our house. It usually live up to that name :rolleyes:

Haven’t had time to read the article yet as having to head out but I’ll come back to this.
 
Back
Top