Odd looking graphs in that Mail on Sunday article...

[pdmjoker]

Hello Folks,

I've been carefully looking at the bg graphs in MoS and there seem to be a few oddities...

1 Barney has a peak bg of 4.45 from 24g sugar, but only 4.13 from 40g sugar.
2 Barney's rice plot peaks 30mins after the other graphs after going level for the first 20+ mins
3 Barney's 40g sugar plot has a zig zag and the shape looks unnatural. (His 24g sugar plot has a somewhat odd shape - rather pointed.)
4 I'm surprised his 40g sugar plot stays that high for that long since he said he isn't diabetic (Michelle is Prediabetic)

Anything obvious that suggests to you Barney's data might have been corrupted somehow and be unrepresentative?

NOTE: The GI is the area under the curve, so it looks like Michelle's sugar and rice graphs are pretty well equal... and somewhat green bananas contain less sugar than ripe ones. (Dr Unwin's paper specifies "a single ripe banana is equivalent to 5.7 teaspoons of sugar")

 

[Tophat1900]

The character assassination of Dr.Unwin has begun.

Barney's results are not proof of anything. They are just his results and do not represent everyone else. The conclusion that eating a banana or rice is clearly not the same as eating pure sugar is not entirely true. The graphs show that clearly eating such foods has a dramatic effect, not quite as much as pure glucose because the glucose doesn't have to be broken down like the banana and rice do, but you can see what they do.

I'd like to of seen the readings beyond the 2 hr mark, being it takes about 5 hrs to fully digest a meal. They state that the starting bg numbers were different, yet they don't show the data. They alter the graphs and eliminate that data (Whatever it was).

I think Dr.Unwin's success rate speaks for itself, at least in treating T2. I just can't help but wonder how much influence stuff like that has that is being backed by the food industry in some way, maybe not directly, but I think it's there. A bit like this experiment, just can't prove it. I expect to see a lot more of this coming out.

The effect of these foods does nothing to help treat insulin resistance. Yet there seems to be an air of it's ok to eat them.

 

[xfieldok]

They test with a starting point of zero? I hope Michel had an ambulance on standby.

 

[urbanracer]

They test with a starting point of zero? I hope Michel had an ambulance on standby.

It does explain in the text that they are plotting and comparing the rise(s). Whatever the starting point was, it was taken as zero.

 

[xfieldok]

It does explain in the text that they are plotting and comparing the rise(s). Whatever the starting point was, it was taken as zero.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[mymuk]

It's the Mail. Nothing is ever printed unless it fits their agenda (which is, broadly speaking, stoking fear and ignorance for profit).

 

[Oldvatr]

I am surprised that the non-diabetic (Barney) swings up to 4 mmol/l delta which is more what I would expect a diabetic to react like. His levels for pure sugar take more than 1 hour to recover back to base, so again these plots are not what I would expect. It seems maybe the MoS swapped the graphs by mistake?

 

[Tophat1900]

I am surprised that the non-diabetic (Barney) swings up to 4 mmol/l delta which is more what I would expect a diabetic to react like. His levels for pure sugar take more than 1 hour to recover back to base, so again these plots are not what I would expect. It seems maybe the MoS swapped the graphs by mistake?

It's possible, but what do we know about non-diabetic Barney's diet in general or health?

 

[Oldvatr]

It's possible, but what do we know about non-diabetic Barney's diet in general or health?

What does he know? He considers and declares himself non diabetic, but I wonder how he would do on a proper OGTT test. Clearly he is producing insulin, but this lower set of graphs gives indication of a deteriorating Stage 1 Insulin response, and a reduced efficacy of the stage 2 either from reduced insulin production (not really, the previous test shows it as ok) but that the insulin ability to reduce to basal levels shows resistance After all he is trying to emulate an OGTT test in his kitchen.

If we knew his fasting level then that might mitigate my comments, but he has not shared that with us. I used to test my wife quite regularly since she is overweight and had a condition that is being related to T3D but she never gave spot reading delta above 3 mmol/l after eating.

 

[bulkbiker]

It's possible, but what do we know about non-diabetic Barney's diet in general or health?

Or his starting point.. if the zero was for example 7 mmol/l then....

 

[Tophat1900]

What does he know? He considers and declares himself non diabetic, but I wonder how he would do on a proper OGTT test. Clearly he is producing insulin, but this lower set of graphs gives indication of a deteriorating Stage 1 Insulin response, and a reduced efficacy of the stage 2 either from reduced insulin production (not really, the previous test shows it as ok) but that the insulin ability to reduce to basal levels shows resistance After all he is trying to emulate an OGTT test in his kitchen.

If we knew his fasting level then that might mitigate my comments, but he has not shared that with us. I used to test my wife quite regularly since she is overweight and had a condition that is being related to T3D but she never gave spot reading delta above 3 mmol/l after eating.

I was wondering the same thing in general. It seems he isn't as healthy as perhaps he may think, but the data for actual levels is not declared. Not that we'll ever know I guess. However the conclusion reached seems to done so on poor data and all based on one persons response.

 

[Tophat1900]

Or his starting point.. if the zero was for example 7 mmol/l then....

Exactly, it bothers me some as to why you wouldn't declare it, but use the excuse that it makes it easier to compare the results. It's poor work imo.

 

[Oldvatr]

So we have set this journalist up to be the fall guy for the reason why NICE have withdrawn the infographics. But from his Linkedin profile he is not some junior hack, but s fairly senior member of the DM editorial staff, a seasoned reporter it seems. This would indicate that this piece was written in response to a request by someone 'in authority' with the express aim of smearing Dr Unwin, and was not done out of curiosity. Indeed the followup explanation piece would reinforce this being on some other authority since a junior hack would not be given such chance to revisit their published work in this way. There is a different piper calling his tune I think. The use of a CGM is curious for a non diabetic to be using equipment that I cannot get easy access to as if they are growing on trees. The prediabetic is probably not using one either normally. so that is CGM x2 with sensors. Implies backing from someone with vested interest to cover the expense, and connections to get hold of such devices.

 

[pdmjoker]

... After all he is trying to emulate an OGTT test in his kitchen. ...

The article says "Imperial College researcher Dr Katerina Petropoulou, who ran our study" which explains access to a CGM.

It also said

When we asked NICE, in light of these findings, on what basis it had endorsed his infographics, it said it had decided to remove them from its website 'as a precautionary measure… while we conduct our own assessment of the competing evidence claims'. It added: 'In the meantime, we will ask Dr Unwin not to promote his resource using NICE's endorsement.'​

I suppose this latest article was to counteract https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...DR-DAVID-UNWIN-shares-revolutionary-plan.html from early March which illustrated David Unwin's great success.

I agree - article quite possibly written at the behest of someone higher up.

There were so many inconsistencies in the text and twisting things to get a specific reaction/apparent contradiction, eg David Unwin saying 'If you have type 2 diabetes, sugar becomes a sort of metabolic poison,' but wording crucially changed:

So does sugar become a poison to type 2 diabetics? 'That's not supported by the evidence,' answers Prof Kar.​

and

Prof Sattar points out that eating fruit and vegetables is well known to reduce the risk of a wide range of illnesses, including type 2 diabetes. He adds: 'Yes, lots of refined sugar is bad, and by all means have smaller portions of potatoes, but to say eating a banana is the same as eating pure sugar is just rubbish.'​

whereas I gather the glycemic response of a RIPE banana is the same as 5.7 spoons of sugar. (Area under the graph, by definition.)

I was merely trying to make sense of the graphs and see if there was an obvious flaw, since there certainly seems to be data inconsistencies. Might be worth writing to NICE?

Edit: to correct wording error....

 

[pdmjoker]

I suppose this latest article was to counteract https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...DR-DAVID-UNWIN-shares-revolutionary-plan.html from early March which illustrated David Unwin's great success.

The article begins:

A year ago I introduced Mail readers to my low-carb approach to putting type 2 diabetes into remission, telling how it’s transformed the health of patients in my GP practice.

I’ve been overwhelmed by how our story has caught the public’s imagination — and inspired GPs, too. Over a thousand fellow doctors have signed up to take the e-learning course I designed for the Royal College of General Practitioners,

I’ve also been asked to give countless talks on low carb and its impact on patients with type 2 diabetes — including later this month, at the Diabetes UK professional conference in Glasgow.

I was even made an ambassador for the All Party Parliamentary Group on diabetes and got to meet Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not about me — it’s about getting the message out about tackling type 2 with an approach that has given hope to so many.​

Such a shame that "an approach that has given hope to so many" should a few months later be actively undermined by a DM article and, apparently, by senior health professionals too...