Can we try to fix this?

[whelk]

Diabetes is a potentially serious and life-threatening condition if it is not managed and treated.
Dave

Which is why this type of forum is so dangerous. It is very clear that some people latch on to things they don't really understand and proclaim themselves as the new messiahs. No ifs or buts, but plenty of abuse for anyone who dares to ask questions or point out the dangers.

Some of the accusations are libellous too, but you expect that from people so clueless.

The best thing would be for these forums to be closed and cleared out. Anything else feeds the people who have a message to deliver.

 

[Truffle]

In light of your views regarding this and other forums like it, I am very suprised that you waste so much of your time posting on it!

 

[whelk]

Mostly responding to posts like yours.

Maybe people will stop and think and realise that magic potions and easy answers are unlikely to help them. No evidence that it will happen though.

 

[carty]

I have been following this forum since 2009 when I was dx with Type 2 DB and no one has given me an easy answer or a magic potion yet Am I missing some thing?
CAROL

 

[librarising]

carty wrote
I have been following this forum since 2009 when I was dx with Type 2 DB and no one has given me an easy answer or a magic potion yet Am I missing some thing?

You're missing nothing. When people don't like reasoned argument they descend to the easy putdown.
They will call Gary Taubes a fraud, someone else a maverick, someone else a lone swallow, and accuse others of selling snake oil.
They accuse people of promoting a diet, selling a book, even of condemning those who dare to suggest someone might use reading as a means of self-education as insensitive.
Quite simply they seem to hate the messengers of the benefits of low-carbing, and some find any way to besmirch them e.g. they're 'forcing' their way upon the others, 'they don't really understand,' 'new messiahs' 'clueless' (and that's after accusing some of being libellous !) (The last three examples only come, by chance, from the same post, because I looked back through all the posts on this thread, and didn't find other examples. They do, however, exemplify my point.)

I seem to keep reading posts from people expressing their appreciation.

Geoff

 

[AMBrennan]

You're missing nothing. When people don't like reasoned argument they descend to the easy putdown.

What you are missing is that it's not about theoretical arguments but about the evidence.

And yes, I am suspicious of authors publishing books at the general public (who by and large lack the knowledge to evaluate the merits of their ideas) rather than publishing in peer reviewed medical journals.
Which, of course, is still about evidence - articles from peer reviewed journals are more reliable than books that any... sufficiently persuasive person can publish.

Where are your large scale, randomised controlled trials that clearly show the benefits of a paleo/low-carb/lemonade diet? Without such trials, these people have no business publishing such books aimed at the general public.

 

[mehdave]

Have removed a couple of unnecessary posts to try keep this thread on track and friendly but if it continues to decent into bickering it will be locked.

Thanks

 

[whelk]

Have removed a couple of unnecessary posts to try keep this thread on track and friendly but if it continues to decent into bickering it will be locked.

Thanks

Perhaps you should also remove the ones I responded to as well ...

 

[librarising]

AMBrennan wrote
What you are missing is that it's not about theoretical arguments but about the evidence

One person's evidence is another person's con.
The other person's evidence is questionably obtained.

I advise everyone to look into it themselves, and make up their own mind.
I'd suggest Gary Taubes The Diet Delusion (aka Good Calories, Bad Calories) as a starter.
Then ask the carb-pushers on this forum for rebuttals of Taubes' arguments, for a level playing field.

Yet again I'm shocked at the attack on both the reading public (elsewhere today I saw them called gullible) and on the right of authors to write books.

Unbelievable

Geoff

 

[whelk]

You're missing nothing. When people don't like reasoned argument they descend to the easy putdown.

What you are missing is that it's not about theoretical arguments but about the evidence.

And yes, I am suspicious of authors publishing books at the general public (who by and large lack the knowledge to evaluate the merits of their ideas) rather than publishing in peer reviewed medical journals.
Which, of course, is still about evidence - articles from peer reviewed journals are more reliable than books that any... sufficiently persuasive person can publish.

Where are your large scale, randomised controlled trials that clearly show the benefits of a paleo/low-carb/lemonade diet? Without such trials, these people have no business publishing such books aimed at the general public.

I'm am entertained (and horrified) by the way that some substance or other, having been tested on a very specific kind of mouse in a very specific way, is then sold by companies as a cure for something or as a way of losing weight without doing anything else.

Paleo and more particularly hunter gatherer behaviour has been misused in the same sort of way because there's a book in it.

There are journalists like Ben Goldacre who knows the boundaries and has been informative as a result. Others have to be treated carefully. Their analysis is not a prescription and, as you say, needs to be properly tested.

 

[whelk]

AMBrennan wrote
What you are missing is that it's not about theoretical arguments but about the evidence

One person's evidence is another person's con.
The other person's evidence is questionably obtained.

I advise everyone to look into it themselves, and make up their own mind.
I'd suggest Gary Taubes The Diet Delusion (aka Good Calories, Bad Calories) as a starter.
Then ask the carb-pushers on this forum for rebuttals of Taubes' arguments, for a level playing field.

Yet again I'm shocked at the attack on both the reading public (elsewhere today I saw them called gullible) and on the right of authors to write books.

Unbelievable

Geoff

Taubes doesn't provide a prescription, simply a critique of the evidence. Acting on journalism like this, however persuasive it is potentially dangerous and should be done with care and preferably with medical support.

So your proposal that people counter one set of journalistic opinions with their own opinions is precisely what is wrong here. It's a bloody shouting match with precious little content.

(This post will probably be deleted for not following the party line. Copy if you feel the need to reply later.)

 

[catza]

Could I ask a couple of serious questions?

If all diet regimes other than those advocated by the NHS are wrong what is the point of this forum other than somewhere that concerned diabetics who search for help can compare the speed of their transition to stronger medications and higher levels of insulin? :think: Of course it could mean we have to advise diabetics with rising BG levels to try harder and stop cheating. That should sort them out.

Surely if the NHS way works diabetics should just be refereed back to their GPs as no advice on here is safe? Maybe we could just discuss the complications we could all be experiencing .... Oh I forgot .... can't do that either in case it scares a diabetic who doesn't want to know about that side of diabetes until they have come to terms with the NHS diet and it's implications on their blood glucose levels.

 

[whelk]

Could I ask a couple of serious questions?

If all diet regimes other than those advocated by the NHS are wrong what is the point of this forum other than somewhere that concerned diabetics who search for help can compare the speed of their transition to stronger medications and higher levels of insulin? :think: Of course it could mean we have to advise diabetics with rising BG levels to try harder and stop cheating. That should sort them out.

Surely if the NHS way works diabetics should just be refereed back to their GPs as no advice on here is safe? Maybe we could just discuss the complications we could all be experiencing .... Oh I forgot .... can't do that either in case it scares a diabetic who doesn't want to know about that side of diabetes until they have come to terms with the NHS diet and it's implications on their blood glucose levels.

I don't recall anyone saying that, only people accusing others of saying that.

 

[catza]

Actually Welk i can't provide quotes from the most recent post making the assertion that the NHS diet regime is the only correct one as I find that your previous post has been deleted by the Moderator.

 

[librarising]

whelk wrote
It's a bloody shouting match with precious little content.

In the time I've been here, there's been loads of content.
I'm not debating low-carb at the moment.
I'm trying to explain to the bewildered masses what's been going on.

journalism like this

Taubes is a science writer, who has been awarded three times for his writing. What next ? Will the Lancet be called a 'rag' or the head of the GMC a 'maverick' ?

Geoff

 

[mehdave]

This thread has been locked as is neither constructive or helping anyone.