Are carbs not a problem after all?

Hahahahahahahaha

You're right @Daibell , we can all go home, tuck into oven chips and sticky buns, washed down with cola. It says, quite clearly, at paragraph 5.86 that,
None of the studies indicate an association between total carbohydrate intake as either g/day or % energy and glycaemia.
and at 5.91 it states,
No significant effect is demonstrated for diets differing in the proportion of carbohydrate to fat on fasting glucose concentration
So there you have it, we're all wrong.
Then again, I haven't read all 300+ pages, so the last one might say, "April Fool"
Sally

sally and james said:

Then again, I haven't read all 300+ pages, so the last one might say, "April Fool"

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

The thing is my body doesn't agree with all these experts. I suspect I'm not the only one.

sally and james said:

None of the studies indicate an association between total carbohydrate intake as either g/day or % energy and glycaemia.

Click to expand...

This sounds like it might be due to an absence of evidence, rather than evidence that it doesn't make a difference.

Though from what I've seen of NICE in ME/CFS, I wouldn't be surprised if their dietary and diabetic guidelines are also badly flawed due to giving inappropriate credence to low-quality studies, while ignoring contrary studies which the reviewers don't like. Some reviewers definitely have an agenda, and it has significant impact on the results of their evidence reviews.

If the question were true, I would also conclude that smoking has no link to cancer and that excessive alcohol is fine for the liver.

So all the science that I have just spent the last four days watching from Low Carb Breckenridge was wrong...
Don't think so...also my body and Type 2 disagrees with the SACN findings...
But then again you all knew I would say that anyway..

There seems to be a large section on faecal weight.. does this mean the whole report is sh*t heavy?

Can't face reading the entire thing (life is to short), but from the sections i have ploughed through, the authors are too ignorant to factor in insulin resistance.

People can eat too many carbs and develop harmful levels of insulin resistance - with knock on health implications - for decades before the onset of T2.

Just look at Krafts work for an understanding of how that works.

So they can confidently claim that carby diets dont affect blood glucose in non diabetics. Because they are only looking at bg levels. Meanwhile, the insulin responses are exhausting themselves keeping blood glucose down, while simultaneously building insulin resistance in the background. The 'visible' problems start because of that, not the raised blood glucose, because that doesnt happen til later. Those problems are heart disease, obesity, inflammation, etc, but without understanding the 'insulin link' they are not seeing the connection.

What a shower of

I'm not sure that you have all read this correctly, you probably should read the original papers. Unfortunately, like much research it doesn't reveal a lot.

5.79 Non diabetic people will not become diabetic after 6 to 9 months eating a diet slightly higher than average in carbs.
It isn't studied here but I believe that a much longer period of poor diet is needed to trigger the disease. 6 to 9 months is how long the cohort studies ran for.

5.86 Non diabetics will have similar response to a OGT, regardless of whether they have a high or low carb diet for a period of 6 months.
Not really rocket science, we are discussing healthy non diabetics here.

5.91 FBG unaffected in non-diabetic people by having a diet slightly higher or lower in carbs for 3 to 12 months.
I guess that being a healthy non diabetic means that your body can process sugars properly. Wow, that one is probably worth a Nobel prize.

Perhaps of more interest to LCHF folks is the evidence earlier in the report that and LCHF diet does not cause high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
This is not some huge conspiracy and whilst it provides good supporting data for the eatwell plate in HEALTHY people, it does not have anything to say about whether it is good or bad for diabetics. For what it is worth I think that lower carbs are a better diet for diabetics (maybe not LCHF for all, though this certainly works for some/many).

I have been involved in research most of my life and am often disheartened by how little many papers actually say. At the moment I believe that the most interesting and relevant research is into the relationship between visceral fat and insulin resistance (basically, it seems likely that reduction in this fat MAY reverse, i.e. cure T2, by increasing sensitivity to normal levels).

A slightly obtuse comment, but this reminds me of a former colleague who was a high ranker in the civil service and told me of a memo that had been circulated for comments. One recipient commented "Spherical Objects." A further memo followed - "Who is Spherical, and why does he object?"
As far as a low carbohydrate diet for a diabetic is concerned, I can provide pretty conclusive evidence that there is a strong positive correlation between carb intake and BG levels. And I very much doubt that I'm alone in this. I just wish that NICE would wake up and get the message or commision some decent independent research.

It must be right, I have just come back from a trip where macaroni cheese pie was on the menu, with a choice of either Fries or Roast Potatoes. This is a place where just 38,000 out of a population of 420,000 have T2D. The staple diet is pies and cakes from street vendors, it must be purely coincidental as they also produce a low carb beer

walnut_face said:

It must be right, I have just come back from a trip where macaroni cheese pie was on the menu, with a choice of either Fries or Roast Potatoes. This is a place where just 38,000 out of a population of 420,000 have T2D. The staple diet is pies and cakes from street vendors, it must be purely coincidental as they also produce a low carb beer

Click to expand...

You are probably right of course. However, the research only looked at the effects of eating a particular diet for a few months. It is difficult to get a group of people to stick to a particular diet for any longer than this and the researchers do need some results available within a year or so.
It is common sense that a few months eating rubbish has no effect in a healthy person (or students would all leave university with T2). It is just difficult to undertake this kind of research for longer. It would also be unethical to ask a group of people to follow a diet which was suspected of increasing their chances of becoming irreversibly diabetic.

midnightrider said:

You are probably right of course. However, the research only looked at the effects of eating a particular diet for a few months. It is difficult to get a group of people to stick to a particular diet for any longer than this and the researchers do need some results available within a year or so.
It is common sense that a few months eating rubbish has no effect in a healthy person (or students would all leave university with T2). It is just difficult to undertake this kind of research for longer. It would also be unethical to ask a group of people to follow a diet which was suspected of increasing their chances of becoming irreversibly diabetic.

Click to expand...

If it's common sense that a few months eating rubbish has no effect in a healthy person why waste money only looking a the effects over a few months? Crazy. Unless you want to sell more carbs.

zand said:

If it's common sense that a few months eating rubbish has no effect in a healthy person why waste money only looking a the effects over a few months? Crazy. Unless you want to sell more carbs.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question - Who is the sponsor?

From the first piece of supporting paperwork

"It is now generally recognised that a diet which is high in fat, particularly saturated fat, sodium and sugar and which is low in complex carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables increases the risk of chronic diseases – particularly cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer."

Nice to see that they went in with an open mind... why do they insist on lumping saturated fat in with sugar virtually every time...sad...

bulkbiker said:

From the first piece of supporting paperwork

"It is now generally recognised that a diet which is high in fat, particularly saturated fat, sodium and sugar and which is low in complex carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables increases the risk of chronic diseases – particularly cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer."

Nice to see that they went in with an open mind... why do they insist on lumping saturated fat in with sugar virtually every time...sad...

Click to expand...

Ah, but by saying 'generally recognised' they saved themselves a whole lot of work, didn't they?
I mean, think how difficult it would have been to actually PROVE that claim

Brunneria said:

Ah, but by saying 'generally recognised' they saved themselves a whole lot of work, didn't they?
I mean, think how difficult it would have been to actually PROVE that claim

Click to expand...

Indeed.. and I think impossible to prove because it's false..