Reply to Thread

Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2025 »

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 2384894" data-attributes="member: 196898">The problem with testimonials such as the document you shared here, is that (a) the audience is a cohort, in that it is a captive audience of the converted. (b) People who have bad results or who hit problems generally do not post this in a testimonials section of a website. (c) Neither of these websites used as a source is likely to print any such adverse comments anyway.  So this source of information is selective and can be considered partisan.The links I provided are to publicly published, usually peer-reviewed, scientific papers that are being claimed as providing proof to statements being made by the authors of the book.  One thing to consider is that T2D is until recently considered a one-way ticket to insulin therapy, as laid out in the NHS and NICE guidelines to GP's and HCP's.  The majority of T2D, I would hazard a guess, are elderly, and insulin users.  People who are insulin users are better equipped to deal with a high carb diet than those on orals or unmedicated.  Insulin Resistance and NAFLD are indeed being associated strongly with Type 2 diabetes but are not as far as I can see linked in the same way to Type 1 or 1.5.  So is the MD book correctly referencing research to studies into IR and NAFLD in the opening chapters where T2D is clearly being mentioned in the same breath as shown in the quote I posted.  There are also claims for cancer, and Alzheimers and COPD et al being made in that quote, but I see no scientific references being made in the referenced studies to relevant papers.  But I have seen WFPB advocates making the same claims in this Forum and elsewhere, but never with any backing evidence.  When I ask for such evidence, I am generally met with silence or more testimonials. Or glossy sales videos.</blockquote>

Verification

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to Thread