hanadr
Expert
- Messages
- 8,157
- Dislikes
- soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
I wrote to DUK to find out about the results of the low carb study, which should already be in the public domain.
Have a look at what I got from them and my reply.
I don't think I understand what you are making of this research.
You say that it was shown that Cholesterol ratios of people on the lowered carbohydrate improved,but your researchers are worried about increased saturated fat intake.Why?
In addition, why should fibre or calcium be a problem in people eating plenty of green vegetables and dairy products?
The 2009 report abstract shows the same. Since those of us who restrict our carb intake typically have MUCH BETTER Blood glucose control, why are you still advocating the "plenty of carbohydrate" diet. When your own study shows that the low carb diet has the better health outcomes. It's not logical. The usual argument against a low carb diet is that it causes high cholesterol, but your study shows the opposite and also states that All macronutrients are fine. Any calcium deficit can be made up from dairy foods or supplements.
Have you not read the Neilson study, which with 44months of follow up also shows that low carb diabetics have far better blood profiles and weight control?
Your advice contradicts the findings of your own research, which is just DAFT.
Hana Rous
----
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: enquiry
Dear Hana Rous
Thank you for your enquiry which has been passed onto me by a colleague.
Day-to-day management of diabetes is one of Diabetes UK's stated Research Priorities following our stakeholder consultation in 2007. One of the areas identified was diet (and exercise). We still see relatively few applications in those areas as diet research is fraught with difficulties in terms of ensuring that they are properly controlled and designed, but they do exist.
A Diabetes UK-funded project reported on this area in 2006. The study examined the effects of a three-month programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese people with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes. 102 people with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three UK centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, cholesterol and blood pressure were assessed at the beginning of the study and after three months, and quality of diet was assessed at the end of the study.
The results showed that weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate group and the cholesterol ratios of people in this group improved. However, relative saturated fat intake was greater in the low-carbohydrate group, although total intakes were moderate.
The researchers concluded that carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake. They also commented that reduced fibre and calcium intakes are a concern. The same researchers are due to report in 2009 on the longer term effects of the low-carbohydrate diet in terms of blood glucose control and side effects such as kidney health, and on the effects of a diet that's higher in saturated fat.
This is a 2006 publication resulting from the Diabetes UK-funded study:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0
And here is an abstract from the 2009 APC from the same group who are not funded by Diabetes UK anymore.
P261
Dietary change over 2 years of a low carbohydrate, compared with prescribed energy deficit intervention for weight loss in Type 2 diabetes
TJ Gale, T Darbyw, R Paiseyw, R Paiseyw, P Parkew, J Piper, K Williamsw and ME Daly
Diabetes and Vascular Research, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK, wDiabetes Research Department, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK
Aim: To assess dietary intake in obese subjects with Type 2 diabetes
randomised to a 2-year intervention of carbohydrate restriction (LC)
or prescribed energy deficit (PED) for weight loss.
Methods: Group education advised on LC or PED for 6 months, and
thereafter on weight maintenance. At Baseline, 6 months and 2
years dietary intake was assessed using 5 day food diaries, analysed
using DietPlan6. Independent and paired sample T-tests were
performed.
Results: 259 subjects were randomised. The results of 57 LC and 64
PED completers of the study are reported here (SEM in brackets).
Daily energy intake was significantly reduced by both diets from
baseline to 6 months, and maintained to 2 years (LC:
1713.7Kcals(52.41), 1388.7Kcals(44.95), 1419.1Kcals(47.89), Po
0.001 and P50.465 respectively) (PED: 1839.1Kcals(62.68),
1694.3Kcals(59.12), 1620.7Kcals(50.30), P50.002 and P50.093
respectively), but significantly lower overall in the LC group
(P50.005). At 2 years, there was no significant difference in the
percentage energy from protein, fat or carbohydrate between
groups, nor fibre, and fruit and veg intakes compared to baseline,
but both groups did have a significantly reduced calcium intake (LC:
836.1(31.28) v 709.0(31.64)mg/day, Po0.001), PED: 853.9(33.01) v
759.5(29.00)mg/day, P50.006). LC also had a significant reduction
in saturated fat intake (26.8(1.71) v 23.0(1.54) g/day, P50.009).
Conclusion: Carbohydrate restriction achieves a greater reduction in
energy intake than an energy deficit diet over 6 months, which is
maintained at 2 years despite no difference in macronutrient
proportions. There was no detriment to saturated fat intakes, but
reduced fibre and calcium intakes are a concern.
As I am sure you are aware we recommend at each meal starchy carbohydrate should be included and do not advocate the use of low carbohydrate diets. We do however state that the amount of carbohydrate you eat is important to control blood glucose levels as well stating when including strachy carbohydrate at each meal to try to include those that are more slowly absorbed (ie have a lower GI). We have produced two new booklets, Eating Well with Type 1 diabetes and Eating Well with Type 2 diabetes which discuss carbohydrate in much greater detail and you may like to download them free of charge from our website www.diabetes.org.uk or by clicking on the links below
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/OnlineShop/ ... tes---NEW/
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/OnlineShop/ ... tes---NEW/
I hope this answers your enquiry but please do not hesitate to get in contact me if you require further information
Care Advisor
Healthcare and Policy team
Diabetes UK
Search the web and raise funds for Diabetes UK at www.everyclick.com/diabetesuk
Diabetes UK, the charity for people with diabetes
Diabetes UK is the operating name of The British Diabetic Association, a company limited by guarantee. Registered as a company in England & Wales No. 339181. Registered as a charity in England & Wales (No. 215199) and in Scotland (No. SC039136) VAT registration No. 232 3801 96. Registered address: Macleod House, 10 Parkway, London NW1 7AA.
This message contains confidential information solely for its intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender and then delete any copies of it.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses and the like, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect their systems or data. Diabetes UK accepts no responsibility in this regard.
Have a look at what I got from them and my reply.
I don't think I understand what you are making of this research.
You say that it was shown that Cholesterol ratios of people on the lowered carbohydrate improved,but your researchers are worried about increased saturated fat intake.Why?
In addition, why should fibre or calcium be a problem in people eating plenty of green vegetables and dairy products?
The 2009 report abstract shows the same. Since those of us who restrict our carb intake typically have MUCH BETTER Blood glucose control, why are you still advocating the "plenty of carbohydrate" diet. When your own study shows that the low carb diet has the better health outcomes. It's not logical. The usual argument against a low carb diet is that it causes high cholesterol, but your study shows the opposite and also states that All macronutrients are fine. Any calcium deficit can be made up from dairy foods or supplements.
Have you not read the Neilson study, which with 44months of follow up also shows that low carb diabetics have far better blood profiles and weight control?
Your advice contradicts the findings of your own research, which is just DAFT.
Hana Rous
----
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: enquiry
Dear Hana Rous
Thank you for your enquiry which has been passed onto me by a colleague.
Day-to-day management of diabetes is one of Diabetes UK's stated Research Priorities following our stakeholder consultation in 2007. One of the areas identified was diet (and exercise). We still see relatively few applications in those areas as diet research is fraught with difficulties in terms of ensuring that they are properly controlled and designed, but they do exist.
A Diabetes UK-funded project reported on this area in 2006. The study examined the effects of a three-month programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese people with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes. 102 people with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three UK centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, cholesterol and blood pressure were assessed at the beginning of the study and after three months, and quality of diet was assessed at the end of the study.
The results showed that weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate group and the cholesterol ratios of people in this group improved. However, relative saturated fat intake was greater in the low-carbohydrate group, although total intakes were moderate.
The researchers concluded that carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake. They also commented that reduced fibre and calcium intakes are a concern. The same researchers are due to report in 2009 on the longer term effects of the low-carbohydrate diet in terms of blood glucose control and side effects such as kidney health, and on the effects of a diet that's higher in saturated fat.
This is a 2006 publication resulting from the Diabetes UK-funded study:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0
And here is an abstract from the 2009 APC from the same group who are not funded by Diabetes UK anymore.
P261
Dietary change over 2 years of a low carbohydrate, compared with prescribed energy deficit intervention for weight loss in Type 2 diabetes
TJ Gale, T Darbyw, R Paiseyw, R Paiseyw, P Parkew, J Piper, K Williamsw and ME Daly
Diabetes and Vascular Research, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK, wDiabetes Research Department, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK
Aim: To assess dietary intake in obese subjects with Type 2 diabetes
randomised to a 2-year intervention of carbohydrate restriction (LC)
or prescribed energy deficit (PED) for weight loss.
Methods: Group education advised on LC or PED for 6 months, and
thereafter on weight maintenance. At Baseline, 6 months and 2
years dietary intake was assessed using 5 day food diaries, analysed
using DietPlan6. Independent and paired sample T-tests were
performed.
Results: 259 subjects were randomised. The results of 57 LC and 64
PED completers of the study are reported here (SEM in brackets).
Daily energy intake was significantly reduced by both diets from
baseline to 6 months, and maintained to 2 years (LC:
1713.7Kcals(52.41), 1388.7Kcals(44.95), 1419.1Kcals(47.89), Po
0.001 and P50.465 respectively) (PED: 1839.1Kcals(62.68),
1694.3Kcals(59.12), 1620.7Kcals(50.30), P50.002 and P50.093
respectively), but significantly lower overall in the LC group
(P50.005). At 2 years, there was no significant difference in the
percentage energy from protein, fat or carbohydrate between
groups, nor fibre, and fruit and veg intakes compared to baseline,
but both groups did have a significantly reduced calcium intake (LC:
836.1(31.28) v 709.0(31.64)mg/day, Po0.001), PED: 853.9(33.01) v
759.5(29.00)mg/day, P50.006). LC also had a significant reduction
in saturated fat intake (26.8(1.71) v 23.0(1.54) g/day, P50.009).
Conclusion: Carbohydrate restriction achieves a greater reduction in
energy intake than an energy deficit diet over 6 months, which is
maintained at 2 years despite no difference in macronutrient
proportions. There was no detriment to saturated fat intakes, but
reduced fibre and calcium intakes are a concern.
As I am sure you are aware we recommend at each meal starchy carbohydrate should be included and do not advocate the use of low carbohydrate diets. We do however state that the amount of carbohydrate you eat is important to control blood glucose levels as well stating when including strachy carbohydrate at each meal to try to include those that are more slowly absorbed (ie have a lower GI). We have produced two new booklets, Eating Well with Type 1 diabetes and Eating Well with Type 2 diabetes which discuss carbohydrate in much greater detail and you may like to download them free of charge from our website www.diabetes.org.uk or by clicking on the links below
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/OnlineShop/ ... tes---NEW/
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/OnlineShop/ ... tes---NEW/
I hope this answers your enquiry but please do not hesitate to get in contact me if you require further information
Care Advisor
Healthcare and Policy team
Diabetes UK
Search the web and raise funds for Diabetes UK at www.everyclick.com/diabetesuk
Diabetes UK, the charity for people with diabetes
Diabetes UK is the operating name of The British Diabetic Association, a company limited by guarantee. Registered as a company in England & Wales No. 339181. Registered as a charity in England & Wales (No. 215199) and in Scotland (No. SC039136) VAT registration No. 232 3801 96. Registered address: Macleod House, 10 Parkway, London NW1 7AA.
This message contains confidential information solely for its intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender and then delete any copies of it.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses and the like, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect their systems or data. Diabetes UK accepts no responsibility in this regard.
They don't seem to have changed much from the 'old' guidelines.Think I will stick to low carbing .Thanks but no thanks DUK!