Is a vegan diet effective for a T2D on orals?

Dr Snoddy said:

Hi, I have looked at the 2018 newsletter and it seems that the Oxford Vegetarian Study of the 1980's was a forerunner of the bigger EPIC study. I too am unsure how or if the data from the former was incorporated.

Click to expand...

The article I linked to says it was incorporated and had a special followup associated with that. I suspect that the follow up was to find out who was still alive and who had passed on. Not sure if the follow up asked if they were still following the same diet they declared in the first tranche. I seem to remember that when EPIC was started up across the northern hemisphere there were some groupings that were not really represented in the test sample, so there was a panic to make other data fit. One group was the black population, then there was the hispanic community, and the vegetarians.

Dr Snoddy said:

Further to the EPIC study: One analysis showed that meat-eaters consumed higher amounts of saturated fatty acids, protein, vitamins D, B2 and B12, zinc and iodine. Vegans consumed greater amounts of PUFA, fibre, Vitamins C and A, folate, magnesium, iron and copper. (Sobiecki et al, Nutr Res 2016: 36: 464-77
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27101764

Click to expand...

why does that list not surprise me. It sounds like they got their supplements on the hoof as it were. Vit A should have also been in the meat eaters section since this is abundant and more biovalent in meat. Calcium is missing.

zand said:

Ok...but what about the vit E claims? If that's true when I feel fully well again I will give it a go.for a trial period. Anything that will help me lose weight and get healthy.

Click to expand...

HAve some Mayo on it
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/...ents-not-recommended-for-those-with-diabetes/
I have seen other reports that also say Vit e in high quantity is toxic for humans. They did fnd an asociation with early mortality in a meta study recently, but I cannot find it at the moment

Ah
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/11_10_04.html
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-E

I have just started a new thread on nutrition advice studies recently published, It is not vegan or vegetarian per se, but raises questions that may be relevant to this thread

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/new-rct-studies-challenge-official-dietary-advice.166150/

The RCT study on supplements is relevant since we are possibly looking at supplementation issues here, The warning on Vit D and Calcium should be of special interest.

Diakat said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153574/

On lunch so have not read through and not sure if it deals with orals.

Click to expand...

Ok started looking at this study report. In the introduction there are several statements of fact such as "Vegetarian diets are inversely associated with risk of developing diabetes independent of the positive association of meat consumption with diabetes development."
I followed the trail back to the referenced paper that this statement is based on, and found that it was the AARP study of over a million participants. It was a prospect study on a closed group of people aged 50 to 71 at baseline, and who were by definition retired status. The baseline checks was a questionaire on diet, smoking and alcohol habits, but there was no medical checks to identify pre-existing health conditions, Now there was a question in the baseline about known familial cancer events, but not any other condition, Interesting that the smoking question had 31 levels of classification which indicates the study was originally part of the anti smoking campaign.

Now with particinpants in the age range 50 to 71 but also retired implies that many will be retired for health reasons caused by years of previous lifestyle, including occupational exposures. Many of the vegetarians in those days will have been associated with the Adventist or Mormon church so will be from a different environment to those from the workplace. So there are many confounders that were not considered. There was no follow up except a trawl of the BMD recods in the US, so any diet changes from baseline were not tracked. Other habits may have developed too which could also skew the findings.

So to bluntly claim that this study is proof that red meat and processed meat causes early death and that vegetarian diets ameliate that is IMHO on sandy soil. I do not accept the referenced study as being robust enough to justify those claims. The last thing I take from that study is that there was only a modest difference between the two sets anyway, so no evidence of a strong causal link at all.

Some of the other links I followed ended up at the Adventist studies that have been generally shown to be very poor epidemiological studies that do not support the claims being made, so I will not repeat the analysis I did before. It is on the forum somewhere in another thread.

Diakat said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153574/

On lunch so have not read through and not sure if it deals with orals.

Click to expand...

Now looking at the claims that there is an inverse relation between vegetarian diet and T2D but a positive one with meat based diets.
This appears to be from the following study from Saudi Arabia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426415/

This is the one Neil Barnard uses to back up his claims that he can cure Diabetes. It is by the way one that he wrote earlier. Certainly it does claim that many insulin users were able to gve up using insulin altogether, and the majority reduced their insulin needs by changing to a high carb low fat diet.

I will re-visit this study again shortly since it needs careful scrutiny. I do note that the dietary intervention he used was described as being "Near vegetarian" Only 26 days duration leading to 39% cure???? I may have rread that wrong. Back soon

Oldvatr said:

Now looking at the claims that there is an inverse relation between vegetarian diet and T2D but a positive one with meat based diets.
This appears to be from the following study from Saudi Arabia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426415/

This is the one Neil Barnard uses to back up his claims that he can cure Diabetes. It is by the way one that he wrote earlier. Certainly it does claim that many insulin users were able to gve up using insulin altogether, and the majority reduced their insulin needs by changing to a high carb low fat diet.

I will re-visit this study again shortly since it needs careful scrutiny. I do note that the dietary intervention he used was described as being "Near vegetarian" Only 26 days duration leading to 39% cure???? I may have rread that wrong. Back soon

Click to expand...

Following on I find this discussion on Effect of diets and T2DM where they varied the different parameters in a non meat diet plan and found
"the relationship of the various diet components among two groups of women, including fat, fiber plus sucrose, and the risk of T2DM. After adjustment, no associations were found between intakes of fat, sucrose, carbohydrate or fiber and risk of diabetes in both groups"

I find this conclusion worrying but there is no reference to a study that I can follow to see what their test methodology was. The duration of the monitoring is not stated, so was it a couple of weeks or 10 years on the altered diet? How are they estimating the risk. I wonder. But it forms the cornerstone of Barnards claims.

Edit: Here it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1315120
From Harvard and authored by Walter Willett and appears to be the Harvard Nurses study, which is still ongoing.

Apparently it uses BMI as the measure of risk of being T2D. OooooPsie

Oldvatr said:

Following on I find this discussion on Effect of diets and T2DM where they varied the different parameters in a non meat diet plan and found
"the relationship of the various diet components among two groups of women, including fat, fiber plus sucrose, and the risk of T2DM. After adjustment, no associations were found between intakes of fat, sucrose, carbohydrate or fiber and risk of diabetes in both groups"

I find this conclusion worrying but there is no reference to a study that I can follow to see what their test methodology was. The duration of the monitoring is not stated, so was it a couple of weeks or 10 years on the altered diet? How are they estimating the risk. I wonder. But it forms the cornerstone of Barnards claims.

Edit: Here it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1315120
From Harvard and authored by Walter Willett and appears to be the Harvard Nurses study, which is still ongoing.

Apparently it uses BMI as the measure of risk of being T2D. OooooPsie

Click to expand...

Moving on but with the same section of the original starting point, I find the following study referenced
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1951264/

This study is being used to prove that an LCHF diet causes T2DM, and in fact seems to demonstrate that there is a linear relationship between fat intake (in increments of 40 g/day) and the worsening of a GTT test,
The study starts off by declaring that none of the participants at baseline had a diagnosis of T2DM, but later on the test method compares those with T2DM against those with Glucose intolerance. and demonstrates that as the diabetes blood sugars rise, then increasing fat seems to increase the depth of T2DM. It is not at all clear from the summary what is actually going on in their testing, or what it is they are actually monitoring, or how they are controlling other dietary influences. One weakness is that the test uses the previous 24 hours diet as the registered baseline for each class, and the criterea are not described.

The study itself is a John Hopkins Uni report, and is hiding behind a paywall. I wonder why? Most other reports get put into Pubmed or similar public archive, but to stay behind a paywall implies that this is privately funded by persons unknown who wish to protect their interests.

There is something about this study that I am uneasy about. Something about it is fishy but I cannot see what. It is nothing to do with vegetarian diet as far as I can see, but clearly disses LCHF.

OK found something. The original San Luis trial was study to determine the prevalence of diabetes T2DM between Hispanics and NonHispanic Whites. The inital screening describes the GTT testing etc to identify diabetics in the group for further research, and they then moved onto the study, which is actually published in Pubmed and NCB! for free access.
So someone either hacked or gained access to that initial screening data and attempted to extract different info from it, which is why I had so many questions - those questions were not asked in the original trial.

Edit there was a pukka report that answers some of the queries,
https://www.andeal.org/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=250576

OK so the whole thing is estimated and modelled from the baseline data and the 20 people that went on to develop T2DM after 2 years. So it assumes that they kept to the same diet in that period? Very very weak methadology. There is no apparent measurement of carbohydrate intake at baseline, or the follow up so it is not viable to assume those parmeters would also remain constant.

No way is this a valid study.

Why is it impossible to have a sensible conversation around here. The followers of this diet make claims for their products that are apparently based on false data, and when this is questioned then they get in a huff and complain. Sorry if I step on your toes but I need to live healthily too and I find your diet is harmful to me, It may also be harmful to others on this forum, which is why we need these questions answered properly.

I have done the same thing to LCHF so it is not a vendetta. I did the same for the Mediterranean Diet, and the South Beach diet, and I had a field day with Atkins. If promises are made that are based on lies and distortions then we need to see this in the clear light of day so that we can come to informed decision. Debate is that you put up your side of things, then I put up mine.

If you disagree with what I say then counter it with other evidence. I want to find the truth (see my signature) as I was taught as a scientist to question things.