And that is the root of the problem.
You are so limited in your perspective that you cannot see what you are being told, over and over again on this thread (and everywhere else on the forum, if you go and look).
The thing that unites diabetics is that they got diagnosed as having high blood glucose, and given a label of ‘Diabetic’. With the likely addition of a secondary label, ‘type 1’, ‘type 2’, ‘type 3’ (there are lots of those), ‘insipidus’, ‘bronze’, etc.
These types of D are fundamentally different. In their physical manifestation (autoimmune, insulin resistance, alpha and/or beta cell damage, or total pancreatic failure, AVP/ADH hormones being wonky, damaging levels of ferritin, etc.), and their treatment (insulin, diet, exercise, oral meds, phlebotamy, etc).
The thing that makes every diabetic an individual within those groups, is that each has a personal experience, based on the individual way that their body is failing. No two type 1s have the same experience, from each other, from yesterday, from tomorrow. Every day an adventure. Each type 2 has a different carb tolerance, level of insulin resistance, reaction to different foods, to medication... The variation is endless.
Your belief that there are universal rules that apply to everyone is... well, actually, it is betraying your lack of understanding of ‘diabetes’ with every post.
You have people posting on every side, trying to explain this, but you reject what they are saying. Over and over again.
So the carb tolerating diabetics in that study are not relevant to me. My body doesn’t tolerate carbs. Thats a fundamental difference, right there. A high carb diet would send me into a cycle of hypers and hypos and i would have been expelled from the study by day 3. Actually, I would have walked out as soon as I got ill, or been excluded from the study before it started.
These studies have stringent selection processes and I would have been weeded out as soon as they discovered my reaction to carbs and my other health issues. It is a common feature of these studies that they are only as good as their selection process. Just as Professor Taylor’s Newcastle Diet studies select their participants.
You did know that, didn’t you? That the ND pre-study selection process weeded out large numbers of ‘unsuitable’ diabetics? Rejecting those with longer term diagnoses, those who did not have a BMI high enough, and those with other health issues and co-morbidities. Yet even then, the participants did not all respond in the same way. The non-responders seem to be swept aside, with all the focus being on the responders.
I would not even have got through the ND selection process (no point in trying to defat a liver that doesn’t have fat in it, is there?).
So no, those high carb studies you mention are of no relevance to me. Just as the ND is of no relevance to me.
Or to many of the other people posting on this thread who are banging their heads against the wall of your faith in science and its universal application.
Triglycerides (fat in your blood): 72 / 47 
