@Beating-My-Betes: This will be my last post on this particular thread. I lost my way earlier in terms of the reasons I come to this forum and for that I apologise to you, staff, and anyone else reading.
I'm here to help myself get healthier and manage my diabetes, to share conversation, opinions, tips and hopefully a few laughs too with any and all types of diabetic people, from all walks of life, and to hopefully be able to pay all that back at some point and help others who are in the position I've been in for the past couple of months. I love this forum, it's a very special place and it's helped me immensely through an extremely worrying, stressful and difficult period post-diagnosis. This forum has changed my life for the better, so much so I don't even recognise the person I was anymore - it feels like that was an entirely different person now. It has done that, first and foremost, because of the amazing people and the approach used where those people openly post their own personal results, links to scientific papers, independent testimonies and so on. It does this for a variety of approaches, everyone is unique with how diabetes affects them. However, I'm sorry to say it is my opinion that posts, such as yours on this thread and on others, are not helpful to the cause. It was unfair of me to challenge so strongly earlier and I shouldn't have reacted as I did to your post in reply to me. However, in my opinion, it's also unfair of you to post anecdotal, costly and potentially biased resources on a forum where vulnerable people are seeking help. If you want to advocate for a method of diabetes management, I don't feel it's fair or appropriate to just offer your opinion, post a URL to a costly website, and then hold everyone else to account with a different view, without also backing up your opinions. You need to put in the leg work, prove it works through your results, and demonstrate through relevant independent, rigorous research and studies that it works for a wider group too. Anyway, that's why I reacted as I did. I'm not excusing my posts, it's on me alone for my inappropriate responses, but I wanted to convey my perspective.
Once again, it's best that we agree to disagree, neither of us is ever going to be persuaded to the other's point of view. I don't want to be part of turning the atmosphere on the forum into one of conflict. It's too special a place to risk that, so as I said, this will be my last reply on this thread.
"Not helpful to the cause"? Not sure which cause you're talking about, specifically. There is only one cause, as far as I'm concerned, and that's to help people beat their diabetes. Limiting options from, yes, vulnerable people is something i believe to be a huge issue.
You aren't the only person here to take the stance that this information be withheld from the general forum discussion. There are now many, also vulnerable people, who have smashed their diabetes into remission following the MD plan. Hiding that information from people is, at least in medical parlance (and in my opinion) an absence of the duty of care.
As for the existence of rigorous scientific evidence being the yardstick for what should be posted here. I'm sure many agree...and yet... Certainly, no one seems to bat an eyelid when certain members recommend the carnivore diet to other members. Unless I've missed something, there is zero rigorous science to back such a protocol. And despite decades of metabolic ward studies that have determined that no particular macro-nutrient is implicated in weight-gain, there are still seemingly weekly posts where carbs are blamed for this very thing. Not only is this notion not supported by rigorous science, but it is contrary to rigorous science. Again...no one (but me) seems to challenge this. Ditto for claims that carbs simpliciter are responsible for T2D.
Worse than that, there are regular occurrences of recommendations for people (especially older women) not to worry about higher cholesterol levels. Putting aside the irony that this notion seems to be borne of low-carb gurus inferring causation from epidemiology, it seems to be a conclusion that is almost if not totally confounded by reverse-causality. Very vulnerable people being advised by lay-people that their high cholesterol may actually be protective is very troubling, n'est ce pas?
And to be very clear, I'm not blaming the members here. While we all have a certain amount of personal sovereignty when it comes to the decisions we make about who and what to trust when considering our own health, it can be difficult to separate the fact from fiction. And it becomes very easy, having found a particular protocol to work, to just implicitly trust the veracity of any/all the information that comes down that same pipeline...without much question (It may start innocently with the cutting carbs, but it soon ends up in a world of testicles (The eating of, and the sunning of; preferably different sets of testicles for each practices
)
It's not even that people wouldn't want to know the ins-and-outs of it all. It's just impossible for most of us, even if interested (and presuming available time), to not only learn how to read studies, but to have the various domain knowledge and epistemological/ethical framework to be able to rule out one's own biases from the evaluation process. So it's understandable that we have to 'speculate' somewhat, hedge our bets and go with our guts, when it comes to who we trust.
As I said, in an earlier post, where no science exists there should be honest enquiry and appraisal before outright dismissal. I also reject the notion that I need to demonstrate anything in particular. Why? Because, as I've already said, there is no magic to their program. It's very easy to see how it works.
To speak to some of your other points: Again, I'm not 'sending' anyone anywhere. I'm just showing where those who don't believe in levitating dogs can go and see levitating dogs.
As for the expense criticism: yes...what they're offering is expensive. But what they're offering is a program that includes both group and individual coaching. It's something that most will not need, nor have any interest in. But I'm sure the benfits of such personal coaching, even if in other domains, is not lost on you. Even people at the top of their 'game' understand the value of personalised coaching.
But it is not essential. At the most, one would only need to buy their book. But there's not any need to do even that. Just as with DietDoctor (Who also offer a paid option), the MD guys also offer enough info, recipes etc via their website, youtube videos/streams and via free podcasts. In fact, as long as someone were not interested in the whys-and-wherefores, the program (in not too dissimilar a fashion to a keto diet plan) can be summed up in a couple of sentences and one set of infographics
Anyway, I believe it's important to remember that the sign above the door still says "The Global Diabetes Community", despite what seems like an almost-complete transition to a low-carb forum. I don't think this was the original intent of the owners of the site (Existence of a separate low-carb section in the forum is perhaps testament to this). It is completely understandable how it has happened, however. Survivorship-bias will always ten to crowd out contrary ideas, until the point of being an echo-chamber. Fine for a low-carb facebook group, but perhaps not the intention of a diabetes site. Again I could be wrong.
There is a way to be able to open the conversation wider, at least in terms of the overal philosophy of the community at large. And that is to caveat and disclaim the information being presented. No need for explicit endorsement nor outright denial.
Either way, science or not, I don't see this place ever embracing the MD program. While it is a lot better now, there used to be a much more openly pronounced and openly-tolerated anti-vegan sentiment here. Things have improved immensely, however. That might be due to coincidental circumstances (certain members having left, or not spending too much time here). But perhaps this has something to do with some internal agreement to oust such sentiment from the boards, where possible. I'm grateful, either way. This sentiment is still there, bubbling under the surface, and occasionally pops through in certain posts, but it is much more muted.
Still...the 'vegan agenda' conspiracy thinking runs deep. A shame, really...as there's nothing about achieving success with the MD program that necessitates giving up animal products.
www.diabetes.co.uk
