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="Mbaker" data-source="post: 2556185" data-attributes="member: 256617">Diet Doctor are not fast and loose with the truth and are respectful to plant advocates to the point of having dietary recommendations.  In my assessment of what I found, I will either cite my example, which is middle of the range for a typically adherent low carber or reference other evidence.  I will prove they don't tell the truth.  I went through the MD website taking some time on the science (fiction) section, for example:"We’ve learned that in general, <a href="https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/3-pillars-of-insulin-resistance-diet/" target="_blank">low-fat, plant-based diets with whole foods</a> are good for your overall health and longevity, especially if you’re living with diabetes. "And we’ve learned that there are some substantial risks to meat consumption and eating high fat diets, especially when you consider extremes like processed meats, or a high-fat diet like the <a href="https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/ketosis-ketogenic-diets-misleading/" target="_blank">keto diet</a> or <a href="https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/carnivore-diet-and-type-1-diabetes/" target="_blank">carnivore diet</a> (as tempting as they can be)."Clearly it is easy to contradict both points with either science or common sense.  For common sense I can remember my aunties living into their 80's, my grandma 90's, mum currently 79 (traditional Jamaican diet, with SAD influences), I remember my friends (both white and black) having access to grand parents (this would have been the days of meat and 2 veg, and when school kids were being given a free bottle of milk).  With regards to science no epidemiological study even meets the hazard threshold of "2", so it is fraudulent to use words such as "substantial".  For those who don't know the hazard ratio needs to be 2 or greater to then move on to a "real" trial such as an RCT.  As "1" means no effect, all so called reliable tests are at circa 1.3 (miniscule, tortured data absolute risks), when smoking causes cancer has a comparative is anything between 10x to 20x plus in comparative types of methodology.If you can prove someone is being (willfully) liberal with the truth, you then have to question any other hypothesis; here's just some extracts from one of their sections:[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/high-carb-diet/[/URL]"One of the most popular diet fads right now is the low-carb diet."Truth:[ATTACH=full]57246[/ATTACH]"And while the low-carb diet has been shown to help people lose weight in the short term, when these diets are followed long-term (i.e., for over a year), studies show that they're not very effective at helping with lasting weight loss or preventing chronic diseases like diabetes."Truth:The 96 kg was 9 years before being diagnosed.  Seven and three quarter years later 9.5 kg still off (whilst increasing muscle mass):[ATTACH=full]57249[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]57251[/ATTACH]"However, the reason why these diets are so effective for this purpose is that they're usually very calorie-restrictive and often don't provide enough calories to sustain an individual over the long term"Truth:I have 5 years of date and time stamped pictures.  It is false to say I am calorie restricted in anyone's eyes; I eat around 200 grams of animal protein a day with no powders.  Some pictures are in earlier posts in this stream and littered over this site for years."Keto and the like are even worse for people with diabetes! This is another place where short-term results are deceptive, because by reducing your intake of carbs/sugar, you do notice a clear decrease in your blood sugar levels!"Truth:Keto has been proven clinical to reverse Type 2 (Virta Health, Eric Westman, Jason Fung, Dr Troy, Diet Doctor, Diabetes.co.uk, Dr Unwin.....), my self:[ATTACH=full]57252[/ATTACH]"However, the cost is that you're drastically increasing your insulin resistance, which means that any return to eating foods high in carbohydrates will skyrocket your sugar levels, lead to weight gain, and can leave you in a worse place than you were before you tried low carb diets!"My Hom-IR: 0.97 (Fasting insulin 5.1, FBG: 4.3)My recent 50 gram porridge (30 grams of carbs) test:[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/best-way-to-make-porridge.191744/post-2553363[/URL]This was without prepping my body, I was able to get a maximum of 7.0 mmol/L with no exercise (a further test with a walk 6.3).  Whilst these numbers are not acceptable to me.  This is proof that a well formulated meat-based diet does not increase IR."Eating too much protein in the long term can also put stress on your kidneys if you're not careful!"Truth:The 2014 measured came about after my "get healthy" diet change to more fruits, oats and the like.  I eat a high animal protein focused diet.   Using metformin initially dropped my GFR below 60, latest 68:[ATTACH=full]57253[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]57254[/ATTACH]The studies on kidney health and high protein are conclusive, when kidneys are healthy both low and high carb diets have no effect.  Studies I have seen.  References are Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, Dr Donald Layman, Dr Stuart Philips, Dr Ted Naiman, Dr Jason Fung.  The 2 middle Dr's are independently recognised as authorities in this area and all reference studies etc, Dr Fung is a kideny specialist.Dr David Unwin has a trial protein and the kidneys:[MEDIA=twitter]1422437079900901399[/MEDIA]In very short order I have been able to put a coach and horses through claims on MD, with no "yeah but" comebacks.  If something is not true it of the opposite.  As it is provable scientifically and observationally that MD misrepresent, this site should seriously consider banning or putting a fact check underneath every post - I am serious about this point and am openly asking the mods to rule on this.  It is my position that the MD method has too many risks at this stage to recommend and should not be promoted when the "experts" are not telling the truth in their statements, as evidenced in this sites own App published data and anecdotes.Am I able to promote my wifes method of Diabetes Remission and Control, she is a qualifed health care professional, who has worked with well known premiership football teams, has goI have been able to uncover just in this stream that reported HDL is outside of what is deemed normal and LDL reported again witnessed in "standard" available data, is in the realm of more overall mortality.  Is it ethical to promote a diet that results in lowering past normal the biomarker which has a higher association with heart health than LDL, based on what a Dr says.  And when tested against actual hard end points (death) has a higher association with death in non-biased datasets.We don't even know what the other metrics produced are for the MD protocol are for example in the attached Virta data.  If the comeback is "LDL" goes high in 33% of meat eaters on low carb, then I would refer to Virta data which shows (again on standard metrics) that overal risk goes down (mine from 4% to circa 2%) and the ApoB.  Attached is the Virta "proven" data.  This deals with many of the topics covered with facts.   The criticism that this trial was not randomised, does not change the values of the data, a 4.3 mmol/L fbg is still 4.3.</blockquote>

Verification

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to Thread