• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Please be careful

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maybird
  • Start Date Start Date
Brett
I think the answer is that there is no easy answer to many questions: science moves forward in a process of testing, evaluation and revaluation .
(actually I suspect there is an easy answer to diet in the form of eating nothing to excess and doing plenty of exercise but that's the common sense answer not the scientific one)
What I hate is the misrepresentation of the process .
Ancel Keys wasn't some sort of idiot with an axe to grind (look at his biography on wiki to see the things he did)
The major researchers aren't idiots either. Two I didn't mention are Brown and Goldstein, who won the Nobel prize for their discovery of the metabolism of cholesterol. I doubt that many people who claim to be experts would have any idea how to really evaluate their research and the processes involved (including me, so I have to leave it to their peers)

The people who write guidelines spend a long time on it reading lots of papers and evaluating the evidence.
Doing this sort of thing is very much more difficult than writing a few catchy lines on a popular blog or forum post. It's also much harder to go back to the originals and see if these popularists are really telling the 'truth' (and to try to explain what you've found)
Can't do anymore you will be glad to find out, I've got a 'real' essay to write which I have put off all morning!
 
phoenix said:
Sorry for the length and for the fact that it is not on the main topic but answers a theme that has come up in several posts. I realise that most people won't read it. :lol:
Click to expand...

I would very much like to give it a try but don't expect a response soon since there is an entire course in your post.
 

Phoenix

Can you say if that was a copy and paste job or did it all come from you. As I said I would love to study it but not if it is just a list of gumf from many other opinionated sources.
 
Jamrox said:
I bought a monitor and think its a good investment for me.
Click to expand...

Invaluable I'd say. NHS would be better giving everyone one free of charge and running courses on how to use them and how to interpret the results. It's direct feedback, this works, that doesn't, that's a bit dodgy.
 
phoenix said:
What I hate is the misrepresentation of the process.
Click to expand...

Non specialists skim reading the peer literature and getting the wrong end of the stick is very common.

"An ad hoc mining of the historical record can lead to a spurious association of any finding in human population genetics with any historical episode that could potentially explain it." ( Barbujani G: Genes, people and languages. American Journal of Human Genetics )
 
In the post made by phoenix a link was given to an article by Denise Minger which concludes with quotes by Ancel Keys.

But Ancel didn’t buy it. In his paper “Human atherosclerosis and the diet” (PDF), he writes that “from these animal experiments only, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the cholesterol content of human diets is unimportant in human atherosclerosis.” Likewise, in some of his metabolic ward studies, Keys found that altering dietary cholesterol in the context of a normal diet had only minor effects on blood cholesterol, concluding that “attention to this factor alone accomplishes little.” And in his paper “The relationship of the diet to the development of atherosclerosis in man,” Keys is pretty clear about his views:

“The evidence—both from experiments and from field surveys—indicates that the cholesterol content, per se, of all natural diets has no significant effect on either the serum cholesterol level or the development of atherosclerosis in man.”

Saturated fat is part of our natural diet.

FB
 
Squire, I put copied material in quotes and cite sources. Just for interest I put my post in a plagiarism checker, http://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/ Quite correctly it came back with the phrases in quotes and said I should make sure that they were referenced (they are) The rest is all my own words and it should be considering how long it took to write.
 
phoenix said:
The people who write guidelines spend a long time on it reading lots of papers and evaluating the evidence.
Click to expand...

and they come up with this advice. This is from the NHS Choices website.

"It is not true that if you have diabetes you will need to eat a special diet. You should eat a healthy diet high in fibre, fruit and vegetables and low in fat, salt and sugar.

Different foods will affect you in different ways, so it is important to know what to eat and when to get the right amount of glucose for the insulin you are taking. A diabetes dietitian can help you work out a dietary plan that can be adapted to your specific needs. Read more about healthy eating."

I am not taking insulin
 

Many members of the forum are not taking insulin and as such need to eat a special diet. Why do some people here not understand that fact?

FB
 
 
Fatbird
If that is what Keys said, then why do so many blogs demonise him ?
Actually he wrote a huge amount over many, many years . He advocated a Mediterranean diet that tended to be higher in plants and lower in animal fats. Olive oil , the predominant fat is mainly monounsaturated. (He and his wife authored two books, one on the Med diet and one on the value of legumes) I got his age wrong, he was almost 101 when he died.

Actually, I don't think it is true to say he never found evidence on saturated fat I'm certainly not going through all his papers but you can. There are several here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term ... BAuthor%5D)%20AND%20saturated%20far

The abstract for last paper on pubmed says (unfortunately no full paper available)

Fatbird, what has insulin got to do with the type of fat in a diet?
 
I saw the dietician and she said healthy diet etc. I listened , did what I was told etc but felt ill about 2 hours after eating cereal for breakfast or brown bread sandwich for lunch.
I decided to buy a monitor and test , my sugars were high ( type 2 diet controlled by the way).
I tried reducing carbs and as I said earlier feel so much better. I am not saying its for everyone though.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 

I could not ask for more.
 
Actually I could state more. The more I read about Ancel Keys the more I respect him. He was a giant in the diet field. I know that people often quote the fact that his research results might not pass muster in the modern world but this takes no heed of the major contribution he made to our understanding of diet and health. He lived to 100 years old so tell him he was wrong.

I know about his famous graph with omission and I know it was never explained but this should never cause disrespect to a great man. He added to our knowledge.
 
phoenix said:
Fatbird, what has insulin got to do with the type of fat in a diet?
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with removing excess carbs from the diet if they cannot be compensated for with insulin as most oral drugs are a blunt instrument in coping with carbs and with D&E cutting the carbs is even more of an essential tool!
 
Trouble I have with understanding lchf, (type 1 or 2) is the fact by doing so and yes obviously better sugar levels in doing so, may actually be making other problems that may happen in the future, as previously discussed on diff thread. The immediate concerns would be it would In Fact disguise lada (type 1.5), where the individual would be producing enough of their own insulin in early days, but could maybe manage perfectly well with a single base injections and moderate carbs. I know when I was diagnosed at the start needed very little insulin.

Also, in the long run wouldn't this diet lead to a greater level of insulin intolerance due to the high fat, so whereas low carb and diet in the short term would enable the individual to lose some internal fat, if that was a problem for said individual, and re introducing moderate carbs would then have less resistance.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
This explains a lot about type two diabetes.

The idiotic dietary advice we give to diabetes patients

It is true that in people who do not have diabetes, eating a high-carbohydrate diet probably does little harm – although there are some who believe that a switch from fat to carbohydrate in the diet has driven the current surge in obesity levels.

But in type 2 diabetes, a high-carbohydrate diet puts increased stress on the ß cells and will worsen insulin resistance. In fact, the only pathway the body has for getting rid of excess glucose – when liver and muscle stores are full – is to convert glucose into fat in the liver, then export this fat via VLDL/triglycerides to adipose tissue.

And this is a process driven by high insulin levels. In short, if you have type 2 diabetes and you eat a high-carbohydrate diet, you will push up blood glucose levels and blood insulin levels. You will also create hypertriglyceridaemia and, due to protein transfer from HDL to VLDL, a low HDL level. Which is the exact metabolic state now known to be associated with CHD – metabolic syndrome, or syndrome X.

You will probably also create non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), as the liver fills with fat generated from glucose. If, on the other hand, you eat fat, this cannot have any impact on blood glucose levels. While glucose can be converted to fat, fat cannot be converted back to glucose.

A high- fat diet also has no impact on raising insulin levels, as absorption of fat into adipose tissue requires only a low background insulin level. A high-fat diet will not raise VLDL levels or lower HDL levels either. In short, a high-fat diet is theoretically perfect for people with type 2 diabetes. But a high-fat diet raises LDL levels, doesn’t it? We are repeatedly told this, but it doesn’t happen to be true.

Here, for example, is a quote from Dr William Castelli, director of the Framingham study, one of the longest-running and most widely quoted studies in the world. ‘In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol’ – by which he means LDL2.

From a Pulse article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/kendrick-on ... 60.article

FB
 

Indeed the claim that saturated fat (especially from mammal meat and milk) is somehow harmful for humans to eat appears to fit very well "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

It would make far more sense to cast doubt on the very modern polyunsaturated fats from plants. Which have often been put into the human food chain without any form of clinical trial. Rather than anything people have eaten since prehistoric times.
 

Yet the NHS often appears to be very anti such testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…