- Messages
- 83
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
- Dislikes
- All of the other things
Ok, so I apologise in advance for the word vomit that may follow... I think most of the questions I'm going to ask are rhetorical. I basically just want to vent... think out loud... and maybe find out if others feel the same way as me.
I haven't contributed a great deal to the forum yet - I'm still reasonably new, but what I have done is read a LOT of threads, particularly in relation to T2D and nutrition. A couple of days ago, someone (sorry, can't remember who or on what thread) posted this video:
I've now watched quite a few videos of this guy and he seems pretty sensible and thorough. However, I've also watched quite a few other videos about nutrition, many of which also seem sensible and thorough - not specifically related to diabetes and not specifically related to weight loss (my two main focuses at the moment). So, for argument's sake, let's remove T2D and obesity from the equation in my case and say I was just looking for some scientifically proven evidence in favour of a day to day way of eating to give me the best longevity of life and medical outcome.
Nutritional science (as I understand it) is essentially the proving or disproving of hypothesis around what happens to our bodies based on the food we eat. So, when someone sets out to prove or disprove a hypothesis, there is usually a motivational bias at play. For example, someone wanting to prove that a plant based diet (see Netflix video - What the Health), which was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me) is THE best nutritional diet for health and longevity (including for weight control, diabetes, heart disease blah blah) is able to find studies that support that theory and, if the way they convey their message is convincing enough, people will believe it. Now, when I say "people will believe it", I'm not implying it's a lie necessarily. What I'm saying is that I've pretty much concluded that the vast majority of studies have motivational bias at their core and therefore, depending on what they are trying to prove, once they have enough evidence in their favour, will end the study and publish their results. There are many studies (some cited in Paul Mason's video above), where the findings were intentionally never published or the results were at least obscured or skewed in some way.
[more to follow - the site doesn't seem to want me to publish this long post in one]
I haven't contributed a great deal to the forum yet - I'm still reasonably new, but what I have done is read a LOT of threads, particularly in relation to T2D and nutrition. A couple of days ago, someone (sorry, can't remember who or on what thread) posted this video:
I've now watched quite a few videos of this guy and he seems pretty sensible and thorough. However, I've also watched quite a few other videos about nutrition, many of which also seem sensible and thorough - not specifically related to diabetes and not specifically related to weight loss (my two main focuses at the moment). So, for argument's sake, let's remove T2D and obesity from the equation in my case and say I was just looking for some scientifically proven evidence in favour of a day to day way of eating to give me the best longevity of life and medical outcome.
Nutritional science (as I understand it) is essentially the proving or disproving of hypothesis around what happens to our bodies based on the food we eat. So, when someone sets out to prove or disprove a hypothesis, there is usually a motivational bias at play. For example, someone wanting to prove that a plant based diet (see Netflix video - What the Health), which was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me) is THE best nutritional diet for health and longevity (including for weight control, diabetes, heart disease blah blah) is able to find studies that support that theory and, if the way they convey their message is convincing enough, people will believe it. Now, when I say "people will believe it", I'm not implying it's a lie necessarily. What I'm saying is that I've pretty much concluded that the vast majority of studies have motivational bias at their core and therefore, depending on what they are trying to prove, once they have enough evidence in their favour, will end the study and publish their results. There are many studies (some cited in Paul Mason's video above), where the findings were intentionally never published or the results were at least obscured or skewed in some way.
[more to follow - the site doesn't seem to want me to publish this long post in one]
Last edited: