I've written to the BBC numerous times. It's a pointless activity. They will seek to justify even blatant breaches of their own editorial code.Why don’t you write to them and explain the errors and contradictions in the piece?
I've written to the BBC numerous times. It's a pointless activity. They will seek to justify even blatant breaches of their own editorial code.Why don’t you write to them and explain the errors and contradictions in the piece?
I decided to do that and got the following response, which was actually quite interesting:Why don’t you write to them and explain the errors and contradictions in the piece?
Is this assuming every diabetic uses insulin? And disregarding insulin resistance as a major feature of type 2?As you know, insulin management is very unique to the individual and their circumstances which means carb tolerance will vary.
Absolutely none of your anecdotal experience has anything to do with my post #5, with which you disagreed.
Again, and I repeat, not all T2s have to eat low carb to get normal numbers.
And, again, in the Newcastle study protocol, they returned to a diet of about 50% carbs. And, as already been pointed out, 36% (wow 36%!) are still experiencing normal-glycemia after 2 years. Who wouldn’t applaud that?
You'd have to ask the BBC Good Food website that question as they were the ones who said that but it could be what they're implying. If so, it's another illustration of their general lack of suitable knowledge of diabetes and the various ways of dealing with it.Is this assuming every diabetic uses insulin? And disregarding insulin resistance as a major feature of type 2?
But surely LCHF is a form of insulin management?Is this assuming every diabetic uses insulin? And disregarding insulin resistance as a major feature of type 2?
If you mean managing endogenous hyperinsulemia then yes I guess it is, but the way it read (to me anyway) in the letter was referring to exogenous insulin of the type used by all type 1 and some type 2 as that is the more widespread use of the word. Who knows which was meant for sureBut surely LCHF is a form of insulin management?
Shiba.
I gree that it is open to interpretation, but to me, as a T1 (who doesn't have the sensitivities that result from the media's and societie's prejudice about T2), I thought the reference to carb tolerance was quite progressive.If you mean managing endogenous hyperinsulemia then yes I guess it is, but the way it read (to me anyway) in the letter was referring to exogenous insulin of the type used by all type 1 and some type 2 as that is the more widespread use of the word. Who knows which was meant for sure
The cut off point for inclusion in DiRECT was diagnosed less than 6 years.If the Direct study success rate also included many who'd been diagnosed for a long time
And is the problem with DiRECT.. and weight loss by starvation especially.. long term weight loss maintenance is very difficult when it has been achieved using very low calorie diets.how easy or hard people find to stick with the protocol
Which is why it may be a good protocol for newly-diagnosed but not for longer or medium term.The cut off point for inclusion in DiRECT was diagnosed less than 6 years.
Well, that's precisely what the study seeks to find out by doing long term follow-ups. This issue is true for most weight-loss programs. Hence the need for properly supervised studies.And is the problem with DiRECT.. and weight loss by starvation especially.. long term weight loss maintenance is very difficult when it has been achieved using very low calorie diets.
And is the problem with DiRECT.. and weight loss by starvation especially.. long term weight loss maintenance is very difficult when it has been achieved using very low calorie diets.
Which is why it may be a good protocol for newly-diagnosed but not for longer or medium term.
Well, that's precisely what the study seeks to find out by doing long term follow-ups. This issue is true for most weight-loss programs. Hence the need for properly supervised studies.
If the study discovers that it works for a high percentage of recently diagnosed sufferers, but only half stick to the protocol then that is something that a doctor can communicate to a patient. i.e. this approach is not suitable for everyone, but may work for highly-motivated individuals. But this is true for any approach: not everything works for everyone, and the best way to discern is by properly conducted trials.
Look around you here.. there are more members here who have lost more weight than those on the DiRECT study and maintained it for years..And by the way, where is the data you clear asserts exists that shows weight loss for LCHF is more permanent
Anecdote is not data.Look around you here.. there are more members here who have lost more weight than those on the DiRECT study and maintained it for years..
Anecdote is not data.
A forum gives you no idea of the percentage of success because you have no way of knowing how many people who have failed on a certain program and not reported their failure. If you're going to compare with the DiRECT study then you need to find a study that has the same rigour as that study.
But anecdote doesn't reflect the real world, does it? If indeed most of the people who are failing at your method are not posting here their failure then in the real world it may be 90% failure. You cannot know.I disagree.. I'd far rather take anecdotal evidence from people who have been there and done it than some study that doesn't in the slightest reflect the real world. But that's just me...
Well, you should. Because if one method only has a 10% chance of success, then it's better not to advise about that method, and you have no idea what percentage is the success rate.I really don't care about the "percentage" of success as I'm not a percentage.
That is great and I'm happy for you, but you're not everyone. Other people may have success with other methods. Your insistence that because a method worked for you and therefore is the best is not helpful. Other methods may work better for other people.it has worked exceedingly well for me and I only care about my health.
It's not relevant because I'm just one person. Yes, Taylor did work for me after losing 17kg (now 13kg three years on). I have an A1c of 5.3% (34), and I passed the 75ml glucose test (Doctor: "this isn't supposed to happen"). I don't eat a particularly low-carb diet but I am careful about what I eat, and I do exercise about 5 hours a week.What about some more info from you?
Your insistence that because a method worked for you and therefore is the best is not helpful. Other methods may work better for other people.
But it has the weight of evidence behind it for a particular subset of people.
Anecdote is the real world my friend..real people telling real stories.But anecdote doesn't reflect the real world, does it?