Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes Research
VLCD - Liquid vs Solid
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AdamJames" data-source="post: 1655929" data-attributes="member: 459333"><p>Well of course, any use of the word 'remarkable' is open to question!</p><p></p><p>I find the results remarkable. I mean, wind back the clock ten years, and ask yourself: would you *expect* the results found in the first experiment, for example? I'm pretty sure most people found it remarkable, because most people who were made aware of it remarked on it!</p><p></p><p>Re cherry picking: fair comment and the criteria was made clear by the experimenters, but unfortunately not always by the press!</p><p></p><p>And the cherry picking from one experiment to the next was done quite wisely, I think:</p><p></p><p>* First time, pick people who haven't been diagnosed for many years, to see if the idea yields results worth pursuing and get a feel for what is going on.</p><p>* Second time, pick two groups: people who haven't been diagnosed for long, and those who have, to see what difference that makes.</p><p>* Third time, less focus on whether the process works, and more on whether it works in a practical setting, i.e. partly ask: will people stick to the process?</p><p></p><p>Seems like good science to me, though of course any experiment is going to have critics - anything can always be done better.</p><p></p><p>Re the success rate you quote - are *you* cherry picking there, i.e. picking the trial with the least success, and even then only a sub-group of that trial? Because a more accurate representation of the stats I think would be to say that the idea that weight loss is linked to remission still has a very good stat - much better than the 40-46% you quote. As I say, the third experiment was partly asking: how many people will stick to it.</p><p></p><p>Re the criteria for remission (again, to be specific, in the third trial - you don't mention what you feel about the first experiment for example, I'm not sure whether you find any positives there), I share your disappointed in that - I don't think that says much about whether people's metabolism has improved, or whether they are eating to work around a poor metabolism.</p><p></p><p>So yes there's plenty to criticise, but really, to react to the Newcastle / Glasgow experiments without mentioning a single positive thing is just a little bit skew and suggests an agenda, albeit I suspect a very well-intentioned one.</p><p></p><p>I'm guessing since you mention LCHF that that is the agenda - you feel sure that would have even better results and should be getting explored and publicised at least as much as this Newcastle stuff.</p><p></p><p>I'm inclined to agree, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the results were even better. If and when that takes the scientific and medical world by storm as the new best way to deal with diabetes, I'll look at that with the same open eyes as, for just one example, the Newcastle stuff.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AdamJames, post: 1655929, member: 459333"] Well of course, any use of the word 'remarkable' is open to question! I find the results remarkable. I mean, wind back the clock ten years, and ask yourself: would you *expect* the results found in the first experiment, for example? I'm pretty sure most people found it remarkable, because most people who were made aware of it remarked on it! Re cherry picking: fair comment and the criteria was made clear by the experimenters, but unfortunately not always by the press! And the cherry picking from one experiment to the next was done quite wisely, I think: * First time, pick people who haven't been diagnosed for many years, to see if the idea yields results worth pursuing and get a feel for what is going on. * Second time, pick two groups: people who haven't been diagnosed for long, and those who have, to see what difference that makes. * Third time, less focus on whether the process works, and more on whether it works in a practical setting, i.e. partly ask: will people stick to the process? Seems like good science to me, though of course any experiment is going to have critics - anything can always be done better. Re the success rate you quote - are *you* cherry picking there, i.e. picking the trial with the least success, and even then only a sub-group of that trial? Because a more accurate representation of the stats I think would be to say that the idea that weight loss is linked to remission still has a very good stat - much better than the 40-46% you quote. As I say, the third experiment was partly asking: how many people will stick to it. Re the criteria for remission (again, to be specific, in the third trial - you don't mention what you feel about the first experiment for example, I'm not sure whether you find any positives there), I share your disappointed in that - I don't think that says much about whether people's metabolism has improved, or whether they are eating to work around a poor metabolism. So yes there's plenty to criticise, but really, to react to the Newcastle / Glasgow experiments without mentioning a single positive thing is just a little bit skew and suggests an agenda, albeit I suspect a very well-intentioned one. I'm guessing since you mention LCHF that that is the agenda - you feel sure that would have even better results and should be getting explored and publicised at least as much as this Newcastle stuff. I'm inclined to agree, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the results were even better. If and when that takes the scientific and medical world by storm as the new best way to deal with diabetes, I'll look at that with the same open eyes as, for just one example, the Newcastle stuff. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes Research
VLCD - Liquid vs Solid
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…