A reader of this blog wrote to Hope Warshaw, author of the “eat your carbs and take your drugs” article in Diabetes Health that was the subject of my last post. I didn’t see his original email to her, but he did forward me her response. Here’s the opening:
Rather than throwing stones and continually citing Richard Bernstein, MD, who as far as I know has only written consumer books and not published one research paper on his recommendations, or discussing your own experience of one, how about providing/discussing citations of well conducted long term research studies in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (or even prevention trials) who more successfully manage glycemia, lipids and blood pressure and eat healthfully on an intake of carbohydrate below 40% of total calories.
I see … the reader has successfully managed his diabetes with diet, but we can simply dismiss that evidence because it’s an “experience of one.” Ms. Warshaw apparently is convinced the reader is the only diabetic in the world who found a low-carb diet beneficial. Therefore her advice to eat a high-carb diet is still correct.
Riiiight … except we already know it’s not an “experience of one.” I quoted some comments diabetics posted on the Diabetes Health site regarding Ms. Warshaw’s article in my previous post. Here are a few more:
I set out on a low carbohydrate diet and within 6 months had normal blood sugar, normal blood pressure and lost over 100 pounds. People don’t need more drugs and bad dietary advice. I think we have all see the rising rates of obesity and diabetes and you are not helping the situation. If you really want to stop the rise, tell people the truth. Low Carbohydrate diets normalize blood sugar.
As a physician with pre-diabetes I am appalled that a high carbohydrate diet continues to be promoted. I am 56 years old. For the past 5 years I have maintained normal fasting blood sugars on a low carb diet.
I have been eating low carb for almost 1 year now and my diet includes lots of non stachy vegetables, fruits(strawberries, blueberries, raspberries), lean meats, eggs, nuts and some low carb desserts occasionally. My A1C is 5.6 and I have accomplished this by diet/exercise alone.
I am a type I diabetic and I know for a fact what 45-65% of calories as carbs can do to my BG… This is absurd and border-line dangerous statement from some “best-selling author.”
On Facebook and in other corners of the blogosphere, a lot of people are complaining that they also left comments on the article, but those comments never showed up. Perhaps Diabetes Health isn’t interested in letting the world see how many diabetics disagree with their house expert. Whatever the explanation for the blocked comments, it’s clear that many, many people have successfully managed their diabetes by doing the opposite of what Ms. Warshaw recommends. It’s not an “experience of one.”
Ms. Warshaw continued in her reply:
And instead of reading top line messages in resources like myplate.gov, dig into the research based information in the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2010. Here’s the link: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
A couple of quotes from the Carbohydrate Chapter:
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2002) set an acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) for carbohydrates of 45 to 65 percent of total calories. Thus, current dietary guidance recommends consumption of carbohydrate-containing foods, including vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts and seeds, and milk products. Carbohydrate foods are an important source of fiber and other nutrients.
Well, there you have it: Ms. Warshaw’s dietary recommendations for diabetics must be correct because the USDA and other experts say so. No other proof needed — which is a rather odd position for her to take, considering how she ended her reply:
No need to write back unless you’ve got well conducted published research studies to share.
So we’ve got someone who is supposedly interested in helping diabetics, but arrogantly dismisses comments from actual diabetics who’ve achieved normal blood sugar through a low-carb diet. You’d think she would find all those “experience of one” stories intriguing and look into the matter a little more.
Banging my head on my desk didn’t diminish my annoyance with Ms. Warshaw’s reply to the reader, so this morning I wrote to her myself:
———————————————————
Dear Ms. Warshaw –
I’ve been following your responses to people who questioned your advice to diabetics to consume a high-carbohydrate diet. Those responses boil down to two arguments:
1. I’m right because the USDA Dietary Guidelines say I’m right.
2. Show me the long-term clinical studies proving carbohydrate restriction is effective for diabetics, or shut up and leave me alone.
Appealing to the authority of the USDA — whose mission is to sell the grains our government subsidizes — isn’t proof of anything. As you may already know, one member of the committee that wrote those guidelines has already stated publicly that the guidelines aren’t based on good science. I read the entire, mind-numbingly dense, stupefying, often-contradictory report myself, and I agree: the guidelines aren’t based on anything resembling solid science. So let’s set those aside and deal with actual science.
Here are links to just a few of the clinical studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets for managing diabetes:
Forty-nine (58.3%) participants completed the study. Both interventions led to improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and weight loss. The Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet group had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (-1.5% vs. -0.5%, p = 0.03), body weight (-11.1 kg vs. -6.9 kg, p = 0.008), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+5.6 mg/dL vs. 0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) compared to the LGID group. Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01).
A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet to treat type 2 diabetes
The Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes such that diabetes medications were discontinued or reduced in most participants. Because the LCKD can be very effective at lowering blood glucose, patients on diabetes medication who use this diet should be under close medical supervision or capable of adjusting their medication.
Compared to baseline diet, after 8 weeks of a 25% carbohydrate diet, subjects showed significantly improved glycemia as evidenced by fasting blood glucose values (p<0.005) and hemoglobin A1c levels (p<0.05). Those previously treated with oral hypoglycemic agents showed, in addition, a significant decrease in weight and diastolic blood pressure despite the discontinuation of the oral agent. When then placed on a 55% carbohydrate diet, the hemoglobin A1c rose significantly over the ensuing next 12 weeks (p<0.05).
Yes, I know: you asked for long-term studies. As far as I can tell from my online research, there are few if any controlled clinical studies of dietary interventions that have lasted more than a year or perhaps two at most. So you appear to be asking your critics to quote the results of studies that have never been conducted.
But I’m clearly mistaken about that. You obviously have access to a long list of multi-year clinical studies on carbohydrate-restricted diets. I know this because of what you wrote in your article in Diabetes Health:
“Countless research studies do not show long term (greater than six months to a year) benefit of low carb diets on blood glucose, weight control, or blood fats.”
Since you’ve examined countless such studies, could you please provide me a list of, say, a dozen references to clinical studies in which subjects adhered to a carbohydrate-restricted diet for more than a year, but failed to achieve improved glucose control compared to a control group? If you could point me to studies matching that description that lasted five or ten years, that would be super. I’d like to share them with my readers. Then we’ll all understand exactly how countless studies failed to show any long-term superiority of carbohydrate restriction for glucose control.
Also, given that you don’t like anyone to promote dietary advice that isn’t backed up by long-term clinical studies, could you please provide a list of multi-year clinical studies in which a diet of 45-65% carbohydrates produced superior glucose control and lower A1c when compared to a control group, or – better yet – when compared to a group in which carbohydrate was restricted to less than 40%? The diabetics among my readership especially would love to see the scientific basis for your advice — after all, their lives depend on it.
Best regards,
Tom Naughton
Writer/Director “Fat Head: you’ve been fed a load of bologna”
———————————————————
I haven’t received a reply.
Entries (RSS)
Tom, have I mentioned recently that I love you? Your blog is neck-and-neck with Mike Eades for my favorite, and you update way more often than he does. Brilliant stuff; I’ll be linking to it.
Thank you, Dana.
. . .nutty diabetes “expert.” You know the definition of “expert,” don’t you? An “ex” is a has-been, and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure. There you have it.
“Our reasons for disagreement on these issues are centered on the consensus conference participants’ heavy, if not exclusive, reliance on EBM methodology to substantiate these negative recommendations. Their negative recommendations are inappropriate, in our opinion, because they are based primarily on a lack of evidence for benefit rather than on evidence for a lack of benefit.”
http://bit.ly/pGavP2
One thing that I have found about bread, is that whenever I eat it, it gets stuck in my throat. Everybody I talk to about it states that I am just not chewing it enough, but I get it ALL THE TIME I EAT BREAD, even when I chew it. I think that it might be because (shocking) bread isn’t good for us. hmm…
I believe your body is trying to tell you something.
Ms Warshaw seems to criticize the writer for citing Dr. Bernstein, who “has only written consumer books and not published one research paper on his recommendations.” I would like to know how many research papers SHE has published. As far as I know, she’s just a woman who’s written a lot of consumer books and hasn’t published one research paper on her recommendations.
She’s published some essays in academic journals, but nothing that looks like a controlled study as far as I can determine.
You rock dude. Ever thought about a follow-up to Fat Head?
The next follow-up will be a book.
“My guess is that Ms. Warshaw is seriously misinformed, but not intentionally trying to make anyone sick.”
Tom, the end result is the same. It’s even worse if this woman has some implied credibility.
I agree. I don’t care if the drunk driver who crashes into me didn’t intend to hurt me; I’m still just as hurt. That’s why we’re all battling these idiots.
This. Is. Epic.
For the this is what we are up against file:
Combating Obesity in the Womb: U.K. Study Treats Pregnant Women With Diabetes Drug
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/treating-obesity-womb-fetal-programming-stave-off-obesity/story?id=14009826
Oh my lord! Drugs for pregnant women when a change in diet could accomplish the same goal without the side-effects. This bordering on criminal.
I work for a University so I have access to some great resources including full journal entries. I randomly searched and found a long-term study quite quickly about effect of low carbohydrates and Type 2 Diabetes:
“Carbohydrate quantity and quality and risk of type 2 diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands (EPIC-NL) study”
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October, 2010, Vol. 92, No. 4, 905-911
Ivonne Sluijs, Yvonne T van der Schouw, Daphne L van der A, Annemieke M Spijkerman, Frank B Hu, Diederick E Grobbee, and Joline W Beulens
Study I believe was from 2000 and followed up with the 38k participants after 10 years.
Conclusions were:
“Diets high in GL, GI, and starch and low in fiber were associated with an increased diabetes risk. Both carbohydrate quantity and quality seem to be important factors in diabetes prevention. Energy misreporting contributed to a slight attenuation of associations.”
Go get’em, Tiger!
GRRRR!
Tom, thank you for your intelligent rebuttal to this misguided woman. I happen to be a “one” in the “experience of one.” I have three sisters, all of whom were diagnosed with type two diabetes. I have been living low carb since the late 1970′s and believe that is why I have never been diagnosed with diabetes. Two of my sisters continued to eat a high carb diet and had to resort to drugs to control their blood sugar. The third sister, at her (well informed) physician’s direction embraced a low carb diet and has controlled her blood sugar for almost two decades that way. I know this information would be dismissed by many “experts” but it’s good enough proof for me!
Add up all those “experience of one” stories, and it’s the experience of thousands.
I think the fact that diabetes didn’t exist in societies that ate primarily carnivorous high fat low carb diets is proof enough. The same people who enjoyed thousands upon thousands of years of extraordinary health with no modern medicine suddenly become obese, diabetic, hypertensive, riddled with cancer, etc. The only difference? The advent of agriculture and the intractable march towards our present day 24 hour insulin spike.
Want to know what the Comanche, the most feared warriors on the American plains ate? Check out this post… http://www.fitnessinanevolutionarydirection.com/2011/07/primal-living-on-american-plains.html
It’s just plain goofy to blame modern diseases on ancient foods.
Here’s what I just commented over on Diabetes Health, let’s see if it’s posted:
“I was diagnosed T2 in Dec 2009. I immediately went low carb (green vegetables + proteins) and lost 40 pounds in 4 months. My doc was surprised and my a1c has basically been 5.6 or so every time tested since 12/09. After a multi-month departure from low carb (boo), I’ve recently approached it with more knowledge and intention and am now off of (or have drastically reduced) several meds and am again losing weight. Glucose is now *the lowest ever* (to wit, normal 90-110) since 12/09. Daily BP is just a tad higher than “normal,” and am confident it will be OK after additional weight loss. These changes were immediate and dramatic simply through adopting low carb. ”
By the way Tom, thanks so much for your efforts, it was “Fat Head” that got me reoriented to proper LCHF several months ago.
I’m always delighted to hear the film inspired a viewer to make a positive change.
LOVE the update on the colored quotes, Tom! Much easier to tell if you’re talking or the other person! Thanks!! And, as always, a pleasure to keep up with your blog!!
I hope we haven’t chased you off your FB page! Good to see y’all there every now and then.
I thought I’d give the colored quotes a try and see what the readers think. Long bits of italicized text can be a little tough on the eyes.
My wife monitors the Facebook group and fan page and lets me know if a post there requires my attention. Between the blogs, the dozens and dozens of emails I receive each day, bill-paying work, etc., I had to delegate a bit.
I went to her website to email her to ask her to respond to your letter, and found a “question” to answer to screen out spam, however, there was no question to answer and no way, subsequently, to get an email to her, so I called her number and left her a phone message asking her to respond to your letter, saying I thought you had raised some good questions. I also left her my phone # in case she wanted to ask me more.
I’m not holding my breath.
She’s probably hiding in a bunker somewhere.
Check out the editor’s response :
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/07/06/7219/righteous-about-a-diabetes-diet/
She is getting demolished in the comments there as well.
Pretty weak response. I think they stuck their heads up and were stunned by how many bullets flew in their direction.
Personally, I don’t need the raft of studies to tell me that Ms Warshaw is wrong. Aside from the biochemistry of carb metabolism, I see that a ginormous experiment has already been in progress over the last 4 or 5 decades as Americans have cut down on fat and increased their carb consumption. The results are in: Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions and continues to increase in incidence. There are plenty of controls around the world of people following traditional diets with plenty of fat and fewer carbs–especially sugar–who do not have high rates of diabetes. How the “experts” at Diabetes Health and elsewhere can not see this is beyond comprehension. It may not be a comparison of low carb versus high carb, but it is definitely a comparison of high carb versus everything else and high carb loses.
They prefer to believe obesity causes diabetes, so diabetes is on the rise because obesity is on the rise. The obesity, of course, is the result of sloth and gluttony in their view. Doesn’t seem to occur to them that diabetes and obesity may have the same root causes.
Atta boy!
Nina
Since Diabetes Health isn’t a medical journal, I’m guessing that Ms. Warshaw’s comment “No need to write back unless you’ve got well conducted published research studies to share” was the equivalent to a bluff in poker. Most readers won’t have access to such research studies, because most aren’t doctors or “diabetes experts.”
Thanks for calling her bluff, Tom. I hope she carefully examines every study you listed. It is her job, after all.
I think that’s a fair analysis. She’s attempting to dismiss people without having to answer them.
Thanks for the different colored text for quotes. Now I can separate the wheat from the chaff…wait a sec, bad analogy. I mean, now I can separate the pearls of wisdom from the doo-doo with a brief glance!
I like it better now too.
Well, well, well… It seems that this latest dust-up at Diabetes Health over Ms. Warshaw’s point of view about low carb diets isn’t the first time she’s been challenged. Dr. Feinman provided the rebuttal a few years ago. Given the number of comments back then, I no longer believe that her heart is in the right place (while being hopelessly ignorant) or that she cares about diabetic patients controlling their disease.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/12/25/5383/low-carbohydrate-diets-why-you-dont-want-the-experts-to-tell-you-what-to-eat/?isComment=1#comments
Now it’s becoming clearer. Bernstein took her to task, and rather than admit she may have something to learn, she’s apparently dedicated the rest of her career to defending her previous positions.
I’m an “older” RD. Now that my family is raised, I’ve been doing my own “continuing ed” via blogs, podcasts, etc. I was stunned when I went to the American Dietetic Association certification meeting on adult weight management. One of our small group case studies was an actual diabetic patient who had been on a 55% CHO diet “prescription”. I asked the younger RDs at the table if they thought it was odd to give a person with glucose dysregulation that many CHOs – they looked at me quizzically (had no idea who Gary Taubes was, etc). One of them commented SHE could NEVER give up milk, bread, fruit, etc. Ive been watching statements from the ADA and they seem to never have a negative thing to say about the food industry. Oh, and the outcome for that patient? Gastric by-pass the solution. They also presented results of a multi-year trial on how effective slim-fast shakes were. A few of us stood up and asked what happened to the idea of FOOD (which is what our training was/is supposed to be about).It is quite a system of indoctrination…thanks for helping spread the word of another view.
Sounds like those groups aren’t used to critical thinkers showing up to question their advice.
Three things militate against her: her age (late 50s), her silly degree (MMSc), and her apparent success from writing a pile of drivel-books. The MMSc is shamefully vacuous and just a moneymaker for universities (including Harvard – arrg!). As Dr Mike has pointed out many times, wrong-headed experts usually don’t change their ‘tune’, they just die out. You really can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
I don’t expect her to change her tune. But I’m disappointed that Diabetes Health would publish such drivel.
Thanks for writing this message. I appreciate that you have taken on baiting the bear in the den.
Beth
I don’t think the bear wants anything to do the rest of us.
good stuff, Tom. agree with you and all replies.
any chance the drug companies want to make money off this? ha. no.. that can’t be it. they CARE about people over profits, right?
kat
They certainly aren’t interested in discovering if diet will work instead.
I posted this comment on the editor’s response, but don’t know if it’ll be approved, so posting here as well:
Honestly, I was one of those people who thought low-carb didn’t work for me. But when I first tried low-carb I did it low-carb AND low-fat, being paranoid of fat due to conventional wisdom. No wonder I was miserable. I bet the majority of people who try low-carb and fail likely give up for the same reason. Or another reason – it takes about 2 weeks for your body to adjust to burning fat instead of carbs. I was never told that, either. Had I known both these things, I would have started and been successful living low-carb a lot sooner. All I can say, is when I finally overcame these issues and went low-carb, my severe reactive hypoglycemia finally went away for good. Out of all the diets I tried, it was the only one that was successful in eliminating it.(My blood stats are excellent now too.)
It’ll probably never show up, but good response.
Gee Whiz…..I gotta agree with Dana….I Love You Bro!!!!
Keep up the great work!
Love you too, Bro.
Tom,
BTW….here are some of comments coming from fellow Diabetics on a Forum I post on….
#1:
What are Hope Warshaw’s qualifications?
Is she a doctor? NO!
Is she a medical professional? NO!
Is she a diabetic? NO!
She’s a dietician who has no clue about diabetes.
Why would any of us care what she thinks?
#2
This Hope Warsaw is a CDE. I remember meeting another CDE sometime ago and she recommended the same thing, that carb consumption should be 50% of our calorie intake. Those CDEs read the same text book, go to the same school, take the same test, and got the same diploma. Unless a CDE himself/herself is a diabetic, they have no idea whatsoever what is going on in real diabetic life. They simply memorize what they read and quote it to you. I met this CDE in this diabetic group meeting. She was the speaker. She gave each of us a handout and started reading through it. I remember half way through I asked her why does certain thing had to be done certain way. I kept an open mind and asked her very nicely, but she became aggitated…. CDEs are extremely helpful when I was first diagnosed and had absolutely no idea about this disease, but within a few weeks they are completely obsolete…. I wouldn’t waste any more time with CDEs lol
So it’s a bunch of rote learning without any understanding. Figures.
“She’s a dietician who has no clue about diabetes.”
A friend of mine is a nutritionist, and HE knows more about diabetes.
There are good ones and bad ones. The good ones don’t just parrot what they’re told; they read the literature and think for themselves.
Ms Warshaw is like a member of the Catholic hierarchy in the sixteenth century, while you and the low-carb community are busily nailing theses to her door!
Good analogy.
This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. I’m sure you’re already seen it, but just in case….
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/11/uk-study-to-fight-obesity-even-babies-should-exercise/
I’ve bookmarked that one.
Tom, as usual you have hit the nail squarely on the head! Keep up the great work!
Thank you.
Great post Tom! I just wish I could convince my diabetic friends to go low carb. They look at me like I’m an alien when I suggest it. For years their doctors have told them to eat low fat. It is criminal.
Maybe Dr. Bernstein’s book would open their eyes.
I love the complaint that Bernstein hasn’t published robust findings. He tried and tried and tried and tried, but was rejected. That’s the reason he went off to train as a doctor.
Bingo. Publication bias is a huge problem in the scientific journals that deal with nutrition and health.
Well done, Tom.
Amazingly my comment was included at the end of that article. (SubstanceX)
I guess if one million people wrote to Hope Warshaw and told her they had cured their diabetes with a low-carb diet, she would arrogantly and patronisingly dismiss them all and tell them that their ‘experience of one’ meant nothing. The only way you can get the qualifications that she has got is to be a parrot with no brain who can repeat the same nonsense over and over again. But she thinks it gives her a licence to be arrogant and superior while giving advice that will kill. Makes me wanna spit! Grrrr!!
Anyone who falls on back on the USDA as a source doesn’t understand science.
Isn’t it maddening how ignorance is so often the handmaiden of arrogance?
I say it all the time: I don’t get riled when people are ignorant, and I can usually stand it when people are arrogant. But when ignorant people are arrogant, that sets me off.
Longitudinal studies: Maybe these are not clinical, only field studies, but they are ‘natural’ (by default, unintended) experiments and the last one I mention is the longest.
Since the 1980′s and McGovern, low-fat, low-calorie, high-carb, semi-vegetarian.
Since the 1970′s the commodification of HFCS and hydrogenated palm-kernal oil and altered coconut oil.
1950′s invention of CAFOs and factory farming.
Since the turn of the 20 th century, vegetable oils created to be drying agents for paint, putty and varnish industry, gain a hold in Crisco, margarines and touted to this day for their health benefits.
~130 years ago, vegetarians Post and Kellogg gave us breakfast cereals.
~5000 years ago give or take, the invention of bread.
~10,000 years ago the beneficial, but also risky discovery of agriculture.
~10 – 5 million years ago the exploitation of the miracle molecule cholesterol and it’s positive motive effect on the evolution of the human brain.
~ 1 billion to 750 million years ago beginning evolution of animals by the proto-animal discovery of proto-cholesterol. Up to that point, bacteria, fungi and plants predominated- none of which had or have to this day- cholesterol, nervous systems, brains. Nor do they have skeletons, muscles nor do they move or think.
Grains, sugars, cereals and man-made vegetable oils have no place in the human diet. There is no nutritional requirement for any of it to any human. We CAN process that stuff, but eating any of it, even one gram, replaces, displaces, is instead of the nutrition we need for robust health and higher order, high-performance, excellent brain function. Animal fat, cholesterol and animal protein is all that is required.
Hi Tom
I have to say i this blog is amazing and your documentary really helped me take a second look at low carb after trying and failing atkins previously after doing it wrong(i didnt eat enough fat and didnt eat often enough so my blood sugar fell very low and i gave up).
Correct me if im wrong but i think i found another article in diabetes health from 2007 which promotes low carb and is the exact opposite of the article by warshaw.Here’s the link:
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2007/04/24/5143/why-eating-too-many-carbs-makes-you-fat/
Well, let’s give them credit for airing different views.
This kind of sort of relates. So at the hospital I work at we serve different patients, different diets. For diabetics we give them varying amounts of carbohydrates per meal (45g to 80g per meal) based on their weight and insulin use (interesting thinking there). This logic is based on this stupid graph that assumes all diabetics should be on oral treatments day in day out (our hospital uses primarily metformin). So they have this “basal rate” of anti-diabetic medication, and if the meals result in higher blood sugar, (the range we use is 80 to 180 so above 180 and you get some insulin) then we give them an extra shot of insulin on top of the “scheduled” doses. We don’t alter their diet, we just give them more medication.
For “cardiac” patients they are given a “cardiac” food tray. This means no saturated fat, no cholesterol, and very low fat in general (lunch and dinner comes with a low sodium V8, ha!). So now this is where is gets interesting.
Our hospital recently released a journal article accessing program that sums up the general consensus of the medical journals about what is evidence-based practice. This is a fantastic idea in practice but contradictory science rears its ugly head.
The section on diet says, “There is no evidence to suggest that diets high in fat and cholesterol cause cardiac disease. Evidence suggests that high carbohydrate/low fat diets can lead to lower HDL and higher triglycerides.” So why are we giving the patients a “cardiac” food tray that is high in carbs, low in fat? I asked the dieticians, and they demanded to see where I saw that. So I showed them(mind you this is information everyone at the hospital should be reviewing), low and behold they had no answer. So I continued reading through our journal article summaries.
Next came the section on saturated fat (here is where it gets contradictory and just plain dumb). Suddenly in the saturated fat section, “A diet high in fat, primarily saturated fat, can cause cardiac disease.” Wait, one paragraph ago it said the opposite. Two journal articles were cited, one was a paper on feeding rats saturated fat, I skipped that one entirely, second was an article from the New England Journal of medicine that gave different diets to different individuals. As I was reading through the journal article, I saw that they increased the amount of carbohydrates in the diet by the same caloric amount of the type of fat given. How in the hell could this possibly prove anything? They are altering two different macronutrients???? Well as I read further, I found a section where they increased the amount of animal fat but nothing else, guess what was found? “Animal fat seems to have no adverse effects on cardiac health markers. HDL was increased, LDL remained the same or increased by a statistically insignificant amount, and triglycerides lowered.” So why would they conclude in their paper that saturated fats are bad. I found two reasons.
They based this “adverse” outcome on the patients that increased both saturated fat and carbohydrates. The other is much more subtle. They lumped together saturated fats and trans fats because (their reasoning, not mine) “they usually occur together in foods and the results were statistically insignificant if saturated fat was tested on its own”. What. The. Hell. I thought I would share this bizarre experience. Keep fighting the fight Tom! Can’t wait for a book by you.
Don’t go looking for consistency in those guidelines. You’ll end up banging your head on your desk.
I think Jenny makes an excellent point here, because “eat to meter” is accepted ADA advice. And everone has their own individual GI.
A reader sent in his data comparing Pepsi to oatmeal plus milk:
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011/07/healthy-whole-grains-just-as-healthy-as.html
The reader sent me the results as well. I’m posting on them tonight.
Tom, if you bang your head against your desk any more, you’ll get one hell of a splitting headache!
The good news is lent my doctor Fat Head and he didn’t totally dismiss it. He agrees that high carbs are bad but still doesn’t recommend high fat intake.
Some progress at least
It’s a start.
How about just having her read every study referenced in “GCBC,” “Why we get fat,” and the Phinney/Volek “The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living?”
That should give her plenty of reading material.
She doesn’t need those … she’s got the USDA recommendations to back her up.
In case you are interested in more scientific literature on the subject:
More than 2 years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16652223
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17447017
Ketogenic Diet vs. Low fat + Orlistat:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20101008
Even with 30% of carbs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923629/?report=abstract
More research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21688989
Always interested in more research. Thanks for the links.
Well played sir !!! Nice tactic ……….. if my evidence is rubbish, please show me yours
Maybe there arnt any long term studies (possibly cos they dont want them ) but might it not be a good idea to record how long peeps have been on this lifestyle ….. successfully !!
For me its since Feb 2007, when i was almost 20 stone ( again ) and looking at going onto insulin. Now almost 3.5stone lighter and holding close to normal blood sugars .
Sorry to say havnt seen the film yet but it is on the “to do” list
No worries. You’ll see the film sometime.
And then I see this article on my RSS Feeds today
FDA warns about new diabetes pill risks: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43768077/ns/health-diabetes/
The drugs sound more damaging than the disease! What enrages me more though is the recommendation that the government take kids away from their families because the kid is obese … yet, the kids are obese because the parents have done what the government TOLD THEM TO DO! http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=640419
The drug is worse than the disease … sounds like statins.
Replying to Scott (July 15)
Hey, perhaps the child would be better off would be parents aware enough not to take advice (especially nutritional advice) from the government.
Tom, whats the deal with cooking with Peanut Oil? is it as bad as all the other proccessed oils? and how about Olive Oil? thanks.
Olive oil and peanut oils are natural oils that don’t require chemical extraction. According to Dr. Mary Enig, author of “Know Your Fats,” it’s best to avoid consuming large quantities of peanut oil because it can produce inflammation. But it’s fine in smaller quantities.
Hmmm. Who publishes “Diabetes Health”? I don’t remember what diabetes magazine was given to me when I was diagnosed as gestational diabetic years ago, I only remember that it was published by Eli Lilly. I remember thinking at the time, “Why would a company that makes gazillions off diabetes medicines and insulin publish a magazine helping people control their diabetes through diet?” Turns out they didn’t.
Follow the money.