About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On 5/4/2012 4:26 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:07:23 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:55 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:35 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
More than once in a while. A large majority of the quacks listed
are indeed quacks.

Do you think Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Really?

I don't think I ever said that.

Stephen Barrett lists Dr. Atkins as a quack. So I was just asking you
if you agree with Barrett, and if you do, why?

[...]
How so? Does he offer dubious medical advice or make dubious medical
claims?

Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.

He's there. About half the way down. http://www.quackwatch.com/

He is mentioned under non-recommended sources of health advice with
no comment at all. Using a strict evidence rule could Atkins be
recommended before the evidence was in? The case still isn't solid.
The proper definitive clinical trial still has not been done and
likely will not be done because funding for a study against standard
practice is very hard to get. Who would fund it?


And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there
was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's
great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century.

These days we require higher standards of evidence. The randomized
clinical trial is today's gold standard.


[...]
True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

Who's to say. Aspartame was golden when introduced.

So was sugar, low-fat diets, "healthy whole grains," blood-letting,
Vioxx, etc., etc., etc.

Mistakes are made. Correcting them is a good thing.


The best strategy is to do without any added sweetener whenever
possible, and it's almost always possible.

[...]
I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

In my case, about 2-3 diet drinks per week.

That number probably won't kill you, or make you sick (although there
is some chance that 2-3 will eventually lead to 4-5, which may
eventually lead to 7-8, etc.), but you'd be much healthier doing
without them altogether and drinking water, tea or coffee instead.

But it is your life, not mine.

I don't think it is possible for a normal human to consume aspartame
in the quantities that are likely to cause harm.

There are numerous studies which show that artificial sweeteners are
even more addictive than sugar, and cause overeating.

That might be so. I don't know how strong that evidence is, but it
seems plausible.


I shouldn't have to tell you that than can cause more than just harm,
but even death, over time.

It would be a difficult job to blame death from obesity on artificial
sweeteners.


I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

Then drink up!


I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I
see evidence of harm. Got any?

On 5/4/2012 4:33 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.


Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

They do. It is what I was taught in diabetes school 18 years ago.


That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.


Maybe someday they will be!

I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote. I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:55:32 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.

He's there. About half the way down. http://www.quackwatch.com/

He is mentioned under non-recommended sources of health advice with
no comment at all.

On a cite by the name of "Quackwatch," that's enough, isn't it?

Using a strict evidence rule could Atkins be
recommended before the evidence was in? The case still isn't solid.
The proper definitive clinical trial still has not been done and
likely will not be done because funding for a study against standard
practice is very hard to get. Who would fund it?

There are dozens and dozens of studies and clinical trials that
strongly support the low-carb, high-fat diet as a healthy way to lose
weight and keep it off.

The case for low-carb diets couldn't be more solid.

And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there
was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's
great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century.

These days we require higher standards of evidence. The randomized
clinical trial is today's gold standard.

If it actually was, we wouldn't be in this mess. Ditto for the idea
that cholesterol causes CHD, or that diabetics should eat a high-carb,
low-fat diet.

True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

Who's to say. Aspartame was golden when introduced.

So was sugar, low-fat diets, "healthy whole grains," blood-letting,
Vioxx, etc., etc., etc.

Mistakes are made. Correcting them is a good thing.

You bet. And that's what a lot of us are trying to do regarding diet
and health.

[...]
There are numerous studies which show that artificial sweeteners are
even more addictive than sugar, and cause overeating.

That might be so. I don't know how strong that evidence is, but it
seems plausible.

I shouldn't have to tell you that than can cause more than just harm,
but even death, over time.

It would be a difficult job to blame death from obesity on artificial
sweeteners.

Why? If it makes you want to eat more than you should, and you
eventually acquire diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and die of a stroke
or heart attack, why couldn't it be the root cause of your death?

I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

Then drink up!

I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I
see evidence of harm.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be
good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted.

Got any?

No!

I'm not making it any easier for the Grim Reaper than I have to.



--
Dogman

On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:03:54 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.

Find me the randomized, double-blind clinical trial that proves that
statin drugs prevent heart attacks.

Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

They do. It is what I was taught in diabetes school 18 years ago.

Imagine how many people they've helped to KILL?

That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.


Maybe someday they will be!

Not soon enough for me!

I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote.

No, you are a clinical trial consisting of n=1. And it has obviously
worked for you. So it's not an anecdote.

I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

Yet you still eat a low-carb diet!

What are you, some kind of quack?

--
Dogman

On 5/4/2012 5:24 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:55:32 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.

He's there. About half the way down. http://www.quackwatch.com/

He is mentioned under non-recommended sources of health advice with
no comment at all.

On a cite by the name of "Quackwatch," that's enough, isn't it?

Using a strict evidence rule could Atkins be
recommended before the evidence was in? The case still isn't solid.
The proper definitive clinical trial still has not been done and
likely will not be done because funding for a study against standard
practice is very hard to get. Who would fund it?

There are dozens and dozens of studies and clinical trials that
strongly support the low-carb, high-fat diet as a healthy way to lose
weight and keep it off.

The case for low-carb diets couldn't be more solid.

Yes it could actually. I would like to see it.


And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there
was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's
great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century.

These days we require higher standards of evidence. The randomized
clinical trial is today's gold standard.

If it actually was, we wouldn't be in this mess. Ditto for the idea
that cholesterol causes CHD, or that diabetics should eat a high-carb,
low-fat diet.

These studies were correlational and, as I recall, not especially
well done. They did not consider the possibility that the truth could
be opposite to their expectations.


True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

Who's to say. Aspartame was golden when introduced.

So was sugar, low-fat diets, "healthy whole grains," blood-letting,
Vioxx, etc., etc., etc.

Mistakes are made. Correcting them is a good thing.

You bet. And that's what a lot of us are trying to do regarding diet
and health.

Me too. But I would like to see strong evidence.


[...]
There are numerous studies which show that artificial sweeteners are
even more addictive than sugar, and cause overeating.

That might be so. I don't know how strong that evidence is, but it
seems plausible.

I shouldn't have to tell you that than can cause more than just harm,
but even death, over time.

It would be a difficult job to blame death from obesity on artificial
sweeteners.

Why? If it makes you want to eat more than you should, and you
eventually acquire diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and die of a stroke
or heart attack, why couldn't it be the root cause of your death?

Who is to say that artificial sweeteners are the cause?


I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

Then drink up!

I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I
see evidence of harm.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be
good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted.

Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners.


Got any?

No!

I'm not making it any easier for the Grim Reaper than I have to.

I hope you are right.

On 5/4/2012 5:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:03:54 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.

Find me the randomized, double-blind clinical trial that proves that
statin drugs prevent heart attacks.

I could but not right now. Strong evidence, but not necessarily proof.


Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

They do. It is what I was taught in diabetes school 18 years ago.

Imagine how many people they've helped to KILL?

That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.


Maybe someday they will be!

Not soon enough for me!

I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote.

No, you are a clinical trial consisting of n=1. And it has obviously
worked for you. So it's not an anecdote.

Yes it is. A trial with n=1 has no statistical power.


I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

Yet you still eat a low-carb diet!

What are you, some kind of quack?

No. The evidence is strong enough to give it a try but it is not
nearly as strong as I would like to see and not nearly strong enough
to influence the medical establishment.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:44:47 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
The case for low-carb diets couldn't be more solid.

Yes it could actually. I would like to see it.

The Internet is a wonderful place!

And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there
was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's
great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century.

These days we require higher standards of evidence. The randomized
clinical trial is today's gold standard.

If it actually was, we wouldn't be in this mess. Ditto for the idea
that cholesterol causes CHD, or that diabetics should eat a high-carb,
low-fat diet.

These studies were correlational and, as I recall, not especially
well done. They did not consider the possibility that the truth could
be opposite to their expectations.

Of they did! But correlational or not, they're essentially today's
perceived conventional wisdom.

Very few studies today are especially well done, unfortunately.

[...]
You bet. And that's what a lot of us are trying to do regarding diet
and health.

Me too. But I would like to see strong evidence.

So would I. But I'm not going to risk my life waiting around for one.

I'm going to settle for what I consider to be the strongest case for
or against something.

[...]
It would be a difficult job to blame death from obesity on artificial
sweeteners.

Why? If it makes you want to eat more than you should, and you
eventually acquire diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and die of a stroke
or heart attack, why couldn't it be the root cause of your death?

Who is to say that artificial sweeteners are the cause?

As I said previously, there are scientific studies pointing to
artificial sweeteners as even more addictive than sugar, and that
cause people to overeat.

Look 'em up.

I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

Then drink up!

I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I
see evidence of harm.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be
good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted.

Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners.

Exactly. You can look that up, too.

Eat REAL food, and stay away from refined, processed, or artificial
foods.

You'll be glad you did.

Got any?

No!

I'm not making it any easier for the Grim Reaper than I have to.

I hope you are right.

I'm betting my life that I am.

--
Dogman

On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:47:52 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 5:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:03:54 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.

Find me the randomized, double-blind clinical trial that proves that
statin drugs prevent heart attacks.

I could but not right now.

No, you couldn't. Take all the time you want.

[...]
I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote.

No, you are a clinical trial consisting of n=1. And it has obviously
worked for you. So it's not an anecdote.

Yes it is. A trial with n=1 has no statistical power.

It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

Yet you still eat a low-carb diet!

What are you, some kind of quack?

No. The evidence is strong enough to give it a try but it is not
nearly as strong as I would like to see and not nearly strong enough
to influence the medical establishment.

Only $$$$ influences the medical establishment. That's why they have
so little interest in disease PREVENTION.

The $$$$ is in TREATMENT, not prevention.

--
Dogman

Dogman wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote:

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Any doctor who defies the mainstream of the medical community is a
quack, at first whether they are right or wrong. Working within the
system is thus incremental. Atkins was right in many/most of his
stances but he was regularly labelled a quack because he defied the
mainstream of the medical community.

Don't I recall Mercola pushing a radical low fat vegan diet plan for a
lot of years? He's since come partially over the the light side of the
force but he sure took his time of it..

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

Atkins used studies that came before the rush to push low fat. His
evidence was pretty good at the time. The original fat fast study, his
tables of long term results of prescribing low fat to heart patients and
so on.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

Actually an obesity rate of around 10% has been with us for centuries
maybe even millennia. Somewhere after the invention of argiculture 10K
plus years ago it was probably worse but selective evolutionary pressure
has been working on us ever since to make us okay with non-refined
grains as a part of our diet. The process never did run to completion
before the invention of refined grain and refined sugar other than
honey.

The difference is today's obesity rate is far over 10%. And the number
who are morbidly obese is vastly greater. Set your mental wayback
machine to 1970 and remember walking in the mall. People weighing 300+
pounds were so rare people stared at them. Hardly anyone not a viking
or amazon giant was that heavy and few of those were very fat. Now
at the mall it takes 400+ to draw stares. The folks 300+ pounds are so
common there's danger of walking into them because you're watching for
the bigger folks.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.

Exactly.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:11:43 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote:

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Any doctor who defies the mainstream of the medical community is a
quack, at first whether they are right or wrong.

That's pretty much true, Doug. And it applies to all of science, not
just the medical community.

Which reminds me of an old saying, “The pioneers take the arrows, the
settlers take the land.”

[...]

--
Dogman