Low-carb diet recommended for diabetics


(Marc) #1

This one had me banging my head on the wall. Really!?! It took you this long to figure it out…

From the article, highlighting mine:

A new study involving researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and other institutions says patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes should eat a diet low in carbohydrates.
The study, accepted for publication in Nutrition and available on the journal’s website, offers 12 points of evidence showing that low-carbohydrate diets should be the first line of attack for treatment of Type 2 diabetes, and should be used in conjunction with insulin in those with Type 1 diabetes.
The study, conducted by a consortium of 26 physicians and nutrition researchers, suggests the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines due to the inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes.
The authors point to the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk or general health, and to the persistent reports of serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetes medications. By comparison, the authors refer to the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects.
The 12 points of evidence, backed up by clinical studies, are:
-High blood sugar is the most salient feature of diabetes. Dietary carbohydrate restriction has the greatest effect on decreasing blood glucose levels.
-During the epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, caloric increases have been due almost entirely to increased carbohydrates.
-Benefits of dietary carbohydrate restriction do not require weight loss.
-Although weight loss is not required for benefit, no dietary intervention is better than carbohydrate restriction for weight loss.
-Adherence to low-carbohydrate diets in people with Type 2 diabetes is at least as good as adherence to any other dietary interventions and frequently is significantly better.
-Replacement of carbohydrates with proteins is generally beneficial.
-Dietary total and saturated fats do not correlate with risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Plasma-saturated fatty acids are controlled by dietary carbohydrates more than by dietary lipids.
-The best predictor of microvascular and, to a lesser extent, macrovascular complications in patients with Type 2 diabetes is glycemic control (HbA1c).
-Dietary carbohydrate restriction is the most effective method of reducing serum triglycerides and increasing high-density lipoprotein.
-Patients with Type 2 diabetes on carbohydrate-restricted diets reduce and frequently eliminate medication. People with Type 1 usually require less insulin.
-Intensive glucose-lowering by dietary carbohydrate restriction has no side effects comparable to the effects of intensive pharmacologic treatment.


(Bacon for the Win) #2

can you post a link to the article? thanks


#3

From 2014?

And this was pointed out in another forum:[quote]Just to add a little reality to that post, the “low-carb” diet that is being recommended in that paper by Gower at UAB is 41% carb, versus the control diet of 55% carb. At 2500 calories a day, 41% is 250g or carb per day. Which is so far from the ketogenic diet requirement of 30g per day that it is laughable. So just to be clear, that paper isn’t supporting a ketogenic diet, it is supporting a modest reduction in carb and a diet with a moderate amount of carb from natural (primarily unrefined) sources.[/quote]


(Marc) #4

Sorry about that, Kirkor pointed out the link.


(Marc) #5

The carb count wasn’t mentioned in the article. As bolded, I was heartened by the clearance of saturated fat. Although, I’d have to say I’d be surprised that somebody would be quoted as saying that "“[f]or many people with Type 2 diabetes, low-carbohydrate diets are a real cure” if the carb count was at 250 grams per day. In looking at the study they define low carbohydrate as <130 g/per day and very low carbohydrate as 20-50 g/day.


#6

Looks like it was actually a meta study?

and my earlier quote of the person pointing out the 41% vs. 55% was from one of the studies referenced.