The ADA FINALLY recognizing lchf as helpful with diabetes
Wow! And they cited Verta Health and used the k-word in their recommendations.
My favorite is the last sentence before the References. 
It’s a start. Next they need to start citing the importance of reducing the frequency of meals to lower insulin response and they will truly start to help people take control of their health.
Sorry. I don’t see this as going good. It’s not saying low carb high fat. It doesn’t address this at all and leaves it open to interpretation. I foresee it as restrict calories by removing some carbs. It references a ketogenic diet, in my opinion, to catch people off guard into thinking the ADA is now endorsing a truly low carb diet. I’m sure, my opinion again, the ADA will still advocate LOW FAT and exercise with meds as the main approach; however, I do beleive this can backfire on them simply by recognizing the ketogenic approach. Thereby introducing diabetes patients to it who would never have heard of it before, or just think of keto as a faddish diet. In my opinion the only good thing I see in that article.
Keto Vitae!
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Mentions of keto and Verta Health seemed odd here so I dug a little.
This page seems to be written by the author of the web site mentioned at the bottom of the page. The web site is a LCHF web site in Canada. The author seems to be writing conclusions based on the references supplied.
From the web site - this page contains an “interesting” disclaimer:
“DISCLAIMER: This handout is intended for information purposes only and is not affiliated with the American Diabetes Association in any way.”
The PDF I read by the original poster also had a future date on it. It’s dated Jan 2019. Usually typos in dates aren’t future days, but past dates. Especially if it were written in Jan 2018, whomever puts the date on something that early in the year is likely to use the previous years date, so 2017, versus a future date where it really stands out.
So you are saying this isn’t from the ADA, even though it’s meant to look like it is? Given the ADA letterhead?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
or looks like a Canadian duck drumming up business?
Content is all agreeable but this does not seem to be from the ADA.
ADA released the 2019 guidelines, Monday Dec 17th. Joy Kidde wrote a long post the next day pulling together the comments about using low carb diets from that and the ADA’s previous statement with the European group EASD. On Dec 19th, she posted this one page summary to share with a healthcare provider.
This is what caught my eye:
the ADA’s October 2018 joint Position Statement with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) which approved use of a low carbohydrate diet of <130 g of carbohydrate/day (<26% of daily calories as carbohydrate) as Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) for adults with Type 2 Diabetes [1]
At my house 130 grams of carb isn’t low carb. My DH was diagnosed as T2D, splurges some days and will hit around 75 grams.
I agree it doesn’t meet our definition of low carb but it is way lower than I see any diabetics around here eat who are on meds.
So, a start and opens the door a crack for further refinement down the road.
Until recently, 130g was for the ADA, advising 3 meals 45-55 carbs, 3 snacks 15 carbs.
This summary was shared by Dr Ken Berry yesterday, it makes sense in context if his FB post. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=327814994483232&id=113863275878406
No the Virta study wasn’t cited right in the guidelines, but it was used as a reference, so to me Keto of less than 30g is now accepted.
Please review my response above - this handout was written by a LCHF Canadian nutritionist. From her website where this handout is posted:
“DISCLAIMER: This handout is intended for information purposes only and is not affiliated with the American Diabetes Association in any way.”
I agree with the content but, this is a Canadian nutritionist’s opinion - not necessarily an ADA position.
It still smells something foul to me. It’s like the junk mail I get in the mailbox at the house. It comes in various flavors…
-
Has a near convincing script font that makes the address look hand written. Then inside it will have a post it note on a form that says something like this… “you need to fill out and sign this form ASAP or the IRS will Force is to close all of your accounts with us.” The form of course is the form you use to open your account. Bank letter head and all. A fishing scheme to get personal info.
-
A postcard WARNING me that my cars warranty is about to expire. I must fill this form out to renew my warranty with this company. One of my wife’s friend did this. A year of warranty payments later and she discovered it was a scam when she took the car in for warranty work.
I’m very pessimistic. If something looks wrong, I count it as wrong. I put the burden of proof on them to prove they are legit. I shouldn’t have to prove them to be a scam, so I just assume it from the get go. No doubt I may be missing out on some great deal somewhere. But odds are there are more scams out there than legitimate deals. I play the odds. Buy the Big 6 and 8, best odds on the table.
There’s at least two things wrong with the ADA statement that I can see:
- <130 carbs will help but it may not be enough to influence the hormonal changes that are needed to reduce cravings and influence weight loss.
- This recommendation is being suggested to treat T2D when it should also include that it may also be applicable for the prevention of T2D.
But like @Janie says, “It’s a start”.
I’ve been getting those for my car. Since Mom bought it in 2006, I’m fairly sure the warranty expired quite some time ago, lol!