Subscribe: Comments on Weight of the Evidence: ADA Says Low-Carb Okay for Weight Loss, So What?
http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/feeds/7845346582301122403/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
ada  agree  basically  carb diet  carb  diet  disease  doesn  don  evidence  low carb  low fat  low  organizations  people  sort 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Weight of the Evidence: ADA Says Low-Carb Okay for Weight Loss, So What?

Comments on Weight of the Evidence: ADA Says Low-Carb Okay for Weight Loss, So What?





Updated: 2017-12-15T19:26:57.661-06:00

 



Demandra - I don't suppose you'd like to back up y...

2008-01-18T11:28:00.000-06:00

Demandra - I don't suppose you'd like to back up your "eye roll" with some evidence? Can you give me an example of a large organization (similar to the ADA), whose goal was to cure some disease, which actually cured said disease then closed up shop and sent everybody home?

I absolutely agree that critical thinking and debate are vital to scientific progress. The problem that we face is an utter lack of critical thinking. The fact that apparently contradictory evidence exists requires evaluation of that evidence. One doesn't simply dismiss evidence becauase it doesn't agree with the currently accepted hypothesis - that is the antithesis of the scientific method. That evidence disagrees with a hypothesis does not weaken the the evidence; rather it is ALWAYS the belief in the hypothesis that is influenced by the evidence.

So while the ADA may be "continually reevaluating evidence", I would suggest that most of the evidence they are evaluating is that which largely agrees with their current position. It's the only way to explain their behavior, unless they know something that the rest of us don't. The scientific evidence in favor of carbohydrate restriction for controlling Type II diabetes is significant. If the ADA's position were scientifically sound, then it would be easy for them to demonstrate why that position is supported by a greater weight of the evidence than the carbohydrate hypothesis. That they don't supply this evidence either means they don't have it, or for some strange reason are keeping it from the rest of us. And I've asked for it - twice.

Maybe you'll have more luck getting than I did, because I would really like to see such evidence if it existed. You can only make good decisions if you have good information, so if the ADA has some important information on this point, they need to share it with the rest of us.

I would be happy to engage in a debate with anyone from the ADA on this topic.



First, I have to reply to Dave's comment. To sugge...

2008-01-17T20:53:00.000-06:00

First, I have to reply to Dave's comment. To suggest that nonprofit organizations subconsciously perpetuate the problems they're trying to solve is utterly absurd. Yes, even if you compare it to the basic function of all organisms. *eye roll*

All markets fluctuate and change. Many markets fail. The nonprofit industry is no different, and most of its employees are staunchly dedicated to their work, and would happily close their doors, particularly if they have personal experience with their cause- burying a loved one due to a disease, lived on the streets, etc. Most make far less than their corporate counterparts. So, the logic of fearful clinging to jobs and subconscious promotion of societal ills is rather faulty.

The author of JunkFood Science thinks she's right and has ample evidence to prove it. The author of this blog thinks she's right and has ample evidence to prove it. Every five minutes there's new evidence praising an approach accompanied by evidence demonizing said approach. The day when One Size Fits All medicine actually works is the day all hell freezes over.

I'm sure the ADA is like every other organization trying to better folks' lives--continually re-evaluating information and providing what they deem to be the best solution possible based on the largest amount of evidence available. And whaddya know, not everyone agrees on what the best solution is.

Criticism can be quite helpful. Assuming ultimate authority and righteousness rarely is. If this criticism is legitimate, what is being done to engage the ADA in this discussion?



When I first heard the rumors of the ADA backing o...

2008-01-15T14:02:00.000-06:00

When I first heard the rumors of the ADA backing off on it's low carb stance, I thought I might have to change my moniker, renegadediabetic. Now I see that I can keep it. I'm still very much a renegade. :)



Some people will do better on a low-carb diet. Ot...

2008-01-15T07:22:00.000-06:00

Some people will do better on a low-carb diet. Others won't. To be given that option as a medically supported choice will help because those people for whom it will work will not have to be swimming quite so hard upstream against an entrenched low-fat medical establishment.



A low-carb diet doesn't require calorie restrictio...

2008-01-09T20:43:00.000-06:00

A low-carb diet doesn't require calorie restriction.



I'm kind of curious as to why one would have reaso...

2008-01-09T19:32:00.000-06:00

I'm kind of curious as to why one would have reason to believe that people are going to be any more compliant with a low carb diet then any other?



So, basically the ADA is a parasitic organism, fee...

2008-01-09T17:39:00.000-06:00

So, basically the ADA is a parasitic organism, feeding on the misfortunes of all us poor diabetics.



Regina, I have to sort of agree and sort of disagr...

2008-01-09T16:38:00.000-06:00

Regina, I have to sort of agree and sort of disagree. Yes, absolutely, the ADA's "new" stance is, well, pathetic. But it's also ammunition for all the diabetics, like me, whose doctors have been hammering them about "why aren't you on a low fat diet like I said?" Now, at least, they can say "The ADA doesn't exclusively recommend a low fat diet any more. Keep up!"

I say "they" because I'm instead working on getting another doctor. :P

Random



Organizations, just like organisms, adopt strategi...

2008-01-09T14:01:00.000-06:00

Organizations, just like organisms, adopt strategies to maximize their chance of survival. I believe this often occurs without much conscious thought - that's certainly the case for organisms, including plants, bacteria, etc. As such, any organization who's stated goal is to find a cure for a disease automatically faces a severe conflict of interest: achieving the goal as stated basically results in the death of the organization.

If the ADA successfully pushed adoption of any strategy that actually resulted in lifelong glycemic control (basically curing Type II diabetes), their reason for existence would be severely curtailed. Funding would dwindle, many people would be out of a job, etc. Their recommendations scream "you need us forever!", and the latest round demonstrates the degree to which they'll twist existing evidence to ensure their continued survival. They can't ignore low carb, but they can try to make sure the recommended application ensures that the ADA continues to be relevant in the treatment of the disease.

Like I said, I don't think this is conscious. I don't believe that the members of the ADA are actively conspiring to suppress science or twist the evidence to their own means. But they are definitely rationalizing a strategy which ensures their continued relevance. The same seems to apply to the AHA, the CDC, etc.

It seems our only recourse is to ignore the recommendations of such organizations, and attempt to assess the available evidence ourselves. That's why resources such as this blog are so valuable.