OK, here's what was REALLY said. Hard to believe, huh? By the way, I am adding a postscript for two reasons. First, to let people in on what is really being said about diabetes and diets, (seems to be the theme this week) and second because I am not allowed to post any of this information on a message board at that diet and weight loss website. Too dangerous. Faced with that smack-down, I admit I just can't resist.
It is my hope that people with diabetes or tending towards it will keep reading, and to decide for themselves what is truly dangerous and what is not.
First, here's a link to a copy of the original April 1 paper with graphics. Note especially the pyramid on the right with insulin flowing all over the top of the pyramid.
"Covered With Insulin"
Here's an article explaining the reasoning of the American Diabetes Association and how they came up with their position that it's OK to eat a bunch of sugar if you "cover" it with insulin.
Here's the clif notes.
1. We're the leading diabetes organization.
2. After years and years of careful analysis of peer-reviewed gold-standard studies from august researchers from places like Harvard, we have determined that you can't resist carbs.
3. So, we say, eat carbs, cause you can always fix it by injecting insulin.
4. If you don't like all those injections 'n' stuff, you can also just use a glucose-lowering medication.
Here's some information on the American Diabetes Association and American Dietetic Association's Diabetes Food Pyramid:
http://www.bd.com/us/diabetes/page.aspx?cat=7001&id=7061 This food pyramid is no longer recommended by ADA. Meanwhile, the USDA has revised the food pyramid that we all recognize with some sort really really high striped beach cabana that seems to fade away at the top altitude.
http://www.mypyramid.gov/index.html (And we all remember this website, source of all the wonky vegetable classifications. Where oh where are the green eggs and ham??)
Of course, the reference to the truncated icosahedron is a nod to the idea that the recommended diet surely is a political football, and may not have much to do with nutrition, at least for diabetics.
The Very Important Statement
You'll find it here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_1/S61.full If you read through this article, you'll notice that the ADA also confuses a "risk factor" with a cause, although this common error wasn't lampooned in the original article. It also contains other interesting phrases like, "This statement updates previous position statements,..." It is also interesting to note that this statement (or this thing that updates them???) refers to the Look AHEAD study, and in that study, conducted by the American Diabetes Association, the study authors mentioned the difficulty of achieving treatment success using current strategies, and gives 3 references. The fact that I said the same thing on the weight loss website (OK, without the references), and was told I couldn't post such "dangerous" statements, led to the full implementation of this here blog.
If you read this position statement carefully, you will recognize that it was written by committee, and they surely don't all agree. They recommend the USDA guidelines AND say it's ok to follow a low-carb weight loss diet? Hmmm, wonder who got that slipped in.
Dr. Anthony Rosenzweig's paper.
I'm not going to link that here, only the clif notes of the study.
1. We got a bunch of mice that were genetically engineered to get atherosclerosis
2. We fed them a low carb diet
3. They got atherosclerosis.
4. We're blaming the diet.
Women's health initiative
It didn't work out as the researchers had expected.
Other researchers are mentioned, most of them known not only for their anti-low-carb stance, but also their steadfast refusal to take a look at or publish any data on the success of the low-carb diet. April Fools, indeed!