Again, those wanting to make a name for
themselves use a small study and publicize as widely as possible.
This time it is in the name of nutrition. The study is faulty
because there was not a control group or a blinded study. Another
weakness or fault of the study was not publishing the criteria for
selection of study participants. Yes, a few qualifications were
mentioned, but these should not have been the only criteria in
selection.
Yes, I am being very critical of most
studies proclaiming this and that about what people with diabetes
should be consuming. Saying that we should be eating a set number of
daily servings of low glycemic index foods is not saying that the
nutritional needs of an individual are being met or that this is what
their body can tolerate. What irritates the worst is a
one-size-fits-all mantra that everyone keeps promoting.
Low glycemic index foods can help
manage blood glucose levels, but should be used as a guide only as
just selecting this type of food can be nutritionally deficient and
not the selection we may need for minimum nutrition goals. Yes, low
glycemic index carbohydrates that are digested slowly, and are less
likely to spike blood glucose levels than would carbohydrates with a
high glycemic index may help blood glucose levels, but are they
nutritious enough?
The article does say the participants
also ate about 500 fewer daily calories and added vegetables, fruits
and nuts, and seeds to their diet - all foods that are on the low end
of the glycemic index. Again, no nutritional information is given
nor are the combinations even discussed.
Carla Miller, associate professor of
human nutrition at Ohio State University and lead author of the study
stated, "I think we have enough data to say that consuming a
low-glycemic-index diet has beneficial outcomes for people with
diabetes." “That's a significant statement because no
guidelines currently exist for consumption of low-glycemic-index
foods,” she noted. “Some experts think a focus on the glycemic
index in foods rather than carbohydrates and sugars is too
complicated for patients with diabetes to follow. Miller doesn't
think that's the case as long as patients receive adequate nutrition
education - which was another finding of hers in a study published in
2009.”
What I find amusing is they talk a good
line and have good ideas, yet they will not publish this nutritional
information online for people to educate themselves. This would not
put any money in their pockets like a study. They give us findings
that we can be led to believe that good nutrition was taught and
people were allowed to make variations in the diet to fit what their
meter told them. I doubt this was allowed or even considered. The
mantra was low glycemic index level foods and only this. They also do not mention whether the
nutritional level of the food participants were asked to consume were
monitored. Yes, at the start of the study, all 35 participants
completed a baseline assessment and participated in a five-week group
nutrition intervention. No mention is made about the extent or type
of nutrition information given, but I can imagine the bulk was about
the glycemic index and very little else.
Another disturbing fact missing is that
to be eligible, the participants had to have a hemoglobin A1c value
of 7 percent or higher; however, I can find no evidence that of a
comparative A1c at the completion of the trial. This is disturbing
on so many levels. Did they require people with high level A1c's at
the beginning to make sure that they would be less likely to complain
about their high or higher A1c's at the end of the trial?
No comments:
Post a Comment