An annoying Mayo Clinic nutrition blog

[Roadstr]

In Michael Eades' blog "Weekend link-o-rama" is a link to a blog by Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D on the Mayo Clinic's website. I have no idea what the authors were talking about :rolleyes:, but the comments are a must read... "For those with diabetes — there's more to it than carbs (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet-diabetes/MY00539)"

[gitfiddle]

Oh, thank you for bring this to our attention Roadstr! I've been laughing so hard. Dr. Mike's blog is great and the Mayo article is appalling, but the comments generated by the Mayo blog are very encouraging! Some big names there!

[maxlharris]

If the blog annoys, don't tune it. If everyone shuns it, they will move on.

[Ammy]

:o:o

(Embarrassed by Minnesota's Mayo Clinic in regards to health info)

I'm working on them...really I am!! :p

[Karole]

Man, they got hammered there , didn't they !!

It is so heartbreaking to have the professionals poisoning, with sugar in all its forms, the ones in their care. Hard to believe with all the literature out there.

[Roadstr]

Hammered is the word, Karole, and although sad to see that those that do not understand are responsible for the care for others. However, it's good to see there are a lot of people out there that know better than to take seriously commentary on studies just because they have a couple of letters after their name.

Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D. deserved the hammering. BTW Max, that's what I was referring to, not Michael's blog.

[maxlharris]

Roadstr: It was understood. If you don't like a blog, don't read it. If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. If you don't like horror movies, don't pay to see them. The powers of attention and inattention are very powerful.

[Roadstr]

Roadstr: It was understood. If you don't like a blog, don't read it. If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. If you don't like horror movies, don't pay to see them. The powers of attention and inattention are very powerful.

Gottcha Max... that's not how I drive. :cool: The Mayo Clinic will get the message sooner or latter because those that are commenting have a clear understanding of the subject. You should read their comments, after all if you don't say anything no one will know. :rolleyes:

PS. I don't expect a reply.;)

[maxlharris]

Active engagement versus boycott. I'd suggest that the history of boycott is a lot more effective than one of antagonistic engagement.

Calling the posters over there incompetent and guilty of malpractice is generally not a well thought out negotiation tactic.

[kevindill]

Active engagement versus boycott. I'd suggest that the history of boycott is a lot more effective than one of antagonistic engagement.

Calling the posters over there incompetent and guilty of malpractice is generally not a well thought out negotiation tactic.


Yes, but the comment section would be far less entertaining.

[laughingW]

I was entertained. OP, thanks for reminding me to read the comments. I wouldn't have otherwise.

[maxlharris]

I found the commentary to be amusing. I found the article to be amusing in it's demonstration of non-understanding in both low carb diets and in basic study design. I'm not an MD and the hardest science I took after freshman year of college* was Economics. But even I can figure out what's wrong with the egg study and the conclusions they drew from it**.

*I took an Astronomy course that used to be an easy pass, but had recently been ramped up to be a weeder of the science declined... I think I got a B. I managed to get a lot of those course in my years in undergrad. That folks on an Internet site with a respected brand would be so basically wrong is appalling. So appalling, I commented (can't help myself when it's slow at work).

** I did take a marketing research course and it's amazing how similar marketing research is with health research. I also took a political economy course that was heavy on study design. It's remarkable how the marketing research got me through that... basically, studies of populations and effects are studies of populations and effects, regardless of whether it's cola preference, democracy or egg consumption.

[gitfiddle]

I decided to check for additional comments by the normal route and that blog issue is missing from the archive selections. When I went back to the original link here, I got it.

The last comment was a mention that some of the comments had been removed from the list.

[maxlharris]

I decided to check for additional comments by the normal route and that blog issue is missing from the archive selections. When I went back to the original link here, I got it.

The last comment was a mention that some of the comments had been removed from the list.
I didn't see that.

I did see that my post loses impact when they kill the formatting. Bullets are really only effective when formatted.

[Karole]

I think boycotting will work if they know you are boycotting them--if all those knowledgeable folks said nothing ---and let their silliness ride, I'm afraid other folks would think there is wide spread agreement with the article. That would be tragic.

Hammer on !!

[Ammy]

HA! Well if omitting some of their comments doesn't reinforce that the blog is bunk, then I don't know what does!!

:lol:

[gitfiddle]

I think boycotting will work if they know you are boycotting them--if all those knowledgeable folks said nothing ---and let their silliness ride, I'm afraid other folks would think there is wide spread agreement with the article. That would be tragic.I tend to agree with your point of view, Karole.

Mine was one they deleted and I don't think I was offensive, but I did say what worked for me as a diabetic and how disappointed I was in Mayo. Maybe I WAS offensive! :eek:

[Karole]

I think it is totally wrong to delete any post. If they can't stand the honest truth then they need to stay off the site. They invited feedback and comments.

I am positive our ms Carol could never be offensive in any way shape or form, so I would be at a loss to figure out why they chose that one to delete.

[gitfiddle]

Um...I think I told them that I'd never believe anything they told me again. Do you think that might have made them a little huffy? ;) No, there were comments with much stronger language than that! Well, I'm sure not going to lose sleep over it. I learned a lot by reading the comments myself!

[Karole]

Yes, me too. Thanks to the Roadstr for creating that link for us !!

[maxlharris]

I called them intellectually dishonest and said "One can only conclude that they are not bright or are dogmatic soldiers. We weep for the Mayo Clinic, either way."

It's still up.

There's a Part 2:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet-diabetes/MY00550

[Roadstr]

Thanks Max... From Part 2: For those with diabetes — there's more to it than carbs (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet-diabetes/MY00550) ... "However, the surprising thing in this study was that the mild reduction in carbs resulted in people eating diets that had enough total and saturated fat to require more insulin."
Perhaps they should do another blog and site Cardiovascular and Hormonal Aspects of Very-Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/full/oby2004276a.html#tbl2) where it was shown that a low carbohydrate diet significantly lowered fasting glucose, insulin, and insulin resistance. It may have been that a diet of 45% carbohydrates was not low enough to cause a lower insulin resistance which would result in a lower insulin dosage. Of course, that was the point of many of the comments and they still don't get it.
One interesting thing in the above study, at least a concern of mine because another book I was reading sited that a very low carb diet would cause inflammation. Study 9 in the above referenced study, "There were no significant changes in soluble P-selectin after either diet. These data indicate that weight loss is the driving force underlying the reduction in inflammatory markers and not the composition of the diet." However, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was -55% on the VLCKD while it was -48% on the low fat diet.... and all other markers for inflammation were lower except for 1 and that was a 2% difference. Certainly, not inflammatory and marginally better in lower inflammation on the very low carb diet. That's something the Alkaline Diet people will want to take a look at as well... but, I'll stop here.:slywink:

[Mackay Rippey]

It sounds like they are suffering from that dreaded mainstream syndrome: UFOF - the Unnatural Fear of Fats.

It's amazing that nutritionists working for the most advanced medical institutions on Earth are so ignorant on the important health benefits of saturated fats and cholesterol.

Not that measuring cholesterol is a particularly good predictor of heart problems. 50% of people who suffer from heart attacks have "normal" cholesterol levels and for 33% of people with heart disease, sudden death is the first symptom. As a nation, if we were as bad at driving as we are at predicting heart disease, we'd all be walking for fear of death!

In fact, part of the cause of these dismal numbers, are the very recommendations that the medical "establishment" are pushing on us. Eating a low fat diet, and replacing fat with carbohydrates, wreaks havoc on triglycerides and increases inflammation, and increases LDL cholesterol. Then to compensate for the bad diets sold by nutrition "experts," unenlightened doctors foist cholesterol drugs on their patients.

If I were an evil genius working for a pharmaceutical company, that's exactly the marketing plan I would draw up. I'd like to believe that nutritionists are not an army of "mini me's" doing the bidding of Big Pharmacueticals. But you have to wonder.

One last note on the health benefits of saturated fats. During the 1970s, Canadian researchers found that animals fed "heart healthy" canola oil actualy developed heart lesions. The lesions healed when the researchers added saturated fat to the animals diets. These researchers went on to recommend that 25% of dietary fat should be saturated - and the healthiest amongst saturated fats? Lard. Fire up the bacon boys!

[Roadstr]

One last note on the health benefits of saturated fats. During the 1970s, Canadian researchers found that animals fed "heart healthy" canola oil actualy developed heart lesions. The lesions healed when the researchers added saturated fat to the animals diets. These researchers went on to recommend that 25% of dietary fat should be saturated - and the healthiest amongst saturated fats? Lard. Fire up the bacon boys!

Those studies are sited here (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html). Scroll about 1/3 down the page to THE STUDIES :eek:. Sesame oil and olive oil for cooking, EVOO or walnut oil on my salads... canola is not worth the cost savings to me.

[Mackay Rippey]

Yes, I see we visit the same wise women :)

[James L]

I tend to agree with your point of view, Karole.

Mine was one they deleted and I don't think I was offensive, but I did say what worked for me as a diabetic and how disappointed I was in Mayo. Maybe I WAS offensive! :eek:

I think this is what you posted, Carol:

February 8, 2009 10:52 p.m.
"What should you take away from these studies? People with diabetes should note that low-carb in the short term may mean high-fat and worsening diabetes management in the long run." It's a good thing I've read different studies! I'm a T2 diabetic and my A1c is 5.3. I've been eating under 40 carbs a day for five years. I've lost weight, dispensed with prescription medicine and generally improved my existence exponentially. Are either of you diabetic? I'm so sad that Mayo is among those who can't catch up with reality. If you're so far off-base on diabetes care, how can I assume the rest of your advice is not equally deadly?So you now have a second chance to confirm what you posted or to retract it. :)

[gitfiddle]

:lol: :lol: :lol: I must have been in rare form that day! Thank you, James, I almost didn't recognize my own words. I can sort of see where they may have thought I was just a little over the top, in a way, kind of. I choose to not stir it up again and just bask in my own heated verbiage. I certainly wouldn't retract it! :peeved:;):)

[Gaelen]

gee--it sounds perfectly reasonable and balanced to me, Carol...no caps, no boldface, no underlines, no explanation points.
Just the facts, ma'am...but then again, I never underestimate the ability of anyone to get riled up when presented with facts which contradict their own postulations and theories. ;)

[gitfiddle]

Pat, I'm thinkin' they were having a bad day. ;) I won't hold it against them. I just was gratified to see how MANY responses they got to that post.

[James L]

I think it may have been the "deadly" part or perhaps the entire last sentence that prompted them to hit their "Delete Comment" button. Although it seems like a valid comment, with a relevant question! :)

[maxlharris]

Hrm, they booted that but left this one standing:
1- As noted by the authors, a 45% carb diet is not in any way a low carb diet.

2- As noted by them in the comments, the reduction of carbs from 55% to 45% resulted in a growth in fat consumption, as a percentage of calories.

3- What fails to track is that this increase in dietary fat led to the result, reduced control over blood glucose.

4- Why this fails to track: dietary fat really has no impact on blood sugar. We're really interested in carbs, protein and alcohol when we talk about blood sugar, no?

5- The multicenter study cited has people getting 18% of the calories from protein and alcohol on their lower carb diet. This seems lacking in general. If you were following any sort of carbohydrate restriction, you would be eating more protein. It is hard to do otherwise.

6- If they were getting 45% of their cals from carbs, we're talking 675-900 kcal from carb. That works to 169 to 225 grams. This feels like an amount that would drive blood sugar wild in a T-1 diabetic.

7- Why do most people worry about T-1 diabetes. Since T-2 is most of the population, shouldn't we worry about effects on that particular flavor?

8- I find this post to be intellectually dishonest. The authors are (or should be) able to decide that a reduction from 55% to 45% of total calories from carbs is really shuffling deck chairs, not a firm commitment to health and change. One can only conclude that they are not bright or are dogmatic soldiers. We weep for the Mayo Clinic, either way.

Funny what tickles them and what doesn't.