To contact us Click HERE
Again, those wanting to make a name forthemselves use a small study and publicize as widely as possible. This time it is in the name of nutrition. The study is faultybecause there was not a control group or a blinded study. Anotherweakness or fault of the study was not publishing the criteria forselection of study participants. Yes, a few qualifications werementioned, but these should not have been the only criteria inselection.
Yes, I am being very critical of moststudies proclaiming this and that about what people with diabetesshould be consuming. Saying that we should be eating a set number ofdaily servings of low glycemic index foods is not saying that thenutritional needs of an individual are being met or that this is whattheir body can tolerate. What irritates the worst is aone-size-fits-all mantra that everyone keeps promoting.
Low glycemic index foods can helpmanage blood glucose levels, but should be used as a guide only asjust selecting this type of food can be nutritionally deficient andnot the selection we may need for minimum nutrition goals. Yes, lowglycemic index carbohydrates that are digested slowly, and are lesslikely to spike blood glucose levels than would carbohydrates with ahigh glycemic index may help blood glucose levels, but are theynutritious enough?
The article does say the participantsalso ate about 500 fewer daily calories and added vegetables, fruitsand nuts, and seeds to their diet - all foods that are on the low endof the glycemic index. Again, no nutritional information is givennor are the combinations even discussed.
Carla Miller, associate professor ofhuman nutrition at Ohio State University and lead author of the studystated, "I think we have enough data to say that consuming alow-glycemic-index diet has beneficial outcomes for people withdiabetes." “That's a significant statement because noguidelines currently exist for consumption of low-glycemic-indexfoods,” she noted. “Some experts think a focus on the glycemicindex in foods rather than carbohydrates and sugars is toocomplicated for patients with diabetes to follow. Miller doesn'tthink that's the case as long as patients receive adequate nutritioneducation - which was another finding of hers in a study published in2009.”
What I find amusing is they talk a goodline and have good ideas, yet they will not publish this nutritionalinformation online for people to educate themselves. This would notput any money in their pockets like a study. They give us findingsthat we can be led to believe that good nutrition was taught andpeople were allowed to make variations in the diet to fit what theirmeter told them. I doubt this was allowed or even considered. Themantra was low glycemic index level foods and only this. They also do not mention whether thenutritional level of the food participants were asked to consume weremonitored. Yes, at the start of the study, all 35 participantscompleted a baseline assessment and participated in a five-week groupnutrition intervention. No mention is made about the extent or typeof nutrition information given, but I can imagine the bulk was aboutthe glycemic index and very little else.
Another disturbing fact missing is thatto be eligible, the participants had to have a hemoglobin A1c valueof 7 percent or higher; however, I can find no evidence that of acomparative A1c at the completion of the trial. This is disturbingon so many levels. Did they require people with high level A1c's atthe beginning to make sure that they would be less likely to complainabout their high or higher A1c's at the end of the trial?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder