Does anyone have peer-reviewed research demonstrating the long-term effectiveness of a “Bernstein diet” on glycemic control? On cardiovascular health? I know that studies exist describing the effectiveness of carbohydrate limitation more generally, but I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed stuff either suggesting that 30-50g is the appropriate threshold or comparing the effectiveness of moderate carbohydrate limitation and more drastic carbohydrate limitation? Any citations or links would help, but I’m looking for peer-reviewed empirical research from reputable medical or nutrition journals, not the standard cast of characters (Bernstein, Taubes, the Paleo types, etc.)
I too will follow this thread with interest. I don’t know much about the formal peer review process but I suspect that topics that investigate lines of questioning with economic potential will attract the most talent and resources. Lack of peer review, if that’s the case here, does not necessarily undermine the legitimate claim of low CHO diets for diabetics leading to optimal glucose control (as measured by A1c test, CGM curves) and overall good health.
Endos, CDE’s & dieticians don’t know the facts about low carb, unfortunately. The same myths & misinformation are perpetrated. Though becoming slightly more accepted (as witnessed by recent ADA statements), low carb is far from mainstream. One day, it will be status quo.
10 carbs a day is extreme.
I can only speak to my experience with low carb (30-35 daily) for almost 3 years. When I’ve gone above this, my BG takes a beating. Not eating grains, beans or starchy vegetables has only had positive effects for me. Most vegetables are low carb & I eat a variety.
Agree, Terry, that this doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of a low carb approach.
I think that the scientific community shys away from studying “low carb” because its not what they recommend? I hope someone can find a study though!
Most research into low carb diets, their efficacy and long term outcomes has been “taboo.” The major funding organizations (NIH, etc) have been lobbied hard by the AHA, ADA and other organizations to “never” do research into these questions. Recall how Atkins was “vilified.” That being said, there is a mounting body of evidence on the safety and usefulness of low carb diets. A good recent background on the science can be found in book “New Atkins for You,” which is written by three leading researchers.
Another good source of research is Nutrition and Metabolism Society which has quite a number of research papers addressing exactly these questions. Please support the nmsociety, they need our support to publish the answers to these questions. The so called “Evidence Based Medicine” is actually bogus and is just voting. When you ask your doctor or dietician for “evidence” from research studies, they have none.
I’m still determined to aim for lower than 7.0 A1C and eating. I always am anticipating some sort of wheels falling off the bus every time I get bloodwork done. It’s also probably only a matter of time before I break an ankle on a curb or pothole and exercise will go out the window. Still, I am not sure it’s “almost certain” to end up blind/ de-kidneyed/ amputated either. I think that there’s a lot of gray area that, of course, isn’t really explored very well?
This link from the Bloodsugar101 website contains links to other studies .
It does seem that this is something no one seems to want to study. There have been several studies concerning the effect of low carb on blood lipids because of the Atkins diet craze and I believe none found any problem.
Here's a link to a study which finds no ill effectes of < 50g/day.
I recently started a discussion in the Bernstein Group concerning the Swedish Governments officially declaring low carb as a safe and scientifically based based treatment for obesity and diabetes. It has links to a fuller discussion of what happened there, very interesting in light of the situation in the US.
Part of the problem is defining low carb. Some use the Bernstein definition others call 150g/day low carb. I'm not sure which is "right" but comparing the two is an apples and oranges situation.
That’s the $64 question. I have been at it since 1984 generally pretty well controlled (current is 5.2 although I look @ std dev as much as A1C these days. But I still run in the 150 g of carbs/ day range, nowhere near the apparent standards of the low carb “club”? Eyes are good, kidneys are good, extrmities are attached (except for the tip of my ear that got lopped off in a bike accident…) so I am confident that my strategy is working for now, despite the burger & fries & beer(s) during the basketball and hockey games last night.
There seem to be other factors besides A1C involved in who get what complications. The big wild card is genetics. So it comes down to how much you want to gamble.
I agree with you standard deviation may be just as important a factor as A1C, but it’s widely ignored.