I'm not sure what trial you're looking at. You appear to quote the Jakobsen et al study, but that was comparing high GI to low GI carbs, not low carb to low fat.
Therefore, only being about Glycemic index variations, it doesn't adds anything not already known about low-carb or low-fat. Mixing the usual amounts of carbs, as in this study with fats, is dangerous.
Are you aware that you implied in your earlier post that the Brouns paper is an "ideological tainted" expert study?
My honest answer after reading it with what is certainly known about low-carb and high-carb through other studies: This study is ideologically tainted!.
(3) sustained adherence to a ketogenic LCHF diet appears to be difficult. A non-ketogenic diet supplying 100–150 g carbohydrate/day, under good control, may be more practical.
Maybe practical, but what if not under control this way? As it was in my case. Then it's ensuring a revenue stream from a increasingly diabetic population through medication with no therapeutic effects whatsoever. Supporting this cruel business model.
(4) There is lack of data supporting long-term efficacy, safety and health benefits of LCHF diets. Any recommendation should be judged in this light.
Duh. Diabetes isn't crippling? And has in fact only increased with recommended high-carbohydrates diets.
(5) Lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while maintaining a relative carbohydrate-rich diet, results in long-term prevention of progression to type 2 diabetes and is generally seen as safe.
A carbohydrate-rich low-fat diet after 30 years resulted in progression to T2D in me. Reversing that macro-nutrient ratio reversed it.
They just continue to give dietary recommendation they gave for 50 years now. It's time to wake up to the diabetic epidemic.
Last edited: