medicine and balanced food or nutritionally unacceptable diet- which one to choose?scientists advice the first around 1995 for the diabetic

my last post[the ethics of giving medical advice........ ], helps to evolve the analysis perfectly .two options arise.

1]medicine and balanced food

2] medicine free but nutrition-wise unacceptable..

considering pros and cons the scientists advise..take the first.this answer they gave around 1995 for the diabetic .


for what percent of people case '1]' above does not work?

i have no idea.but my assessment is, very few people at right side edge of the normal distribution curve[ consider normal weight, overweight and obesity in sequence ] .

for them

the American diabetes association recommends a moderately low carb diet of 130 grams per day to reduce weight -- repeat to reduce weight ---automatically solving their

diabetes too.

kindly note the difference between a scientific argument and a 'talk for talk'.

8 Replies

  • What scientific argument? I'm afraid you are going to have to expand on how 130 gms of carbohydrate consumption per day can 'automatically solve diabetes'.

  • 130 gm carb is only 520 kcal. What about the rest. Proteins definitely can't be more than 75 gms in general. So where from does one get the balance energy? They never answer that. Probably because ADA never printed that in their pamphlets.

  • First provide the "scientific" basis of calling anything nutritional unacceptable. Without numbers to justify, it's just OPINIONS and opinions don't matter. What nutrients are missed? Specify the details. I say no nutritional elements are missed even with 100 grams carbs a day and the huge number of diabetics living on it for decades together make it so evident.

    Only thing they miss is huge dose of drugs and no one who really understand science will consider PILLS as side dish as part of nutrition.

    Where is the SCIENCE of 60% CARBS?

  • Do you seriously expect a reply? Good luck!

  • I will keep asking so that "majority" readers here know who is talking what. If there's no SCIENCE and only OPINIONS then that should also be highlighted. So far, none of them have provided any SCIENTIFIC basis to back their OPINIONS on so called "LACKING Nutrition/Nutrients"

    In due course, I will publish numbers to bust this MYTH and absolute LIES of lacking nutrition if carbs are not 60%. Stay tuned. Time-line : not decided yet. Giving them ample chance to come up with numbers.

  • india cratus

    This is the truth as stated by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

  • dear ragivrao ji,

    wonderful remark- he might have made it in some context.whatever it is..

    any way in coincidence to me :

    , it is true in my understanding of Schopenhauer==first i brushed aside his theory of 'will' when i was in college ,.then for long time i was along with the materialists in opposing him.

    in the end i accepted 'will' as self evident.

    Schopenhauer made many sarcastic remarks --one among those is very famous..

    about Hegel he remarked 'the official philosopher' Hegel was in the good books of the then government.

    thanks for response.

  • There's something far more relevant here in what Frederick Bastiat said:

    "We must admit that our opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.