Do you mean 'everybody' or just diabetics? Or people with a family history of diabetes?

We have been discussing how the ADA has not apparently changed their ways. I think everyone here agrees on the change we want to see.

Kewl!

No, I do understand that. I agree, that "A" doesn't seem to fit. That's what I meant by 'mysterious' - sorry I wasn't very clear.

No worries....it is a mystery why they would grade it an A, when there is no data.....makes you wonder about their other positions & statements, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

I get into these threads because it makes me dig into the issue. So I read lots of ADA stuff in the last few days, when I never have before.

It's really complicated. A lot of the benefits from low-carbing might be due to weight loss alone, so I can understand trying to separate that out. But weight loss is a huge plank in the ADA's platform, and some people do much better on a low-carb plan, probably including a lot of people in danger of becoming Type II diabetics. It seems worth mentioning for the weight loss benefit alone, plus the triglyceride lowering, but they seem to think people don't stay on low-carb diets. Or maybe it's the 'lipid hypothesis' keeping them away from recommending low-carb because of the connection between diabetes and heart disease.

My personal example aside (because it's complicated by hypothyroidism) - I do believe most people with diabetic tendencies, people with insulin resistance, will be heart-healthier when they control carbs, because of the drop in triglycerides. But I don't feel I can prove it to the ADA. It would be interesting to try to set up a group project here on the forums to generate a proof - use the ADA's own grading system to present evidence.

So, to sum up possible reasons we have come up with, as to why the ADA hasn't adopted a low-carb element in its dietary recommendations:

• to benefit their sponsors at the expense of diabetics
• old ideas about nutrition are too entrenched
• they cannot overturn their history of recommending high carb
• they are afraid that eradicating diabetes will make them irrelevant
• they are too convinced of the 'lipid hypothesis' and afraid to allow a fattier diet
• they sincerely believe their diet is better
• they think people can't stay on low-carb diets for long
• they think nobody can stay on any diet for long ("noncompliance")
• they don't feel there is enough evidence to support low-carb eating

Did I miss any?

Incidentally, we can contact the ADA and ask them.



What, exactly, would we want to ask? We would want to phrase a question where they couldn't just say "there isn't enough evidence."