The problem is they are comparing people who eat things made with whole grains to people who eat things made with white flour. If they compared both to a group who eats neither it would turn out you should eat no grains at all for the least risk of diabetes and they would bury the report so deep it would never be seen again. Who knows, maybe they already have.

How do you define a group eating refined flour products as low carb? I wonder what the results would have been if one group had eaten no grain products, eating only leafy vegetables etc. compared to the group eating whole grains.

EXACTLY, anonymous #1--They should have had a third group with NO grains. My dad has type 2 DM, and my fasting glucoses were creeping up into the prediabetic range. Using ROSEDALE and following the advice of MASTERING LEPTIN as far as 1) High protein breakfast, 2) 3 meals a day, 5-6 hours apart, NO snacks, 3) No eating within 3 hours of bedtime, 4) Walking an hour a few times a week, it's only taken me since mid-December to lose 12 lbs. And it's been EASY. After 30+ years the ADA finally comes up with "low carb might be okay." Well, gee, woohoo. The low-fat, high-carb diet they've been pushing for so long is what CAUSED a lot of the diabetes in the first place!

That is ridiculous. It shows that REFINED carbs are terrible for you. It doesn't show that whole grains are good for you! As the other poster above said, just compare that group to a group that eats NO GRAINS at all and see what happens.

These studies are so manipulated.
The bottom line is that all non-fiber carbs turn into glucose in your blood system.
i am amazed that the ADA finally mentions low carb diets given the funds it receives from outfits like Cadbury-Schwepps (yes, the candy and soda people).

it really is time for people to get a handle on the fact that you shoudl not treat the metabolisms of type 1 and type 2 the same way.
And that anything you can make flour from or is made out of flour, is bad news for type 2.

There are two big problems with such studies. First, the studies assume or at least infer that grains are a normal and necessary part of the human diet. They are not. Even whole grains require processing to render them into an edible form. Thus it is highly unlikely that early man ever at any form of grain in any significant amount.

The second issue is that no criteria has ever been established that defines what constitutes a low carbohydrate diet. So any diet that is less than the amount of carbs 'recommended' (there is no requirement in human nutrition) by an official body can be labeled 'low carb'. This opens the door to the kind of misinformation and disinformation that is being deployed to persuade the public the low carb offers no health benefits.

My criteria for a low carb diet is that it results in the production of insulin levels below the threshold at which fat burning is inhibited. Although this will vary from person to person, it is in the area of 60 grams of net carbohydrate consumption per day.

I suggest that there are very good reasons why a criteria for low carbohydrate diets has yet to be officially established and probably never will be.

My husband ate a diet very similar to the diet of the second group before his diagnosis (he was concerned about heart disease)

all these studies do is make us crazy, low carb works for me,plus i dont like grains

The ADA is still pussyfooting around. I guess they just can't admit they've been giving bad advice all these years.

Eliminating ALL grains and grain products from diabetic diets will not only result in weight loss, it will result in greatly improved BGs amd cholesterol levels. And it's not something to do for just one year, as the ADA advocates; it's for life.

But I guess the ADA just can't admit it's been leading diabetics down the garden path with wrong information all these years.

You guys are so right...BG control is so much better when carbs are extremely reduced. It's great to hear that there are others out there who have seen the light. Too bad the ADA is still in the dark!

The diet industry (and supplement industry too) is built on the gross oversimplification of just about any morsel of knowledge about human nutrition etc. You can't just call carbs bad, even for diabetics. It's more complex than that.

It's all about kinetics, or in plain language rates of absorption of carbohydrate and insulin. If you eat monstrous amounts of simple carbs, obviously it will spike your BG. If you eat complex carbs, and especially with some protein and fat, then you dramatically slow down the breakdown and absorption of those carbs. Then it's just about matching your insulin to the amount of carbohydrate, which isn't really that hard.

Ban fad diets!!!

If you eat complex carbs, and especially with some protein and fat, then you dramatically slow down the breakdown and absorption of those carbs. Then it's just about matching your insulin to the amount of carbohydrate, which isn't really that hard.

It is a lot more complicated than that. I can eat whole grain cereal and fruit for breakfast and have a serious low 2 hours later. If I eat meat, cheese, and/or eggs for breakfast and no grain or sugar, I'm OK until lunch time.

It may be simple to match _your_ insulin to your carbohydrate but it has never worked for me. I have always had a problem with carbohydrate even when I was a skinny little kid.

Ban the low fat fad!

BG meters don't lie... Grain products like oatmeal, white bread, flour etc. all send the my readings into yellow and red zones...

And rice, holy cow even the so called good stuff "wild rice" contains a whopping 35 carbs per serving.

I still eat these foods but greatly restrict quantities and only do it on good BG days.