Diet and nutrition

[showdownhero]

Nothing fettke advises is dangerous and it's ridiculous to say so

but he's not qualified and it goes against dietary guidelines, so he has to cop his whack. The dietary guidelines however are ridiculous and unscientific in the extreme.

 

[DemonTim]

Sorry can you show me where I said it's impossible to lose weight eating fruit?

I'm not misrepresenting anything, he said in his own words that not eating fruit is "dangerous". Those were his exact words

ps the diabetic is on a low carb diet if you'd actually care to read his post

diabetics and those trying to lose weight should not be eating fruit

That's word for word. You advised they SHOULD NOT be eating fruit

Yes I'm aware the diabetic is on low carb. That wasn't. Your point was "diabetics and those trying to lose weight should not be eating fruit"

He actually said that there was "dangerous aspects of his advice". Hence misrepresenting.

 

[DemonTim]

Nothing fettke advises is dangerous and it's ridiculous to say so

but he's not qualified and it goes against dietary guidelines, so he has to cop his whack. The dietary guidelines however are ridiculous and unscientific in the extreme.

The dietary guidelines are ridiculous. But those advocating for him being able to give advice have yet to answer the question: where do we draw the line on what they can advise outside of their qualifications? Do we apply this in all medicine and health sciences?

 

[Training Mad]

Has anyone tried spirulina?
If so what brand was the best?
And did it work?

 

[Bazzar]

I've asked you to explain your point of view, and said every time asked you've gotten overly emotional. My initial response also wasn't against fettke. So piss off with your rubbish responses.

I gave my response to Jason.

 

[DemonTim]

I gave my response to Jason.

Here's a hint: when numerous people are saying you gave no response, that means you gave no response. All you did was accuse people of trolling (why is it oldies always misuse this word) and bullying.
You've also absolutely failed to address the question I've posed twice

 

[DemonTim]

It's a complete joke and has opened up a massive can of worms.

It's as much about workplace and social media bullying and harassment as it is the recommendation of low carb and the reduction of sugar to his diabetic patients, whom many are on the verge or have had leg or feet amputation. Interesting that neither Gary or AHPRA have received one single complaint from a patient, the only complaints were from a senior doctor/administrator from the hospital (he also posted derogatory comments on social media) a dietitian and an administrator (who was at the time studying nutrition and also posted derogatory comments on social media)

The one major issue for Gary, if he sends his patients to Nutrition for Life where they have an APD, nutritionist and diabetes educator, then he could/will be charged with vested financial interests and over servicing, so he is in between a rock and a hard place.

And on the can of worms, now that AHPRA have made a (closed shop) ruling on this, what can your family GP advise in regards to nutrition? Is advising pregnant women to take folic acid ok?

And as you say Gary is an extremely well researched man on diet and nutrition who is also a cancer survivor, and the crazy part is he can not even study to gain formal qualifications while he remains a doctor under AHPRA because he has been "banned for life" discussing nutrition and that would automatically make any formal study impossible.

And this is how stuffed it is in Australia, In the UK, GP Joanne McCormack has just been presented with a Royal College of GP award for her work with low carb and diabetes.. She is just a GP and NOT a dietitian or nutritionist. Even the CSIRO has published and recommended low carb for the treatment of type 2.

This is far from over, and AHPRA will be the ones ending up with egg on their face.

If that's the response you're referring to, then no, you didn't provide information on why it's okay to do, or answer any question posed

 

[StiffArm]

strawman?

srs?

Yep. I said that there were aspects of what Fettke is doing that are dangerous, not that one can't live without fruit. You are misrepresenting me to fit an argument that you feel you can fight, that is a strawman.

I've had my run ins with DemonTim, but he tends to be intellectually honest, I appreciate that about him.

 

[showdownhero]

The dietary guidelines are ridiculous. But those advocating for him being able to give advice have yet to answer the question: where do we draw the line on what they can advise outside of their qualifications? Do we apply this in all medicine and health sciences?

Yep. I said that there were aspects of what Fettke is doing that are dangerous, not that one can't live without fruit. You are misrepresenting me to fit an argument that you feel you can fight, that is a strawman.

I've had my run ins with DemonTim, but he tends to be intellectually honest, I appreciate that about him.

Let's just recap

You called fettke a quack said what he advises may have "dangerous" and "less than desirable" effects. Full quote "dangerous consequences of some of the less desirable aspects of his advice."

When asked to elaborate on "What is dangerous about eating low levels of sugars exactly?" you then

a)said fruits are an "important source of vitamins and fibre" which was shown to be false
b)said labelling foods as bad or good may lead to people "forming eating disorders" which you presented no evidence to back up

What about fettke's advice is dangerous then?

Other than some spurious claims that it can cause eating disorders (I'd like to see some evidence to back that up)

I haven't strawmanned anything. You made an allegation that there are dangerous and less than desirable effects to his advice and haven't shown any evidence to back it up.

 

[showdownhero]

diabetics and those trying to lose weight should not be eating fruit

That's word for word. You advised they SHOULD NOT be eating fruit

Yes I'm aware the diabetic is on low carb. That wasn't. Your point was "diabetics and those trying to lose weight should not be eating fruit"

He actually said that there was "dangerous aspects of his advice". Hence misrepresenting.

Should not=/=can not

As Bazzar said there's no dietary necessity to eat fruit unless you like it.

I would argue diabetics are putting their health at risk by consuming anything that can spike their blood sugar.

Not sure which berries raskolnikov is eating but it's worth noting blueberries have the same number of carbs per 100g as carrots (10g).

 

[Jootube]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11288049

As long as you do not suffer from Type-2 Diabetes, you can literally eat as much fruit as you want (20+ serves daily).

Study found great improvements in weight, blood pressure and reduction in LDL Cholesterol (bad one).

 

[Nickos66]

The argument you're making is incredibly weak. Something along these lines.
P. Some people have had success with this method
P. People should be allowed to advise methods that have had some success
C. people should be allowed to advise this method.

It is an extremely dangerous position to take, there are all sorts of fringe treatments floating around which all have miracle cure stories. When you look at medical studies placebo groups get miracle cure stories too! An emotive appeal to a few cases is not reason enough to undermine our medical systems in place to maintain high quality of care.

How can something that's been scientifically proven be in your words "Incredibly weak"? Just because science doesn't suit your ideologies does not make it weak or some sort of "miracle cure" as you put it.
And yeah, because people have cured type 2 diabetes involving placebo studies. Please. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

 

[DemonTim]

Should not=/=can not

As Bazzar said there's no dietary necessity to eat fruit unless you like it.

I would argue diabetics are putting their health at risk by consuming anything that can spike their blood sugar.

Not sure which berries raskolnikov is eating but it's worth noting blueberries have the same number of carbs per 100g as carrots (10g).

So if they can eat them, and do and still reach weight loss goals, or do not have any negative impact on their condition, why shouldn't they eat them?

 

[DemonTim]

Let's just recap

You called fettke a quack said what he advises may have "dangerous" and "less than desirable" effects. Full quote "dangerous consequences of some of the less desirable aspects of his advice."

When asked to elaborate on "What is dangerous about eating low levels of sugars exactly?" you then

a)said fruits are an "important source of vitamins and fibre" which was shown to be false
b)said labelling foods as bad or good may lead to people "forming eating disorders" which you presented no evidence to back up

What about fettke's advice is dangerous then?

Other than some spurious claims that it can cause eating disorders (I'd like to see some evidence to back that up)

I haven't strawmanned anything. You made an allegation that there are dangerous and less than desirable effects to his advice and haven't shown any evidence to back it up.

see now you've changed what you were suggesting he said, to line up with what he actually said.

 

[raskolnikov]

Should not=/=can not

As Bazzar said there's no dietary necessity to eat fruit unless you like it.

I would argue diabetics are putting their health at risk by consuming anything that can spike their blood sugar.

Not sure which berries raskolnikov is eating but it's worth noting blueberries have the same number of carbs per 100g as carrots (10g).

I eat approx 50g of berries (usually blueberries) a day.

 

[showdownhero]

see now you've changed what you were suggesting he said, to line up with what he actually said.

What I've done, is quote him verbatim and asked him to provide evidence of his claims.

 

[Bazzar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11288049

As long as you do not suffer from Type-2 Diabetes, you can literally eat as much fruit as you want (20+ serves daily).

Study found great improvements in weight, blood pressure and reduction in LDL Cholesterol (bad one).

A 16year old 2 week vegetarian study. Hardly ground breaking research.

What I found interesting the blood lipids and li-poproteins on the high-fiber veg based diet were the best with no significant change on the therapeutic diet.

The difference in diet? The elimination of grains from the therapeutic diet.

Sample from the therapeutic dinner
Cheese omelette made from 103 g Lipton’s Egg Beaters (egg substitute) 159 g fat free cheese
46 g olive oil*

That is NOT an omelette.

 

[showdownhero]

see now you've changed what you were suggesting he said, to line up with what he actually said.

Also please don't accuse me of shifting goal posts or strawman arguments when it was stiffarm that took the argument into a debate about the merits of fruit consumption when the initial question was about sugars

What is dangerous about eating low levels of sugars exactly?

The advice to avoid fruit is eliminating an important source of vitamins and fibre,

 

[DemonTim]

What I've done, is quote him verbatim and asked him to provide evidence of his claims.

Except you didn't, you originally made the claim that he said

Also please don't accuse me of shifting goal posts or strawman arguments when it was stiffarm that took the argument into a debate about the merits of fruit consumption when the initial question was about sugars

none of that is shifting goal posts, he was discussing that from the start, he directly quoted fettke discussing that exact topic. The initial discussion was not limited to sugars. Again youre either unable to read, or are being deliberately disingenuous.

I'm still waiting for you or bazzar to answer my query

 

[showdownhero]

Except you didn't, you originally made the claim that he said

none of that is shifting goal posts, he was discussing that from the start, he directly quoted fettke discussing that exact topic. The initial discussion was not limited to sugars. Again youre either unable to read, or are being deliberately disingenuous.

I'm still waiting for you or bazzar to answer my query

Except you didn't, you originally made the claim that he said

none of that is shifting goal posts, he was discussing that from the start, he directly quoted fettke discussing that exact topic. The initial discussion was not limited to sugars. Again youre either unable to read, or are being deliberately disingenuous.

I'm still waiting for you or bazzar to answer my query

Well I apologise for my disingenuous posting. If I read between the lines that StiffArm was saying low sugar diet is dangerous but was misunderstanding the post then my bad.

I'd still like to know what the dangerous or less than desirable consequences are from following fettke's advice though. As in

a) what part of his advice is dangerous
b) what are the dangerous or less than desirable outcomes from that advice

Regarding your query, I'm assuming this is it?

The problem is the body regulating it can't operate on the basis of "the ends justified the means". They don't act in this case, what happens next time a doctor gives advice on a topic that they feel they are well versed in, and the results are negative?

People are complaining about this being a blanket ruling, I'd rather this, than the blanket ruling going the other way. Where do you draw the line on recommendations outside qualifications?

If not I apologise, this thread has blown up lately and it can be hard to follow.

II feel like I've already answered it with the following and I feel like for the most part our views on the matter are in alignment

Nothing fettke advises is dangerous and it's ridiculous to say so

but he's not qualified and it goes against dietary guidelines, so he has to cop his whack. The dietary guidelines however are ridiculous and unscientific in the extreme.

 

[DemonTim]

Well I apologise for my disingenuous posting. If I read between the lines that StiffArm was saying low sugar diet is dangerous but was misunderstanding the post then my bad.

I'd still like to know what the dangerous or less than desirable consequences are from following fettke's advice though. As in

a) what part of his advice is dangerous
b) what are the dangerous or less than desirable outcomes from that advice

Regarding your query, I'm assuming this is it?



If not I apologise, this thread has blown up lately and it can be hard to follow.

II feel like I've already answered it with the following and I feel like for the most part our views on the matter are in alignment

Doesn't rally answer my point, if they allow this, it seems to open the door for advice outside expertise. Where can a line be drawn in that

 

[showdownhero]

Doesn't rally answer my point, if they allow this, it seems to open the door for advice outside expertise. Where can a line be drawn in that

They can't allow it, that's what I'm saying. I agree with you that they need to draw a line in the sand with Fettke otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent.

The treatment of Fettke is a symptom of a much greater problem with the dietary guidelines. Attack the problem not the symptom.

 

[Big Cox 88]

Haven't eaten fruit in 3 years, no grain or sugar either. 20kg down great lipids and zero chance of obtaining type 2 diabetes which is "genetically" in my family.

Fettke is a hero and should win Australian of the year.

 

[Jab]

Anyone listened to Dr. Cowan's thoughts on eating more vegetables? Yes, he has some products to push but the podcast that he did with Chris Kresser was interesting.

 

[Aeglos]

Haven't eaten fruit in 3 years, no grain or sugar either. 20kg down great lipids and zero chance of obtaining type 2 diabetes which is "genetically" in my family.

Fettke is a hero and should win Australian of the year.

One brick does not a castle make