“The principle known as Occam’s Razor (Named for William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is usually understood as a statement that a simple explanation is preferable to one that is more complicated. The principle has many variations. It might be interpreted as saying that you have to have a sense of priorities.
…the idea can be described mathematically by saying that if the outcome, Y, of an experiment can be expressed with a rough sort of equation: Y = A + B + C +… and if A explains Y, then you don’t want to drag in B, C, etc unless you absolutely have to.
The bottom line on this post is that for obesity, diabetes and general health, the predominant effect of diet, the major contribution to the outcome — A in the equation above — is provided by substituting fat (any fat) for carbohydrate (any carbohydrate). That’s what the science says. That will give you the best effect. The B contribution (type of fat, type of carbohydrate) is strictly secondary. The practical consequence: if for some reason, you want to reduce fructose in the diet, the best advice is to reduce carbohydrate across the board.“
Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs.
Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science.
The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.”
Current evidence points to the many potential benefits of tea drinking—some of which appear to be associated with its antioxidative properties, whereas others may simply coincide with a healthy lifestyle. Nevertheless, the uneven quality of the data and the diverse types of studies make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Which teas have the strongest health benefits (or risks) and why remains unknown. Researchers still need to address many facets surrounding tea and health, including the ideal brewing methods; the addition of substances; the frequency, amount, and duration of consumption; and whether a tea leaf’s health potential declines as it ages. Furthermore, a significant proportion of studies were conducted in Asian populations, where tea drinking is widespread. Future research should include more diverse populations of tea drinkers.
“A new report that has reviewed all the data from the last 30 years on diet, weight, physical activity, and cancer has confirmed the link between cancer and lifestyle and provides evidence-based recommendations on how to reduce cancer risk.
Whoa!!! Let’s slow down the probiotic wagon train!
1) Researchers began by giving probiotics to germ-free mice, in which they were actually able to induce the desired microbial changes. When they gave the probiotics to mice that were already colonized with their own innate bacteria, however, there were evident resistance patterns. They were not able to induce the colonization that they thought they would when they gave the probiotic. The same effect was evident when they tested it in humans. There seems to be certain bacterial resistant patterns in hosts that either facilitate or block the colonization intended by this probiotic effect.
2) Researchers found that there was a rapid reconstitution of the normal biome when they gave the patients their pre-antibiotic stool back. Comparatively, the use of probiotics was associated with a marked delay in patients being able to return to what their normal microbiome was before antibiotics.
3) Nearly a third or more of all trials included reported no adverse event monitoring or harm, whereas 98% provided no adequate documentation, validation, or standardization in reporting adverse events or serious adverse events. Given the high variability in the quality of existing data, the authors concluded that it may be too premature to make any broad conclusions about the safety of these interventions.
Certainly, just like any other medication, potential harm needs to be assessed in probiotics.