Telling people to eat fewer, not more, whole grains to prevent T2DM and cancer is peak HNism:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
and high-fat, high-saturated fat diets actually make insulin sensitivity worse:
1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now.
2. Linking papers, without any sort of commentary or notion as to the reason for their inclusion, is in poor taste. In most cases this is done when the poster themselves haven't thoroughly read the articles in question. I won't go so far as to say this has been done today, but I will say it is a disrespect of our time to post lengthy papers without any sort of reasoning behind why they've been posted.
3. The first two links (technically one paper)[1][2] are statistical analyses of different food groups and their association with type 2 diabetes. The same error is done here as has been mentioned in my first point: without controlling for the whole diet, and using a very low carb, high fat/protein diet, the findings are irrelevant. Risk ratios are a notable finding, not a be-all end-all. Correlation is not causation. Continue platitudes ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/ [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
Where's the evidence? I linked to a study, one that isn't confounded by weight-loss (unlike the studies you people like to cite) demonstrating that as the fat (especially saturated fat) content of the diet increased to an absurd degree (55%!), insulin sensitivity tanked. Why would insulin sensitivity, when measured by an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, suddenly improve if you restricted carbohydrate even further? Yeah, at some point your intake will be so low that you can "game" an HbA1c or fasting BG test, but underlying insulin sensitivity will be trash (which an OGTT would show), unless maybe you lose enough bodyfat to offset it.
Why do so many people on keto develop "physiological insulin resistance?" Why does all of the epidemiological evidence show strong inverse correlations between low-fat carbohydrate consumption (like whole grains and fruits) and T2DM, but the reverse for high-fat "carbs" like cookies or pizza?
The most reasonable interpretation of the data right now is that high-fat diets make you less insulin sensitive.
Nonetheless, I found it easy to find studies showing the exact opposite. So I think the situation is not so clear-cut as you write.
What do you mean with "losing enough bodyfat to offset it"?
Every internet meme gets more and more extreme.
I have personally tried fresh vegetable juice only for 30 days and I think it's amazing. I didn't even drink any actual water for 30 days, since I was drinking 1 gallon+ of vegetable juice a day (fresh juiced at home, not pasteurized garbage).
I personally think the ideal diet would be vegetable juice plus some beef. Which is what most people would say ("hey, just eat a lot of salad and some meat sparingly"). Except it's way easier to drink 8 lbs of vegetables than it is to eat them.
Then we won't have to deal with these bro scientists anymore.
For example, the high carb SAD being defacto is a new thing. It became the default around the same time as the agricultural revolution and mass media. Before that, there were lots of of options. During the period where mass media ruled, their was only one zeitgeist (brought to you by Kellogg’s!), but now with the internet we are back to historical norms where those with means are able to find advice free of commercial incentives and regulatory capture. For example, low carb has been around for centuries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet#histor...
> Six out of the 12 food-groups showed a significant relation with risk of T2D, three of them a decrease of risk with increasing consumption (whole grains, fruits, and dairy),
I think you misread my post, or misread the study. Whole grains are some of the healthiest foods you can eat, especially when it comes to reducing your risk of T2DM, while the person I was replying to implied the opposite:
> Thirteen studies with 29,633 T2D cases were included in the high vs. low intake meta-analysis (overall intake range: 0–302 g/day). Comparing extreme categories, a strong inverse association between T2D and whole grain intake was observed (RR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.71–0.84, I2 = 86%) (Supplementary Figure S1). Each additional daily 30 g of whole grains was inversely associated with T2D risk (RR: 0.87; 95% CI 0.82–0.93, I2 = 91%, n = 12 studies) (Supplementary Figure S2). The inverse associations and heterogeneity persisted in additional analyses stratified by sex, age, follow-up length, geographic location, number of cases, dietary assessment, and outcome assessment (Supplementary Table S14). Evidence of heterogeneity between subgroups in stratified analyses was observed for geographic location, dietary assessment method, and outcome assessment. There was significant evidence for small study effects in the high versus low meta-analysis, but not in the dose–response meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the funnel plot suggests that small studies showing positive association may be missing (Supplementary Figure S25). There was evidence of a non-linear dose–response association; the risk of T2D decreased by 25% with increasing intake of whole grains up to ~50 g/day. Small benefits for increasing intake above this value were observed (Fig. 2).