I am sorry that you are downvoted and getting negative responses, you are exactly right.
Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
Really reminds me of the sugar propaganda some decades ago. They used the exact same combination you see embodied in this thread: Anecdata, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem.
Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
I am sorry to say that just as atdt was making things up, you are as well. The control group did not just get told "go on live your life" - they received "Usual Care" (Standard of Care) for T2D. There's a whole section in the first paper linked about it:
"The participants recruited for usual care (UC) received care from their primary care physician or endocrinologist and were counseled by a registered dietician as part of a diabetes education program. These participants received the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommendations on nutrition, lifestyle and diabetes management. No modification of their care was made for the study and routine biomarkers (weight, glucose and ketones) were not collected from these participants. This group was used as a reference control to study the effect of disease progression over 2 years in a cohort of participants prospectively recruited from the same geography and healthcare system."
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
For anyone who's actually interested in the science or methodology of the research, the peer-reviewed work has been linked (and I believe is all open access, if not, it's on sci-hub), and it is written in a pretty accessible manner IMO. The PI, Sarah Hallberg, has quite a few presentations online, including some that delve deeper into some of the details and the pros/cons of their study design (the biggest pro IMO is that they were able to use a biomarker (blood BHB) to track adherence). This of course, is just a single study - there are lots more studies and papers (I've read thousands on the topic area over the past few years). Human nutrition and metabolic health is a minefield, for a variety of reasons and people should be skeptical, but that's also no excuse for adding to the misinformation pile.
Comments
I am sorry that you are downvoted and getting negative responses, you are exactly right.
Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
Really reminds me of the sugar propaganda some decades ago. They used the exact same combination you see embodied in this thread: Anecdata, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem.
Here is a nice poster to illustrate: " Are you making your children pay for your weight problem?" - Sugar Information, Inc. ad [c.1966]https://old.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/db4mmp/a...
I am sorry to say that just as atdt was making things up, you are as well. The control group did not just get told "go on live your life" - they received "Usual Care" (Standard of Care) for T2D. There's a whole section in the first paper linked about it:
"The participants recruited for usual care (UC) received care from their primary care physician or endocrinologist and were counseled by a registered dietician as part of a diabetes education program. These participants received the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommendations on nutrition, lifestyle and diabetes management. No modification of their care was made for the study and routine biomarkers (weight, glucose and ketones) were not collected from these participants. This group was used as a reference control to study the effect of disease progression over 2 years in a cohort of participants prospectively recruited from the same geography and healthcare system."
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
For anyone who's actually interested in the science or methodology of the research, the peer-reviewed work has been linked (and I believe is all open access, if not, it's on sci-hub), and it is written in a pretty accessible manner IMO. The PI, Sarah Hallberg, has quite a few presentations online, including some that delve deeper into some of the details and the pros/cons of their study design (the biggest pro IMO is that they were able to use a biomarker (blood BHB) to track adherence). This of course, is just a single study - there are lots more studies and papers (I've read thousands on the topic area over the past few years). Human nutrition and metabolic health is a minefield, for a variety of reasons and people should be skeptical, but that's also no excuse for adding to the misinformation pile.