I do a lot of reading and linking of research papers, but it takes a lot of time to ferret out the real truth from the hype.
Here’s a research paper that “outs” itself LOL, Click on the title below:
Here’s a post I did a while back regarding this subject:
Warning: Long post alert, but please take the time to read it.
It’s quite true that anyone can say anything on the internet. Then there are those who will present something as a “truth” when in fact there’s only a small element of the truth, and the rest is speculation or that person’s interpretation of the facts.
I’ve decided to use as an example of this a recent post slamming me, and presenting such “facts”. I thought it would be a great teaching tool about never believe everything you see or base any of your decisions on these so-called facts without question.
Here’s an excerpt from the post:
“Another study demonstrated a strong independent relationship between admission blood glucose values and both in-hospital and 1-year mortality; rates were significantly lower in subjects with admission plasma glucose <100.8 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/l)…”
Bottom line is that when you are ill your chances of survival and healing are much greater when your glucose is at the lower end of the acceptable ranges. It may be wise to target the lower ranges while you are still healthy regardless of what Lizzy and a few others believe. (in this case the poster was saying that levels should be kept at below 100 at ALL TIMES even after meals)
So if you chose to accept this statement as “fact” unchallenged you might think that keeping your glucose levels at or below 100 at all times is the best way to insure your health, right? Now let’s do some further digging around.
This person was basing these conclusions on studies of surgical and ICU patients in a hospital environment. The “intensive glucose control group” were completely controlled by glucose and insulin intravenous drips. They were also closely monitored and all nutrition was provided by the glucose, they weren’t ingesting any food at all. This was even a more “intense” control method than an insulin pump would be because not only was the insulin supplied continuously, but all nutrition was measured and supplied as well to keep the “perfect” balance
I’m going to pull out just a few statements from the source regarding these studies.
These are ICU Surgical patients:
Hyperglycemia, caused by insulin resistance in the liver and muscle, is a common finding in ICU patients. Some have considered it to be an adaptive response, providing glucose for the brain, red blood cells, and wound healing. Traditionally, hyperglycemia has only been treated when blood glucose increases to >215 mg/dL (>12 mmol/L).
Conventional wisdom in the ICU has been that some degree of hyperglycemia is beneficial and that hypoglycemia is dangerous and should be avoided.
The design employed a continuous infusion of insulin to maintain glucose between 80 and 110 mg/dL (4.4–6.1 mmol/L). Exogenous glucose was begun simultaneously with insulin, with frequent monitoring of glucose (every 1 hour) and intensity of monitoring was greatest at the time of initiation of insulin.
Sounds pretty good at this point, right? Now it gets more complicated. Here’s some statistics for all ICU care patients, surgical or not:
On admission, patients were randomly assigned to strict Normalization of blood glucose levels (80 to 110 mg per deciliter ) with the use of insulin infusion or conventional therapy (i.e., insulin administered when the blood
glucose level exceeded 215 mg per deciliter , with the infusion tapered when the level fell below 180 mg per deciliter ).
**Yikes! It started only when levels were >215!!!!!
Intensive insulin therapy reduced blood glucose levels but did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (40.0 percent in the conventional treatment group vs. 37.3 percent in the intensive treatment group, p=0.33).
The authors concluded that intensive insulin therapy significantly reduced morbidity but not mortality among all patients in the medical ICU.**So in other words it reduced the amount of complications but not the overall death rate.
Then there was the NICE/SUGAR (some name ha) study included in this source which concluded:
The NICE-SUGAR investigators concluded that intensive glucose control increased mortality among adults in the ICU and that a blood glucose target of 180 mg or less per resulted in lower mortality than did a target of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter.
So there you are! And this source is from the Instit. for Healthcare Improvement. People without an agenda except to improve healthcare results.
Here’s another source from the NIH: click here
So now things are looking a little different right?
Here are my points:
Never just accept anything that anyone states as a “fact”, including me, without doing some follow-up research of your own.
I know, I know, this takes time and many of these reports aren’t written for lay people but if you sort through all of the “medicalize” you can get enough information to be more informed. If nothing else, at least read the abstract.
Never use media reports or blog entries as your main source of information. If you do you’ll get results similar to the above example.
People who write blogs are giving you information according to their viewpoint and information that fits that viewpoint and agenda. It’s always interesting to read different views, but don’t accept “truths” from them without your own investigation.
And media reports will also give you only “selective” information, the more hype the better. After all, they’re going for the ratings.
Go out of your way to find opposing views. Of course the people (be they researchers, bloggers, or posters) will present you with the favorable view.
Some people base their health choices on less information then they use to purchase a car!
Knowledge is indeed power, but be sure you uncover the “real” truth from the half-truths, lies, and innuendos.
© EMO 8/12
Knowledge is Power