Blogging about Caveman Diet Causes Legal Woes

[eytonxav]

Seems you can run into trouble in North Carolina if you post nutritional viewpoints. Given this, we better look out


Reason Magazine - Hit & Run

 

[haha]

Hey, we have to protect the fatherland. Remember, the Land of the Free..oh, well, never mind.

 

[donheff]

Summaries always help. Basically, a guy with diabetes went on a paleo diet and got his weight down and chemistry right in about 30 days. He was so impressed that he started blogging about his diet. After arguing with a doctor at a hospital diabetes meeting he came to the Attention of the State Nutrition Board. They looked at his site and charged him with dispensing advice which he can't do unless he gets a license. He can blog about his experience but not recommend that others do the same and he can't respond to questions from visitors asking for dietary recommendation.

The guy is at Diabetes Warrior if you want to follow what becomes of him.

 

[eridanus]

Eh, it makes sense to me. He has a personal story to tell. He's not qualified to give out advice on diabetes, especially for one-on-one counseling (!).

Since the blogger can still blog, Reason has little reason (har!) to gripe,
"But that someone should be able to describe his experiences with it and advocate for his own good results should go without saying".

 

[MichaelB]

Summaries always help. Basically, a guy with diabetes went on a paleo diet and got his weight down and chemistry right in about 30 days. He was so impressed that he started blogging about his diet. After arguing with a doctor at a hospital diabetes meeting he came to the Attention of the State Nutrition Board. They looked at his site and charged him with dispensing advice which he can't do unless he gets a license. He can blog about his experience but not recommend that others do the same and he can't respond to questions from visitors asking for dietary recommendation.

The guy is at Diabetes Warrior if you want to follow what becomes of him.

Thanks for the summary.

 

[TromboneAl]

I can see both sides, but I think the blogger could easily win this.

If every response started with "I can't advise you, but here is what I'd do..." would that fix it?

There are of course thousands of blogs like that, and I'm sure there are a few more in NC.

I wonder whether they would bother if he were promoting a low fat diet?

 

[TromboneAl]

Wow, he posts about a continuous glucose monitor. If those things ever become consumer items, it will cause a revolution in diets.

 

[bld999]

I can see why he's having some trouble. The writing has a breezy, revival tent tone and he seems to brush off some basic disclosures. Instead of saying he's type 2, and giving a full history, he mentions insulin resistance at one point and gives no further history.

He may have luck with the regime for a while, but this is a progressive disease, and while his methods contribute to control significantly, a few people may take the plan too much to heart, and do something stupid. That said, laying off carbs and exercising are powerful when made part of a rational plan. I personally don't think his extreme diet is rational, ok for a test, but 30 days?

Better if he provided and A1c history and bloodwork to go with.

 

[eytonxav]

Probably not surprising given how everything these days seems rise to viral level, is politically incorrect or someones going to get sued.

Boy do I ever yearn for life as it was back when I was a teen

 

[TromboneAl]

This is how I interpret the tone of his blog: He's someone who got the standard diabetes advice: avoid fat, take medicine, and eat whole grains. After some reading, he saw that many people feel that that is very bad advice. So, he decided to experiment, and concluded that for him at least, the standard advice was wrong.

He was outraged that the ADA is giving bad advice, and feels that the advice might even be designed to increase drug consumption. It's that outrage that leads to the "warrior" type tone of his blog.

 

[antmary]

Just follow the money...who may be threatened in some way? Dieticians? or....?

 

[TromboneAl]

I personally don't think his extreme diet is rational

I think you mean "sensible" rather than "rational." It is based on reason and logic.

 

[bld999]

Yes, you are correct, sensible is what I meant.

What is your point in including the attachment [nmsociety]

 

[TromboneAl]

Yes, you are correct, sensible is what I meant.

What is your point in including the attachment [nmsociety]

I just wanted to show that there is logic involved in avoiding carbohydrates. Plus I think it is a fun poster, and illustrates the frustration with the ADA that the blogger feels. That is, a kind of "I don't get it!" feeling.

 

[eridanus]

He also claims that his diet will control, "those who are diabetic or others who have inflammatory diseases like asthma, arthritis, Crohns or Celiacs etc etc." Any kook can claim anything on the internet but not when you hold yourself as an expert and start charging others for the advice.

I eat a LOT of whole grains and carbs and have almost exclusively for 15 years. Am I now an expert because I don't have diabetes? Can I start charging money to control your diabetes (because, well, I've never had it)?

 

[bld999]

I take your point. The" i don't get it feeling" can crop up frequently theses days for me as well, eg Harvard school of public health, american heart Assn, ADA, etc. Organizations like those suffer from enormous inertia for various reasons.

Care must also be taken with the revival tent over-reaction that we see in alot of diet based stuff as well. while it may seem obvious to you, and most others here, it is careful regulation of carb intake that diabetics must attempt to practice, not elimination; after all our brains require and all cells are fueled by glucose. And while it may be dramatic and fun to declare that "diabetes is a disease of carbohydrate intolerance" why not stick to the clinical facts and describe the actual mechanisms [ie no insulin in type ones, insulin resistance and undetermined pancreas output in type twos] ? If people are going to effectively grapple with this stuff, they need facts, not characterizations.

The nanny-state and free speech stuff, different issue.

 

[TromboneAl]

Care must also be taken with the revival tent

I've recently realized how much this diet stuff is like religion. People get just as defensive and argumentative about it.

...after all our brains require and all cells are fueled by glucose.

It's just not true that carbs are required for the brain.

It's a common misconception that carbs are needed for the brain.

From:

Your Brain On Ketones | Psychology Today

Fortunately, we have a terrific system of fuel for periods of fasting or low carbohydrate eating - our body (and brain) can readily shift from burning glucose to burning what are called ketone bodies.

It is true that some parts of some brain cells can only burn glucose, but fortunately our bodies can turn protein into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. This fact means that while there are essential requirements for both fat or protein (meaning we would die without eating at least some fat and at least some protein), we can live quite happily while consuming no carbohydrate at all. That's not saying there aren't some disadvantages or side effects to a so-called "zero carb" diet, but it won't cause the massive health problems and death that consuming zero fat or zero protein would.

...

Ketosis for the body means fat-burning (hip hip hooray!). For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.
​

 

[bld999]

So you are saying burn through all your fat, then begin to add carbohydrates to match your metabolism, or avoid carb entirely and ride the ragged edge of ketosis by sticking to protein meals?

BTW, are you a diabetic?

 

[haha]

So you are saying burn through all your fat, then begin to add carbohydrates to match your metabolism, or avoid carb entirely and ride the ragged edge of ketosis by sticking to protein meals?

BTW, are you a diabetic?

Funny, I've been in "moderate"ketosis for almost 15 years and haven't noticed the ragged part yet.

 

[MichaelB]

Seems you can run into trouble in North Carolina if you post nutritional viewpoints. Given this, we better look out


Reason Magazine - Hit & Run

If the authorities are going to require bloggers to have certain standards they should apply the same to other fields. Of course, I'm thinking finance and politics. Can you imagine what the internets would be like if blogging were limited to people that actually know what they were talking about?

 

[sengsational]

Can you imagine what the internets would be like if blogging were limited to people that actually know what they were talking about?

Empty, hehe.

 

[RAE]

It's just not true that carbs are required for the brain.

It's a common misconception that carbs are needed for the brain.

Al is absolutely correct. Fat is the preferred fuel of human metabolism, not glucose. The body only needs a very small amount of glucose under normal circumstances, and that can be supplied by your liver.

Mark Sisson explains it pretty well here: Why Fat, Not Carbs, Are the Preferred Fuel for the Human Body | Mark's Daily Apple

 

[TromboneAl]

So you are saying burn through all your fat, then begin to add carbohydrates to match your metabolism, or avoid carb entirely and ride the ragged edge of ketosis by sticking to protein meals?

BTW, are you a diabetic?

I'm not a diabetic. If I were, I'd choose the latter.

There's really nothing bad about ketosis. Feel fine, bacon, eggs, rib-eye steak, chicken, shrimp, chocolate (sugar free).

I just checked that site, and apparently that guy made some changes and is now in compliance with the law.

I Received a Letter from the NC Board of Nutrition and Dietitians

In response to this investigation, I did three things:
1) stopped doing my published advice column.
2) took down my diabetes support package links.
3) and made my disclaimer more prominent. Additionally, I added a disclaimer at the bottom of every page.
Because I complied with their order to stop speaking and to change what I say and what I publish, the board concluded that I am in substantial compliance and closed the investigation.

​

I looked around his site some more, and much of it reads like an infomercial (for example, this), probably because infomercials try to sound like a very enthusiastic believer.

 

[eytonxav]

If the authorities are going to require bloggers to have certain standards they should apply the same to other fields. Of course, I'm thinking finance and politics. Can you imagine what the internets would be like if blogging were limited to people that actually know what they were talking about?

LOL, absolutely, I'd love to see what would happen if that was applied to paid political advertisements

 

[donheff]

There's really nothing bad about ketosis. Feel fine, bacon, eggs, rib-eye steak, chicken, shrimp, chocolate (sugar free).

I doubt I am near ketosis since I get 50-100g of carbs a day but I do seem to be thriving on my low carb diet one month in. I am eating all the eggs, bacon, meats and fish I want. Lots of salad, with blue cheese dressing. A fair amount of nuts. A few of Al's low carb candies. Weight is down significantly. I feel good. And, most surprisingly, my cravings for cookies, rice, hash browns, etc are gone. I will report on the blood work next time I get in for a physical.