The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. 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.

No abstract

This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese diabetic subjects following its long-term administration. Furthermore, it demonstrates that in addition to its therapeutic value, low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese diabetic subjects.

This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet following its long term administration in obese subjects with a high level of total cholesterol. Moreover, this study demonstrates that low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese subjects with a high total cholesterol level and those with normocholesterolemia.

Two methods of inducing liver cirrhosis in the rat were studied. Intragastric administration of CCl₄ for 16 weeks according to Proctor and Chatamra was compared to the administration of thioacetamide in the drinking water (0.3 g/l) for the same period. CCl₄ administration induced micronodular cirrhosis in 6/8 animals with a 27% mortality. Thioacetamide induced cirrhosis in 6/8 animals without mortality. The histologic pictures differed somewhat in that the CCl₄ group exhibited more necrosis and cellular swelling while the thioacetamide group had more nuclear atypias and proliferation. Biochemically both groups had elevated plasma levels of aspartate aminotransferase. The lysosomal enzyme β-hexosaminidase (β-NAG) showed a transient increase in the thioacetamide animals, while β-glucuronidase decreased. CCU-induced cirrhosis led to an increase in β-NAG. Plasma zinc decreased in both groups as well as liver zinc content in the CCl₄ group, while there was a continuous elevation of liver zinc in the thioacetamide group. We conclude that oral administration of thioacetamide is a simple and reliable method of inducing experimental liver cirrhosis. The differences in histological appearances and some biochemical parameters may be caused by the different mechanisms of action of thioacetamide and CCl₄.