↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,639)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
1019 tweeters
facebook
268 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
25 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
517 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base
Published in
Nutrition, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feinman, Richard David, Pogozelski, Wendy Knapp, Astrup, Arne, Bernstein, Richard K., Fine, Eugene J., Westman, Eric C., Accurso, Anthony, Frasetto, Lynda, McFarlane, Samy, Nielsen, Jörgen Vesti, Krarup, Thure, Gower, Barbara A., Saslow, Laura, Roth, Karl S., Vernon, Mary C., Volek, Jeff S., Wilshire, Gilbert B., Dahlqvist, Annika, Sundberg, Ralf, Childers, Ann, Morrison, Katharine, Manninen, Anssi H., Dashti, Hussein, Wood, Richard J., Wortman, Jay, Worm, Nicolai, Richard D. Feinman, Wendy K. Pogozelski, Arne Astrup, Richard K. Bernstein, Eugene J. Fine, Eric C. Westman, Anthony Accurso, Lynda Frassetto, Barbara A. Gower, Samy I. McFarlane, Jörgen Vesti Nielsen, Thure Krarup, Laura Saslow, Karl S. Roth, Mary C. Vernon, Jeff S. Volek, Gilbert B. Wilshire, Annika Dahlqvist, Ralf Sundberg, Ann Childers, Katharine Morrison, Anssi H. Manninen, Hussain M. Dashti, Richard J. Wood, Jay Wortman, Nicolai Worm, Feinman RD, Pogozelski WK, Astrup A, Bernstein RK, Fine EJ, Westman EC, Accurso A, Frassetto L, Gower BA, McFarlane SI, Nielsen JV, Krarup T, Saslow L, Roth KS, Vernon MC, Volek JS, Wilshire GB, Dahlqvist A, Sundberg R, Childers A, Morrison K, Manninen AH, Dashti HM, Wood RJ, Wortman J, Worm N

Abstract

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,019 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 517 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 488 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 117 23%
Student > Bachelor 107 21%
Researcher 66 13%
Other 56 11%
Student > Postgraduate 50 10%
Other 121 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 211 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 75 15%
Sports and Recreations 31 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 6%
Other 87 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1093. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,012
of 9,726,029 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition
#1
of 1,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37
of 184,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,726,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.