I'm saying one should be aware of what I think are undisclosed ulterior motives, especially the monetary one. Furthermore, its easy to draw a conclusion from a sample size of one. I could just as easily find a sample size of one for who this diet would not cure T1D and start "exposing the myth" about paleo diets, but it would be shitty science...
Also I am skeptical of Paleo diets in general because historical scientific research hasn't been very favorable to all the supposed benefits supports of paleo like to throw out. For one, there is evidence[0] that it isn't even what our ancestors ate, so the whole concept of the cause of rising diabetes being the fact we "aren't eating paleo like our ancestors" is total crap, imo.
What you just did is called the Paleo Strawman, its where people who don't understand the Paleo diet claim things such as "oh, its only about eating what was available in the Paleo and Neolithic eras", which has never been true.
What Paleo is, is a large scale research project to figure out why such a diet worked so well for humans, what parts worked, what parts didn't, and how we can scientifically engineer a better diet by reducing known toxins and chemicals that cause unwanted side effects in the body, and providing the correct amount of nutrition the body needs.
Paleo is no more "blindly eating the past" any more than pizza is a health food.
No, I said for example. There are other examples of counter claims to Paleo. I wasn't saying that research was the end all, but you can't say its a Paleo Strawman when there is a very large segment, even in "clinical research", that believe one of the strengths is because "its what our ancestors ate". I was simply providing a single point of counter claims, not making a full statement, so saying I was using a strawman is taking my entire statement out of context....
Not to mention, you say "such a diet worked so well", except we have no proof that the classical "paleo" diet very closely resembles our ancestors or even that (poorly) mimicking their diet would produce the same results in modern day and the research I linked is an academic counter claim to that very statement.
"Paleo" doesn't mean only eat the food that was available to our ancestors. It means look at our evolutionary biology to see what types of foods and nutrients might be good or bad for humans. Who cares about "paleo" - we care about the science behind nutrition. And one aspect of that science is excess carbohydrates in the diet may be bad for humans.
He's saying it's literally not data, it's literally datum. If you discovered you could "bring any web server offline by asking for any URL served by that webserver and adding ?killnow=pFNXjRUyc3DNRNRgJQnjL7V3NJdjnnVwS" would you bother publishing this fact after it 'worked' one single time on one single web server? Come on. There's no need to question that data, because it's not even data yet.
(This comment is just about "The type 1 diabetic in your first linked article was very recently diagnosed before the start of the experiment and a sample size of one on a brand new diagnosis doesn't seem highly significant to me." I either didnt't read the rest of the comment or it got edited, with the further background research.)
You can also just look into the decades of research done on carbohydrates and diabetes http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714...