In what has to be one of the most irresponsible reporting on study data I've ever seen, the New York Times today headlined Tight Rein on Blood Sugar Has No Heart Benefits, penned by Gina Kolata.
Throughout the entire article we find statements without qualification as to how study participants were attempting to lower blood sugars:
Two large studies involving more than 21,000 people found that people with Type 2 diabetes had no reduction in their risk of heart attacks and strokes and no reduction in their death rate if they rigorously controlled their blood sugar levels.
Thus both studies failed to confirm a dearly held hypothesis that people with Type 2 diabetes could be protected from cardiovascular disease if they strictly controlled their blood sugar.
Still, said Dr. John Buse, president for medicine and science of the diabetes association, the blood sugar/cardiovascular disease hypothesis has failed for people with established Type 2 diabetes.
For these patients, “intensive management of A1C for cardiovascular risk probably isn’t worth it,” Dr. Buse said.
The two studies both sought to control blood sugars through intensive use of pharmaceuticals - with no control group to compare findings in those utilizing dietary and lifestyle interventions shown to improve blood glucose and HbA1C levels (carbohydrate restriction) with lower levels of medications or no medication.
The blanket statement that the trials " failed to confirm a dearly held hypothesis that people with Type 2 diabetes could be protected from cardiovascular disease if they strictly controlled their blood sugar" leaves out one critical qualification - the sentence should end with "through intensive use of medication."