Best LC Diabetes Info I have found
cstehansen
Posts: 1,984 Member
I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Warning: this does get a bit technical at times, but just looking at the figures is enough for those of you who may not be as nerdy as me.
One of the things that really struck me as relevant is when they state that patients seem to instinctively assume moving to LC is the proper move and it is the "medical professionals" pushing LF instead. This is one of those situations where the patient clearly knows better. I looked through it again and haven't found the exact quote, but I think I got the main point across.
This will allow you to download it as a PDF as well as pull up all the graphs and such as PowerPoint slides. I am planning on printing this up to take to my next PC Dr appointment in November and my next Endo appt in March. Both of them seem surprised I was only briefly on meds for diabetes before getting it under control through diet (LC).
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Warning: this does get a bit technical at times, but just looking at the figures is enough for those of you who may not be as nerdy as me.
One of the things that really struck me as relevant is when they state that patients seem to instinctively assume moving to LC is the proper move and it is the "medical professionals" pushing LF instead. This is one of those situations where the patient clearly knows better. I looked through it again and haven't found the exact quote, but I think I got the main point across.
This will allow you to download it as a PDF as well as pull up all the graphs and such as PowerPoint slides. I am planning on printing this up to take to my next PC Dr appointment in November and my next Endo appt in March. Both of them seem surprised I was only briefly on meds for diabetes before getting it under control through diet (LC).
10
Replies
-
Thanks!1
-
Here is the quote I was looking for from the article:
"Carbohydrate restriction is easily grasped by patients: Because carbohydrates in the diet raise the blood glucose, and as diabetes is defined by high blood glucose, it makes sense to lower the carbohydrate in the diet."5 -
@cstehansen, thanks for putting this study here. I've read through about a third and had to stop to say thank you. It is remarkably helpful to have a mega-analysis like this to review findings from studies. As a medical technologist/biochemist, it drove me nuts that the recommendations for diabetics stressed more carbs. It made absolutely no intuitive sense let alone scientific sense.
I am not diabetic but was very close to being dxd. My fbs was 147 and A1c 6.5. Since I had been on steroids somewhat recent to those tests (8 weeks prior), they were repeated at 6 months. I buckled down to lose some weight and got my A1c down to 5.8. What I absolutely DON'T want to happen is to get an actual diabetes dx on my medical record (or for my health's sake).
LCHF keto has put me in control of what happens to me in this regard. I feel certain when I have my physical in December, my numbers will look even better along with my lipids. I expect to feel confident, rather than coping with feelings of dread, trepidation and shame, when I see my doctor at that time.6 -
thanks, @suzqtme. It is good to have someone from the profession here. My high A1c was 6.6. Going LC on my own just because it made sense got me to 5.9 in under 4 months. ADA diet got - even going on the low end of their recommendations on carbs - got it back up to 6.2 in 6 months. Three weeks into LC again and fasting BG has dropped from an average of near 110 to an average of about 95 with being in the 80's three times now.6
-
I am not diabetic but was very close to being dxd. My fbs was 147 and A1c 6.5. Since I had been on steroids somewhat recent to those tests (8 weeks prior), they were repeated at 6 months. I buckled down to lose some weight and got my A1c down to 5.8. What I absolutely DON'T want to happen is to get an actual diabetes dx on my medical record (or for my health's sake).
I don't know your circumstances, but it is pretty *kitten* easy to hypothesize compelling reasons for declaring a private war on your A1c without the intermeddling of an insurance co or the watchful eye of an employer....
If you've worked it down from 6.5 to 5.8, you're doing pretty well (assuming the steroids from 2 months before the higher reading didn't really play a role). You can get home A1c tests if you really want to play it close to the vest, but I'm guessing your next one may actually be down in sub-prediabetes range (maybe 5.2 or below?).
Good luck!
0 -
cstehansen wrote: »I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Home run! This is a gold mine. Thanks for posting.
@baconslave - a tidbit for the Launch Pad?0 -
Thanks for sharing!
::flowerforyou::
Edit: great, I changed my name and now have no previous posts and no bookmarks!0 -
cstehansen wrote: »I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Home run! This is a gold mine. Thanks for posting.
@baconslave - a tidbit for the Launch Pad?
Mayhaps.
I have it bookmarked for tomorrow.
1 -
I am not diabetic but was very close to being dxd. My fbs was 147 and A1c 6.5. Since I had been on steroids somewhat recent to those tests (8 weeks prior), they were repeated at 6 months. I buckled down to lose some weight and got my A1c down to 5.8. What I absolutely DON'T want to happen is to get an actual diabetes dx on my medical record (or for my health's sake).
You can get home A1c tests if you really want to play it close to the vest (...)
What are those home kits called? any links? I'm interested. Ty in advance:)0 -
Here's one stateside that comes with test strips:
https://www.amazon.com/A1CNow-Monitor-Diagnostics-Healthcare-Diabetes/dp/B00KBZ4Y5G/2 -
baconslave wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Home run! This is a gold mine. Thanks for posting.
@baconslave - a tidbit for the Launch Pad?
Mayhaps.
I have it bookmarked for tomorrow.
Done. Under Recommended Resources: Books, Articles, Videos, Movies, and Podcasts.
Academic Resources3 -
@RalfLott, you deserve some credit for finding this site. I actually started on a site that you posted and followed a link to a link to a link to get to this one. It's amazing what you can find if you have the time to go down the rabbit hole.
I don't have high BP now, but I think if I keep finding more and more evidence the government and "medical" organizations like the ADA and AMA are essentially telling us to do things that are detrimental to our health and not to do those things proven to be beneficial for our health, I may end up with high BP!2 -
cstehansen wrote: »@RalfLott, you deserve some credit for finding this site. I actually started on a site that you posted and followed a link to a link to a link to get to this one. It's amazing what you can find if you have the time to go down the rabbit hole.
I don't have high BP now, but I think if I keep finding more and more evidence the government and "medical" organizations like the ADA and AMA are essentially telling us to do things that are detrimental to our health and not to do those things proven to be beneficial for our health, I may end up with high BP!
Even if I pointed you in the general direction of the rabbit hole, it was you who dug up the truffle!
It would be really nice if, while you're rooting around down there, if you could find some really solid, recent article that soberly lays out the lipid scenario for diabetics. There's an awful lot of "Statins: boo!" and plenty of "LDL & triglycerides:boo!" - but the reality of what goes into the production of enough plaque to cause a serious medical episode just can't be that simple.
Some of these professional organizations are a mystery to me. They can't be run by boards of directors whose members all genuinely lack interest in better public health outcomes and knowledge in their field. It's baffling.
I don't know if the dinosaur speed at which they update their recommendations arises from:- organizational cultures of "baby steps" - meaning let's take a few generations to gradually modify the old low-fat dietary recommendations, due to the orgs' embedded conviction that the public simply can't/won't accept dramatic dietary changes;
- a more conscious belief that the public is stupid and lazy; or
- capture by the medical, pharmaceutical, and food industries.
3 -
(...)
Some of these professional organizations are a mystery to me. They can't be run by boards of directors whose members all genuinely lack interest in better public health outcomes and knowledge in their field. It's baffling.
(...)
This puzzles me too.
Stupidity is more likely than a world wide conspiracy to keep us sick but many organisations are run by respected professionals. They can't all be ignorant and/or in the pocket of Big Pharma! And, like you say, they can't all believe the public, all the public, is too stupid or lazy to follow clear instructions that would benefit their health. Baffling indeed.
One way or the other, it doesn't look like we're getting the full story. By now I only believe my lab results and the way I feel. If my results keep improving I'll assume what I'm doing is right for me at this moment. I consult doctors but I don't follow their advice unless I fully understand what they want to achieve and how they'll get me there. In the end, I'm the one who has to live with the results of their theories.
::flowerforyou::
6 -
If they turned around and changed what they've been telling the public all this time the big businesses would pull their funding while at the same time the sudden onslaught of lawsuits would be insane! What would happen then?2
-
Potential lawsuits certainly have to be considered.
Something else is not just the pharma companies but food producers. Think of all the money involved in the development, marketing and distribution of the "low fat" and "light" products out there.
With a partially informed public, a partially semi-informed public and a majority uninformed public, the food manufacturers get the best of all worlds. They can push low fat options on one, LC options that are packed with crap you should never be ingesting at the levels they use (i.e. sugar alcohols and chemicals no mere mortal could pronounce) and true LC foods on the other.
Funny thing is the best foods in the last category require very little extra work on the part of the food manufacturer. It is all the stuff on the outside walls of the grocery store - meat, cheese, fresh produce (spinach, cauliflower, kale, etc.). If they focus on that, it takes away the advantage the big companies have over the small companies because any mom and pop can supply unaltered food.
Then you have to think about how all governments work in terms of lobbies. Who lobbies congress in the US, or parliament in Canada or the UK? Big companies with deep pockets.
The only way the truth gets out is if the same group that started the low fat myth busts it. That would go back to the US congress after Eisenhower had his heart attack and their hearings begat the stupid food pyramid.4 -
cstehansen wrote: »I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
Definitely worth reading for anyone worried about diabetes. I think I found this the day I was diagnosed - if it wasn't that day, it was within the first week, and in the early days I tracked down a number of the articles, and articles they refer to, and so on - to get comfortable (at least short term) eating as much fat as I would need to eat in order to not overload my kidneys with protein - and still stay within normal BG levels.
11 months later:- 69.5 lbs gone (from obese to normal weight)
- No more than a dozen readings since diagnosis outside of non-diabetic ranges (<140), aside from morning fasting levels that sometimes nudge into the prediabetes range.
- A1C 5.6 (As of 4 months ago, down from 7.2) I have another one coming up - likely in the same range, since the last 3 months included 2 months of extremely high stress. Otherwise, I would have expected it to be in the low 5% range.
- Slightly increased carb tolerance (up to ~25 net carbs in 2 hours from 20 carbs)
- Cholesterol completely in the normal range on all counts (from high - even on the unreduced non-diabetic scales)
I was ready to try low carb immediately upon diagnosis, and actually started that day (after briefly toying with one last pizza blowout
). I still maximize carbs (within my toleration limits) and limit protein (so as not to overload my kidneys), but it was the research referenced in this meta-article that convinced me that eating as much fat as I have been would be safer than elevated BG levels, at least in the short run. Another year will be safe - but I'm actually hoping for remission within the next month . . . 9 -
0
-
@neohdiver, you are my hero. I had so much success the first 4 months or so doing LC on my own just because it made sense in my head without any knowledge of keto and only a cursory knowledge of Adkins. Then I made the mistake of trusting the ADA and lost about half of my gains in terms of A1c. Sounds like we were diagnosed about the same time. I'm looking forward to my next round of blood work in November based on the dramatically improved BG readings - both fasting and postprandial.2
-
FYI, here is an interesting reply by one of the authors (Feinman) to a critic of the study cited above.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00347-0/fulltextWe are counseling a systematic approach. Most of the authors of our review have extensive experience treating patients with low-carbohydrate diets with clinical successes over dozens of years, totaling thousands of patients. Conversely, recommending significant amounts of carbohydrate for people with diabetes, knowing that it will increase blood sugar, increase triacylglycerols, lower high-density lipoprotein, and increase the need for drugs seems to me to be reckless.
That “low-fat diets were recommended primarily based on compelling physiologic arguments” is not tenable. Numerous scientific papers, including those cited by the Fentons, and many scientific and popular books, including my own [3, show that low-fat ideas have been based on very poor science.3 -
I LOVE the way he ends this with:
"I ask my students: 'Do you think that there has ever been a period in the history of medicine where the great majority of physicians and scientists held to views that were not only wrong but dangerous and refused to change in the face of contradictory evidence? Do you think that there has ever been such a time? If you think so, you must at least consider the possibility that this is another such time.'"3 -
Yep, therein lies the rub.cstehansen wrote: »I LOVE the way he ends this with:I ask my students: "Do you think that there has ever been a period in the history of medicine where the great majority of physicians and scientists held to views that were not only wrong but dangerous and refused to change in the face of contradictory evidence? Do you think that there has ever been such a time? If you think so, you must at least consider the possibility that this is another such time."
This looks like the expanded version of the sentiment captured in various charming phrases I've seen lately, from the polite ("The Sociology of Science") to the direct ("We'll Outlive the B*st*rds") to the picturesque ("He Wouldn't Recognize Falsifying Data if They Bit Him in the *Kitten* ").2 -
We should ask if leaches should be the treatment of choice since the medical profession clearly never makes a mistake2
-
cstehansen wrote: »We should ask if leaches should be the treatment of choice since the medical profession clearly never makes a mistake
Leaches are more attractive than some treatments, like following ADA recommendations.1 -
For anyone who hasn't seen this gem:cstehansen wrote: »I know we have multiple threads about diabetes here. Going link to link is how I actually found this one. I think it is great because it really lays out 12 great points about why LC should be the first treatment option for T2D as well as the primary treatment along with pharmacology for T1D by using many studies done over an extended period of time. It saves a lot of time because you don't have to read dozens of studies because the data and summaries are used in this.
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext
1 -
cstehansen wrote: »We should ask if leaches should be the treatment of choice since the medical profession clearly never makes a mistake
Or arsenic or mercury. Both used to be considered therapeutic.1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »We should ask if leaches should be the treatment of choice since the medical profession clearly never makes a mistake
Or arsenic or mercury. Both used to be considered therapeutic.
As did Lucky Strikes and Camels, which were dutifully promoted by physicians as the Doctors' Choice (and with the same degree of smug confidence as they've recommended any other potion or snake oil that arrived for evaluation in a bag of cash).
https://youtu.be/hxUZI0vE0FM 0 -
This is a great article. I am totally convinced that the LCHF diet has worked wonders for me and my glucose readings. My 14 day average is 106, and my 30 day average is 109. These are good readings, and I have found the diet to be easy to stick with.1
-
This is a great article. I am totally convinced that the LCHF diet has worked wonders for me and my glucose readings. My 14 day average is 106, and my 30 day average is 109. These are good readings, and I have found the diet to be easy to stick with.
Are you also fasting (now and then)?0
This discussion has been closed.