Official diabetes diet misinformation - any candidates for the Darwin Awards?
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
Very elegantly put.
Also missing from the AND's facile declaration is the insulin production/resistance, which you've also touched on.
Thanks for chiming in.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.1 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
An article on DietDoctor.com asserts:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/lose-weight-by-achieving-optimal-ketosisTo encourage ketone production, the amount of insulin in your bloodstream must be low. The lower your insulin, the higher your ketone production. And when you have a well-controlled, sufficiently large amount of ketones in your blood, it’s basically proof that your insulin is very low – and therefore, that you’re enjoying the maximum effect of your low-carbohydrate diet. That’s what’s called optimal ketosis. ***
The trick here is not only to avoid all obvious sourced of carbohydrate (sweets, bread, spaghetti, rice, potatoes), but also to be careful with your protein intake. If you eat large amounts of meat, eggs and the like, the excess protein will converted into glucose in the body. Large amounts of protein can also raise your insulin levels somewhat. This compromises optimal ketosis. * * *
More fat in your food will fill you up more. This will ensure you eat less protein, and even less carbohydrate. Your insulin will drop and, hopefully, you’ll be able to reach optimal ketosis. And that’s when many a stubborn weight plateau is overcome.
Considering that a certain amount of protein must be consumed in order to maintain lean tissue, the best strategy may be to spread the limited daily protein intake evenly among however many meals you eat. One commentator suggested not exceeding 25-30g of protein per meal. However, Steve Phinney opined just a few years ago that the research on protein timing had not been carried out (though not through a lack of trying, as he had unsuccessfully applied for a government grant to study the question).
NB: DietDoctor recommends blood ketone monitoring. In my limited experience, the blood ketones move around a bit more than the excreted ketones measured in urine, and there was not much correlation between the two.
0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
@cstehansen - Unless someone else said it, too, Dr. Catherine Crofts from New Zealand was talking about how dynamic insulin is and that it can change within a 75% range, so taking a fasting insulin level really doesn't tells you much of anything, as insulin is a dynamic quick changing hormone in response to glucose and other issues.
Both she and Chris Masterjohn PhD discussed how there are actually 4 separate hormones that affect blood glucose processing, and insulin is just the only one we even loosely track and such. Gluca...something was one of the others he referred to...1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
@midwesterner85 Dear Gods above and below, I hope there's not a lifetime Pancreatic output. I would imagine that it is more like the liver/gallbladder type system. A certain amount is banked for daily use, and as long as glucose requirements don't exceed the pancreatic daily output, the pancreas doesn't have to work overtime and burn through it's "lifetime" stores more quickly. The reason I say I hope not, is that would mean that any of us who had a few years of STUPID level carb consumption, that it is inevitable, no matter how healthy we become or how low of carb we eat, we can't ever heal insulin resistance or will inevitably become Type 2 Diabetic. I understand that even with LADA that the beta cells can be killed off through the autoimmune process, but I would think that as long as you have some beta cells left, you will have some level of insulin production, even if it is less that what your body things it needs.0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
An article on DietDoctor.com asserts:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/lose-weight-by-achieving-optimal-ketosisTo encourage ketone production, the amount of insulin in your bloodstream must be low. The lower your insulin, the higher your ketone production. And when you have a well-controlled, sufficiently large amount of ketones in your blood, it’s basically proof that your insulin is very low – and therefore, that you’re enjoying the maximum effect of your low-carbohydrate diet. That’s what’s called optimal ketosis. ***
The trick here is not only to avoid all obvious sourced of carbohydrate (sweets, bread, spaghetti, rice, potatoes), but also to be careful with your protein intake. If you eat large amounts of meat, eggs and the like, the excess protein will converted into glucose in the body. Large amounts of protein can also raise your insulin levels somewhat. This compromises optimal ketosis. * * *
More fat in your food will fill you up more. This will ensure you eat less protein, and even less carbohydrate. Your insulin will drop and, hopefully, you’ll be able to reach optimal ketosis. And that’s when many a stubborn weight plateau is overcome.
Considering that a certain amount of protein must be consumed in order to maintain lean tissue, the best strategy may be to spread the limited daily protein intake evenly among however many meals you eat. One commentator suggested not exceeding 25-30g of protein per meal. However, Steve Phinney opined just a few years ago that the research on protein timing had not been carried out (though not through a lack of trying, as he had unsuccessfully applied for a government grant to study the question).
NB: DietDoctor recommends blood ketone monitoring. In my limited experience, the blood ketones move around a bit more than the excreted ketones measured in urine, and there was not much correlation between the two.
Thanks, @RalfLott. I have played around with protein intake. As you can imagine, having a calorie intake that is high, it is very difficult to keep protein very low without eating meals of straight butter. I think the weight training I do along with the fact I move a lot all day helps with any gluconeogenesis. What I have noticed, personally, is that too much protein at dinner negatively affects my morning FBG. Having higher amounts of protein earlier in the day does not seem to affect PP readings or some of the random readings I take.
As for blood ketones vs urine, 2 experts I have heard, one from the Keto Summit and another is the doc from Keto Talk with Jimmy and the Doc, have mentioned only a small amount should be in the urine once your body has adapted to ketosis. If you have higher amounts in your urine after being in ketosis for a while, that would actually be a negative thing indicating a potential medical issue as your body should be burning these ketones and not spilling them.
I have not yet tested blood ketones. Urine readings are consistent in the "small" range. Long story, but $ is a bit tight right now but should be cleared up in the next few weeks. I am planning on getting a blood monitor at that time to check.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
@midwesterner85 Dear Gods above and below, I hope there's not a lifetime Pancreatic output. I would imagine that it is more like the liver/gallbladder type system. A certain amount is banked for daily use, and as long as glucose requirements don't exceed the pancreatic daily output, the pancreas doesn't have to work overtime and burn through it's "lifetime" stores more quickly. The reason I say I hope not, is that would mean that any of us who had a few years of STUPID level carb consumption, that it is inevitable, no matter how healthy we become or how low of carb we eat, we can't ever heal insulin resistance or will inevitably become Type 2 Diabetic. I understand that even with LADA that the beta cells can be killed off through the autoimmune process, but I would think that as long as you have some beta cells left, you will have some level of insulin production, even if it is less that what your body things it needs.
First, let's be clear that LADA is Type 1. The only difference is that the auto-immune response takes longer for adults. The "honeymoon" stage may be longer, but it is still Type 1 and is a totally different pathway than Type 2.
For Type 2, I hope there is no limit also, but I just wonder if one's pancreas really does wear out and cease to function before everything else - at least perhaps in some people. It isn't something I had previously considered, and I don't know if there is much research available. But it sounds plausible, doesn't it?1 -
@midwesterner85 I apologize for blurring the line, but yes, I knew LADA is T1D, and T2D is at whole different animal/ballgame...
I (personally) think it's not a case of a lifetime issue - it's more of an overload issue. Like a battery has a set amount of output before it needs to recharge, and if you keep running the battery down to 1% over and over and over again, pretty soon it won't recharge anymore, or if it does, it won't go back to it's full capacity. Or, we're tapping out the "pulse" feature, how much we need allATonceRIGHTnowDARNit...and that does a rapid drain on the stored capacity, etc.
So if we drain that ability and keep telling Scotty to give us more power from the dilithium crystals, eventually we'll drain them, and they might continue to work for a little bit, but never at full power, not without some sort of a recharge (which I imagine may exist in nature for the pancreas, somehow, somewhere, if caught in time...)...0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
That's a pretty interesting idea @midwesterner85 and one to which I choose to subscribe for the body overall. I had a doctor tell me once, "A heart has only so many beats".1 -
Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html3 -
Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html
insert eye-roll here2 -
cstehansen wrote: »Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html
insert eye-roll here
I'll see your eye-roll and raise you a bucket of sick-up!0 -
cstehansen wrote: »Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html
insert eye-roll here
I'll see your eye-roll and raise you a bucket of sick-up!
Oh, but it is heart healthy!!!
1 -
cstehansen wrote: »Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html
insert eye-roll here
I'll see your eye-roll and raise you a bucket of sick-up!
Oh, but it is heart healthy!!!
I suppose it depends on what sort of abomination I had for dinner...
If there were Domino Foods products involved, it could be pretty heart healthy, if gruesome, to yak it up.1 -
@KnitOrMiss I'm in for the Dilithium crystals. Serious fan of the original shows (I own a full set of the old VHS videos.)
3 -
canadjineh wrote: »@KnitOrMiss I'm in for the Dilithium crystals. Serious fan of the original shows (I own a full set of the old VHS videos.)
@canadjineh Heeheehee... I was wondering if anyone actually caught that. I have nearly all TOS movies. I grew up on the reruns long before TNG, but that was a family affair when I was a teen. LOL I was pleasantly surprised at how much I've enjoy the reboot, though devastated at the loss of Mr. Yelchin.0 -
I found some Darwin Award material in the book Think Like A Pancreas.
"“Normal Fuel Metabolism
Most of the body’s cells burn primarily sugar (glucose) for energy. Many cells also burn fat, but in much smaller amounts. Glucose happens to be a very “clean” form of energy—there are virtually no waste products left over when cells burn it up. Fat, however, is a “dirty” source of energy. When fat is burned, the cells produce waste products, which are called “ketones.” Ketones are acid molecules that can pollute the bloodstream and affect the body’s delicate pH balance if produced in large quantities. Luckily, we don’t tend to burn huge amounts of fat at one time,”
Then there was this gem.
"“Lack of Carbohydrates
A lack of carbohydrates in the diet can also induce ketone production. During periods of starvation, prolonged fasting, or restricted carbohydrate intake, the body’s cells must resort to burning alternative sources of fuel, namely fat and protein. With increased fat metabolism and limited carbohydrate metabolism, ketone production may exceed the body’s ability to eliminate them.”
REALLY?!?! Even if the person continues administering insulin as needed? Ha!
And here was a particularly good one!
"“Ketone production is unhealthy for anyone, particularly those with diabetes. Maintaining at least a modest level of carbohydrate intake throughout the day should prevent ketosis”
So, for a T1D, just maintain carb intake high enough to prevent ketosis, apparently it has nothing to do with having at least minimum insulin in the body. Lol
That's funny, because eating carbs isn't the treatment for ketoacidosis... to stop the ketone production, they fast the patient and administer an insulin drip.
Having glucose in the blood doesn't stop ketosis... having functional insulin does. Otherwise my daughter wouldn't have been hospitalized multiple times with a 400+ blood glucose and ketones galore!
Excerpt From: Scheiner, Gary. “Think Like a Pancreas.” Da Capo Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=493789989
This is the special speaker at TypeOne Nation Summit this weekend. There is good info in the book too but it's hard to take his science as credible after this.6 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I found some Darwin Award material in the book Think Like A Pancreas.. ....
Wow! That's so goofy it sounds like April Fool's Day material at a LC talent show.
1 -
The book description says, " free of medical jargon." Apparently, they have confused the word "facts" with the word "jargon."5
-
cstehansen wrote: »The book description says, " free of medical jargon." Apparently, they have confused the word "facts" with the word "jargon."
Well put!
I'm trying to keep an open mind - maybe not every pancreas thinks like the one next door...1 -
Hey guys!
November 15 is National Healthy Lunch Day here in the US. I know you guys all wanna get all your healthy whole grains and low fat yogurt so you can participate and be healthy. Cuz I guess full fat dairy and cheese is actually to blame for high blood sugar. Woah! I didn't know something that didn't have any affect on blood sugar was the problem! Thanks ADA for clearing that up for us!
http://www.diabetes.org/in-my-community/wellness-lives-here/mission-engagement-days/nhl/nhl-celebrate.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_content=download-resources-btn&utm_campaign=NHLD
Here are some tips for you guys cuz I know you all want to eat "healthy"
2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Hey guys!
November 15 is National Healthy Lunch Day here in the US. I know you guys all wanna get all your healthy whole grains and low fat yogurt so you can participate and be healthy. Cuz I guess full fat dairy and cheese is actually to blame for high blood sugar. Woah! I didn't know something that didn't have any affect on blood sugar was the problem! Thanks ADA for clearing that up for us!
http://www.diabetes.org/in-my-community/wellness-lives-here/mission-engagement-days/nhl/nhl-celebrate.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_content=download-resources-btn&utm_campaign=NHLD
Here are some tips for you guys cuz I know you all want to eat "healthy"
They got a couple items right. On #4, grilled is better just because most of the time with restaurants fried means breaded or battered to the point that there is less meat than coating. Number 8 in that we don't want to drink sugar. And finally, #5 is half right with the lettuce wrap part. So if my math is correct, they got 2.5 out of 8, hmmm, that would be a grade of 31. Looks like a big fat F. And I think I was being pretty generous with my grading.4 -
cstehansen wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Hey guys!
November 15 is National Healthy Lunch Day here in the US. I know you guys all wanna get all your healthy whole grains and low fat yogurt so you can participate and be healthy. Cuz I guess full fat dairy and cheese is actually to blame for high blood sugar. Woah! I didn't know something that didn't have any affect on blood sugar was the problem! Thanks ADA for clearing that up for us!
http://www.diabetes.org/in-my-community/wellness-lives-here/mission-engagement-days/nhl/nhl-celebrate.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_content=download-resources-btn&utm_campaign=NHLD
Here are some tips for you guys cuz I know you all want to eat "healthy"
They got a couple items right. On #4, grilled is better just because most of the time with restaurants fried means breaded or battered to the point that there is less meat than coating. Number 8 in that we don't want to drink sugar. And finally, #5 is half right with the lettuce wrap part. So if my math is correct, they got 2.5 out of 8, hmmm, that would be a grade of 31. Looks like a big fat F. And I think I was being pretty generous with my grading.
But did they get them right for the right reasons? I think they recommend grilled over fried to reduce fat, not breading.
I think they recommend diet drinks over regular because of calories not carbs, same with the lettuce wrap.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Hey guys!
November 15 is National Healthy Lunch Day here in the US. I know you guys all wanna get all your healthy whole grains and low fat yogurt so you can participate and be healthy. Cuz I guess full fat dairy and cheese is actually to blame for high blood sugar. Woah! I didn't know something that didn't have any affect on blood sugar was the problem! Thanks ADA for clearing that up for us!
http://www.diabetes.org/in-my-community/wellness-lives-here/mission-engagement-days/nhl/nhl-celebrate.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_content=download-resources-btn&utm_campaign=NHLD
Here are some tips for you guys cuz I know you all want to eat "healthy"
They got a couple items right. On #4, grilled is better just because most of the time with restaurants fried means breaded or battered to the point that there is less meat than coating. Number 8 in that we don't want to drink sugar. And finally, #5 is half right with the lettuce wrap part. So if my math is correct, they got 2.5 out of 8, hmmm, that would be a grade of 31. Looks like a big fat F. And I think I was being pretty generous with my grading.
But did they get them right for the right reasons? I think they recommend grilled over fried to reduce fat, not breading.
I think they recommend diet drinks over regular because of calories not carbs, same with the lettuce wrap.
That is what I meant about being generous in my grading.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
I wonder ... my Dad (now deceased from diabetes related complications) was one of 9 siblings. Every single one of them developed type 2 diabetes - despite different eating, different weigh, different lifestyles and activity levels, low carb, high carb, low fat, vegan, you name it - they all differ greatly. And now, the oldest of my generation (my cousins are getting towards 50) they are also developing type two diabetes. I was shocked to learn the other week that my female cousin now has diabetes despite having always been fit, and slender and eating a healthy diet. This family history is the main reason I eat Keto - watching my Dad die slowly for 20 years was terrifying - but I'm more than a little convinced that I will develop diabetes anyway. Not genetic? I disagree.
1 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
I wonder ... my Dad (now deceased from diabetes related complications) was one of 9 siblings. Every single one of them developed type 2 diabetes - despite different eating, different weigh, different lifestyles and activity levels, low carb, high carb, low fat, vegan, you name it - they all differ greatly. And now, the oldest of my generation (my cousins are getting towards 50) they are also developing type two diabetes. I was shocked to learn the other week that my female cousin now has diabetes despite having always been fit, and slender and eating a healthy diet. This family history is the main reason I eat Keto - watching my Dad die slowly for 20 years was terrifying - but I'm more than a little convinced that I will develop diabetes anyway. Not genetic? I disagree.
There is anecdotal evidence, but are you aware of any actual genes identified that cause type 2? Sure, there are various genes known to create various challenges to maintaining a healthy weight... those are often blamed for causing type 2 diabetes, but that is not quite how it works. If you know of a specific gene that has been identified, I am open to hearing about it. Forgive me if the "X was thin and got type 2" line isn't convincing... I've heard it more times than I can count, about people ranging from 15 lbs. overweight to 300 lbs. overweight (yes, a 400+ lb. person really made that argument). Only once can I recall hearing that line about someone who wasn't at least heavy enough for it to make a difference. In that case, there were other (non-genetic) unusual factors to explain type 2 despite being slim.1 -
Considering it's the insulin resistance that makes a person get fat, couldn't we argue that most people that technically have unseen symptoms of developing diabetes are not heavy, at least in the beginning? Sure there are those that get fat from the old standard explanation of just eating too much. But there are marathon runners surprised with T2D diagnoses because they aren't fat. It's really the fatty liver that starts that ball rolling. The fat doesn't have to become so apparent outwardly before the condition exists since it's the cause of the excessive storage of fat in the first place.
And we all know that eating a "healthy diet" by traditional standards is no way to prevent diabetes. So the fact that anyone got it even though they were thin and ate that "healthy diet" is absolutely no surprise to me. I ate a very healthy diet by traditional definitions prior to keto... ya know except for all that candy binge eating that absolutely no one knew about. I wouldn't dare let anyone know. So if I had ended up with T2D, I would've been about 35-40 pounds overweight and everyone would think I ate a very "healthy diet".2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Considering it's the insulin resistance that makes a person get fat, couldn't we argue that most people that technically have unseen symptoms of developing diabetes are not heavy, at least in the beginning? Sure there are those that get fat from the old standard explanation of just eating too much. But there are marathon runners surprised with T2D diagnoses because they aren't fat. It's really the fatty liver that starts that ball rolling. The fat doesn't have to become so apparent outwardly before the condition exists since it's the cause of the excessive storage of fat in the first place.
And we all know that eating a "healthy diet" by traditional standards is no way to prevent diabetes. So the fact that anyone got it even though they were thin and ate that "healthy diet" is absolutely no surprise to me. I ate a very healthy diet by traditional definitions prior to keto... ya know except for all that candy binge eating that absolutely no one knew about. I wouldn't dare let anyone know. So if I had ended up with T2D, I would've been about 35-40 pounds overweight and everyone would think I ate a very "healthy diet".
There are some genetic components that affect how well we process different macros (particularly carbs based on genetic factors that affect amylase). Still an indirect genetic factor... genetics affect production of a digestive enzyme that affects speed of carb conversion, which then affects BG. Even a small amount of extra fat could result in IR, but this is still not a direct genetic cause of type 2. We might perceive someone as being thin when they truly have 15 lbs. extra weight. A small enough amount to overlook, but with someone who is carb sensitive due to genetic factors, I can see how that could lead to type 2.2 -
There's an interesting series now on Dutch television. In it, they do a diet intervention with 6 people who are either pre-diabetic, or have type 2 in a dangerous stage (kidney damage). Basically, what they do is put them on a low carb diet and get them to move a bit more (cycling instead of car for errands etc). In almost all cases, blood glucose was within normal parameters within a few weeks of intervention and other markers started to improve as well. To my knowledge, this is the first time something like this is shown here on TV and prime time too. Before the intervention, their diabetes was managed with drugs, one guy was heavily insulin dependent. Refreshing and impressive, so, some things are changing, maybe.6
-
There's an interesting series now on Dutch television. In it, they do a diet intervention with 6 people who are either pre-diabetic, or have type 2 in a dangerous stage (kidney damage). Basically, what they do is put them on a low carb diet and get them to move a bit more (cycling instead of car for errands etc). In almost all cases, blood glucose was within normal parameters within a few weeks of intervention and other markers started to improve as well. To my knowledge, this is the first time something like this is shown here on TV and prime time too. Before the intervention, their diabetes was managed with drugs, one guy was heavily insulin dependent. Refreshing and impressive, so, some things are changing, maybe.
Great, thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know the name of the series or the lead researcher's name?
FYI, Dr. Sarah Hallberg is conducting a similar study on a larger scale at Indiana U. It will be interesting to see how it's covered once the results are announced.
2
This discussion has been closed.