Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are low-carb diets unhealthy? - Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Replies
-
I just want to say that I lived for about a year on an almost 0 carb diet (hard keto diet) and I ruined my digestive system by doing so.
I only *kitten* once or twice a week (because what do you know, meat, fat, dairy and minimal green vegetables kill your bowel motility) and it was like rocks. Scarred the inside of my large intestine and eventually ended up with a deep anal fissure too. Now I constantly need medications (a combination of Movicol supplemented with Metamucil sometimes) to poop because my intestines are stretched out and the muscle action doesn't work correctly.
Works like a charm for weight loss though, must've lost about 4KG/8lb that way and managed to keep it off.1 -
Why would you continue to do something for a full year if it had that effect on you??
Wow.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Why would you continue to do something for a full year if it had that effect on you??
Wow.
Cuz I'm in vanity pound territory and I'd do pretty much anything to get as skinny as I'd like to be.
Also, I wasn't suffering at all. When I actually got the fissure is when I was like "welp, okay, guess I'm not doing that anymore". Not to mention there are plenty of 24/7 keto lifestylers out there and an entire subreddit on it and I've never seen people complain about such problems (except for bowel irregularity/only going a few times a week).0 -
Okay... Only moving your bowels once or twice a week is one thing; though that would be a pretty significant decrease in frequency for me, some people just don't go very often. Having the BMs be "like rocks" is something else. You were constipated for a year. That sounds like suffering to me, but I get seriously uncomfortable if I go more than three days without "going". Different strokes I guess.
Fwiw, I've been doing low carb (not keto tho) for over three years. More regular than I ever was on a high fiber diet.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Okay... Only moving your bowels once or twice a week is one thing; though that would be a pretty significant decrease in frequency for me, some people just don't go very often. Having the BMs be "like rocks" is something else. You were constipated for a year. That sounds like suffering to me, but I get seriously uncomfortable if I go more than three days without "going". Different strokes I guess.
Fwiw, I've been doing low carb (not keto tho) for over three years. More regular than I ever was on a high fiber diet.
Yeah, my experience and reading around is telling me that people can react very differently to such a diet. I didn't feel any discomfort during it. How low carb are you, roughly speaking? I've been able to do relatively restricted carb diets without issue, it was just the full-out keto that I didn't manage.0 -
I get between 50-80g per day. Sometimes a tad less, sometimes a tad more, but 100g is my upper limit - that's where I notice an uncomfortable uptick in appetite.0
-
Low carb means "net carbs" so fiber is not included. It's possible to have very low net carbs - single digits or low double digits - and still eat plenty of fiber. As long as you don't add a bunch of starchy vegetables, croutons, and high-carb dressing, a salad is low carb and has plenty of fiber. Or you can take fiber supplements. Often, I've heard that a lack of magnesium is what causes keto-ers to have hard and infrequent stools, so a Mg supplement might work too. To go a year without looking into these things seems hard to believe.1
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Low carb means "net carbs" so fiber is not included. It's possible to have very low net carbs - single digits or low double digits - and still eat plenty of fiber. As long as you don't add a bunch of starchy vegetables, croutons, and high-carb dressing, a salad is low carb and has plenty of fiber. Or you can take fiber supplements. Often, I've heard that a lack of magnesium is what causes keto-ers to have hard and infrequent stools, so a Mg supplement might work too. To go a year without looking into these things seems hard to believe.
Enter flax and chia. Very low carb fiber power houses! Saving my entrails, one amazing seed at a time....0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Okay... Only moving your bowels once or twice a week is one thing; though that would be a pretty significant decrease in frequency for me, some people just don't go very often. Having the BMs be "like rocks" is something else. You were constipated for a year. That sounds like suffering to me, but I get seriously uncomfortable if I go more than three days without "going". Different strokes I guess.
Fwiw, I've been doing low carb (not keto tho) for over three years. More regular than I ever was on a high fiber diet.
Yeah, my experience and reading around is telling me that people can react very differently to such a diet. I didn't feel any discomfort during it. How low carb are you, roughly speaking? I've been able to do relatively restricted carb diets without issue, it was just the full-out keto that I didn't manage.
So true. Some experience constipation, others have diarrhea, and others find there is no change (majority).
I personally experienced D, off and on for the first few months. Eating too much grains or plants stops me up. Fats get me moving.1 -
When I low carbed, I was constipated. Meat constipates me horribly. Fat is neutral as far as that issue is concerned.
I was amazed to become regular for the first time in my life after becoming a vegetarian.
It's amazing how differently bodies respond to these things.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Low carb means "net carbs" so fiber is not included. It's possible to have very low net carbs - single digits or low double digits - and still eat plenty of fiber. As long as you don't add a bunch of starchy vegetables, croutons, and high-carb dressing, a salad is low carb and has plenty of fiber. Or you can take fiber supplements. Often, I've heard that a lack of magnesium is what causes keto-ers to have hard and infrequent stools, so a Mg supplement might work too. To go a year without looking into these things seems hard to believe.
"Net carbs" is a source of debate in the "keto" world. Since it's impossible to know whether any given food contains soluble versus insoluble fiber, a lot of people recommend you stick to "total carbs" when attempting to force nutritional ketosis (which makes sense, to me at least).
There's also plenty of debate over whether dietary fiber is even necessary (seems the answer is 'no' from a *physiological* perspective, just like there is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate").
Personally, I'm a huge fan of the "keto" way of eating. I don't think it's a way of eating that *everyone* should embrace - just those who adapt well to it. There are some people who think their way of eating is best - and it is, for themselves - but only themselves. The person standing right next to them? Probably not. Seriously, you are probably going to absolutely *fail* with a ketogenic diet if you dislike salty and/or savory foods.
In contrast, I personally find nothing palatable about the Vegan way of eating, and would probably fail miserably if forced to eat that way. I have also failed many times at doing simple CICO - even though the majority of people seem to accept straight/simple CICO as dogma. It wasn't until I discovered this Keto business that I finally settled on a way of eating I could actually *enjoy*, which will hopefully increase my chances of long-term success.
To the original poster's point though (and the topic of this thread), I think it's foolish to think that any single diet can keep all of humanity equally healthy. But to outright label a diet as "dangerous" because it eliminates a single macronutrient that isn't even physiologically essential? Sounds like a big ole pile of dog squeeze to me.6 -
CICO isn't a diet. One loses, gains, or maintains doing vegan, keto, or whatever other diet or none based on CICO. Anyone sensible will choose a diet that is healthful, satisfactory to them, and easy for them to sustain and which allows them to meet their goals based on CICO principles. That could be keto or vegan, of course.5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO isn't a diet. One loses, gains, or maintains doing vegan, keto, or whatever other diet or none based on CICO. Anyone sensible will choose a diet that is healthful, satisfactory to them, and easy for them to sustain and which allows them to meet their goals based on CICO principles. That could be keto or vegan, of course.
To expand on this, CICO is an energy balance equation the takes into consideration several components; metabolism, thermal effect of food, non exercise activity thermogenesis, and thermal effect of activity.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
SuperCarLori wrote: »Enter flax and chia. Very low carb fiber power houses! Saving my entrails, one amazing seed at a time....
Warning to those on blood thinners: flax and chia will interfere with their action.0 -
SuperCarLori wrote: »Enter flax and chia. Very low carb fiber power houses! Saving my entrails, one amazing seed at a time....
Warning to those on blood thinners: flax and chia will interfere with their action.
Thank you. I didn't know this! I have been eating a small amount of either flax or chia almost daily. How much is safe to eat or are they best avoided altogether? Are other seeds OK?0 -
Dr. Dean Ornish and his anti low carb preaching also blamed dietary fat for heart disease. Although I found low carb too restrictive, cholesterol and triglyceride levels actually drop dramatically on higher fat lower carb diets.
I think the Ornish diet is a little more than anti-low carb, it's low fat, which still works for many. I just don't see the use for low fat anymore than low carb unless you really can't do it any other way. As far as blood work, any time you lose weight that improves, on matter what diet you choose, and I haven't seen any evidence to contradict this.
1 -
I'm not generally a fan of really low fat diets, but I found this piece by Denise Minger worth reading, and it changed my views somewhat on Ornish et al.: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
And yes, for most people just losing weight improves bloodwork. Some do have negative reactions to increased fat in a HFLC diet, and some benefit from cutting sat fat, but that seems to be a minority. My own dad (who was never overweight) has controlled his cholesterol and improved his tests by reducing sat fat, so I think it depends on the person and understand why doctors often want to try that, especially with non-overweight patients.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not generally a fan of really low fat diets, but I found this piece by Denise Minger worth reading, and it changed my views somewhat on Ornish et al.: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
And yes, for most people just losing weight improves bloodwork. Some do have negative reactions to increased fat in a HFLC diet, and some benefit from cutting sat fat, but that seems to be a minority. My own dad (who was never overweight) has controlled his cholesterol and improved his tests by reducing sat fat, so I think it depends on the person and understand why doctors often want to try that, especially with non-overweight patients.
For me, losing the extra weight/maintaining a weight towards the lower end of the healthy bmi range has been enough to produce great cholesterol numbers. But my husband's mother, who has always been slim, has struggled with high cholesterol numbers and her doctor recommended reducing her saturated fat intake. It's the only thing she changed in her diet and the results have been improved numbers. Her mother, who is also very thin, has had a host of health issues-high glucose numbers (she's been a pre-diabetic for years), crazy blood pressure issues (several strokes) etc. But you'd look at her now/younger years and would think she's done everything 'right' to be healthy (active/healthy weight/eats a very 'healthy' diet etc). So I agree with you 100% that it really can be different for each person.1 -
I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.4 -
New study seems to suggest high protein diet at least in small sample of women it's not all that great...
This link is to article around the study and not the study itself.
http://time.com/4526448/high-protein-diet-weight-loss-insulin/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/11/atkins-style-diets-cancel-out-benefits-of-weight-loss-study-finds
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/high-protein-diet-doesnt-help-prevent-type-2-diabetes-study-finds-101216.html0 -
I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?
Simply put I don't see low carb as unhealthy nor do I see high carb as unhealthy. Outside of things such as obesity there doesn't seem to be a simple answer, if there is one, to what WOE is best for optimal health. As long as you hit your minimums of micros and macros their seems to be little evidence to preference one macro blend over another.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?
Simply put I don't see low carb as unhealthy nor do I see high carb as unhealthy. Outside of things such as obesity there doesn't seem to be a simple answer, if there is one, to what WOE is best for optimal health. As long as you hit your minimums of micros and macros their seems to be little evidence to preference one macro blend over another.
I mostly agree, but it really depends on the individual's health conditions and training goals. Additionally, it isn't just a question of high carb or low carb to me... it is a question of timing just as much as quantity.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
The WFPB people (often high carb) claim great support with T2D and have various studies to support it. It may be covered in the Denise Minger piece on low fat diets I cited above, I'd have to check. The turn around is just as fast as that claimed by LCHF.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions