The Ketogenic Diet REVIEW ( information you needed )
Replies
-
Actually, it is true that man developed from eating plants. The theory that meat increased intelligence is faulty. How did we develop tools to hunt so we could eat meat before we had the intelligence to make the tools?
Recent research shows that chimpanzees exhibit many previously undocumented behaviors found in humans:
Using stone hammers to crack nuts (Morgan & Abwe 2006, Mercader et al. 2007)
Using tools to harvest underground storage organs (tubers, roots) of plants (Hernandez-Aguilar et al. 2007)
Sheltering in caves to avoid heat (Pruetz 2007)
Using pointed spears made from sticks to hunt for a small primate (bush babies: Galago senegalensis), a hunting behavior practiced primarily by females (Pruetz and Bertolani, 2007).
Despite popular belief, humans are not omnivores. If we were omnivores, we wouldn't get sick from eating rotting flesh. We would have some biological adaptations for catching and killing prey. We wouldn't develop cancer, heart disease, and diabetes from eating animal flesh. But we do.
Humans have multiple metabolic and genetic adaptations for omnivory. A few of the adaptations are described below.
Vitamin B-12 requirement. This is well-known so we mention it only briefly. B-12 is required for human nutrition, yet plant foods are not a reliable source. Certain insects, e.g., termites, a favored food for chimps, are a rich source of B-12 and were probably consumed by our evolutionary ancestors.
Enzyme: carnosinase. The human digestive system produces carnosinase, an enzyme to digest carnosine – a protein found only in animal tissue. The enzyme has a digestive function, and is found in other human tissues as well, as some carnosine is absorbed in intact form by intestinal cells (Sadikali et al. 1975, Lenney et al. 1985).
Enzyme: chitinase. The human digestive system can produce chitinase, an enzyme to digest chitin – found primarily in insects and shellfish. Ability to secrete the enzyme may depend on genetics or being recently descended from populations that consume insects and/or shellfish (Paoletti et al. 2006).
Enzyme: sucrase deficiency. Sucrase is the enzyme required to digest sucrose, aka white sugar, and also found in fruits, both wild and domesticated. Incidence rates of sucrase deficiency in Arctic Inuit range from 2-3% to as high as 10%; the latter is from a non-random sample and may be an overestimate (Draper 1977). The Inuit are a very young culture compared to others; they have been in the Arctic less than 4K years (Wrangham & Conklin-Britten 2003).
Consider that fruit is allegedly the core of the human diet per raw vegan evolution beliefs, and retaining the ability to digest sucrose should not reduce reproduction. It follows that a rate of 2-10% for sucrase deficiency after only 4K years is hard to explain, as it contradicts the claims (by raw vegan evolution advocates) that evolutionary change in digestive processes was somehow “impossible” over more than 2 Million years of human evolution. From another perspective, this can be seen as an example of how quickly fundamental metabolic processes can start evolving in response to diet changes, even when the selective pressure is minimal.
Enzyme: AGT. Alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT) is a metabolic enzyme that is targeted in animals to different subcellular units - peroxisomes or mitochondria - with variation in targets differing by diet classification categories that are crude/approximate, i.e., the diet vs. target - association is not strict (Danpure et al. 1994, Holbrook et al 2000, Birdsey et al 2004). Raw vegan advocates have claimed that AGT is proof that humans are “metabolic herbivores”. That claim is an inaccurate oversimplification of a complex issue, and reflects the extremely poor scholarship and black-and-white thinking found in raw vegan advocacy.
AGT contains a polymorphism (genetic variation) - Pro11Leu - that would be advantageous to someone eating animal foods. This suggests the hypothesis: human populations that have higher traditional consumption of animal foods should have a higher incidence of this polymorphism. A comparative study of multiple populations confirmed the hypothesis, and suggested that it is probably due to dietary selective pressures (Caldwell et al. 2004).
“The human, in fact, is remarkable because, after having lost the ability to target AGT to mitochondria…some individuals have reacquired the ability to target a small amount of their AGT back to mitochondria” (Birdsey et al. 2005). AGT targeting to mitochondria has an association with omnivorous and carnivorous diets. The retargeting in humans is via a polymorphism that creates a complex new AGT target sequence, comprised of multiple amino acids. The interpretation here is that AGT targeting in humans is in fact evolving towards the targets associated with omnivory.
Gene: apolipoprotein E ɛ3 allele (written as apoE3). The ɛ3 allele (version) of the apolipoprotein E gene evolved around 226K years BP; this is before the appearance of anatomically modern humans around 195K years BP (McDougall et al. 2005). A detailed analysis by Finch et al. (2004) provides extensive evidence that apoE3 was an evolutionary adaptation to increased consumption of animal foods, i.e., a “meat-adaptive” gene. The apoE3 allele also reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s and vascular diseases. The same paper identifies additional genes that may have changed as a result of increased animal food consumption in evolution, including genes that support the brain, gut, hair and skin, bone maturation, and growth.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/fresh/natural-human-diet.shtml0 -
Seeing how people do fine on many different diets, I don't think there's necessarily a one size fits all approach for everyone. I for one do quite well on lower carb diets. Several years ago when I was 21 I developed pre-diabetes. This was quite the shock for me because I didn't fit the classic type 2 diabetic picture. I was young, thin (body mass index of 20) and active running 6 days a week. I thought I ate healthy. But there I was thirsty all the time no matter how much I drank and my blood work wasn't good. At the recommendation of my Dr I was told to reduce my carbs. At first I was at a loss of what to eat because my diet was predominately carb based and it seemed like there was nothing I could eat but I tried it and my blood work all went back to the normal range. And several years later it's still normal.I know better than to weigh in with actual peer-reviewed research on a thread like this but what the h**l, it's saturday and I'm done with my chores
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14672862
Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?
Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance.
Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years.
Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.
or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364
Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.
Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety. The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.
EDIT: fixed paragraph breaks.
First, I noticed your web site reference and the ".gov" at the end....so I did not even bother to go and look at it. ".gov" has done a wonderful job of suggesting that I should continue to follow the low-fat diet I had been on for years. On that low-fat diet, I blossomed up to 328 pounds, had gestational diabetes, and now have full blown type II diabetes.
I started on the LCHF diet on May 1 of this year. I am now off of my injectable diabetes medication, while still taking my Metformin (which has been reduced by 50% by the doctor already). Even with no injectable medication and half my oral meds, I am still having sugar lows. Looks like tomorrow, I will be removed from all diabetes meds.
In one month, I have dropped 21 pounds. I am happy, feel great, never hungry and love the idea of the eggs and bacon I get every morning. I eat when my stomach growls and don't eat when I am not hungry. I eat about 1600 calories a day, have enough energy to work 12 hour days and still take a 20 mile bike ride at 16- 18 mph at the end of the day.
I eat a lot of veggies. Every day has about 5 cups spinach in it, along with celery, cucumber, avocado, some onion and green pepper, and romaine lettuce (literally plate-fulls). For desert, I have a cup of strawberries with 12 TBSP whipped cream on top (sugar free, of course). I limit my sugar substitutes to 3 packages, or the equivalent, each day.
So, to recap. In one month I have lost 21 pounds, have nearly gone off all diabetes meds and have sugars that hardly ever get above 100 (as opposed to the 180 - 320 I used to get in April). I feel great, exercise more (now that I have the energy). More importantly, my endo doctor approves of this diet, WHEN DONE CORRECTLY, and is absolutely amazed by the results.
I am wondering how this can be bad??
Hi Nancy,
Low fat is the healthiest diet, however, the marketing and propaganda from the food industry twisted the concept. If something is labeled as "low fat", you shouldn't eat it. You should avoid eating anything with a label if possible.
Many companies were able to relabel their products as low-fat by simply adding sugar. If a product was 50% fat by calories, the company would simply double the total calories by adding sugar to lower the percentage of fat calories. So, if one serving had 100 calories and 50% of that was from fat, they added 100 calories of sugar so now one serving had 200 calories and 25% of it was fat and could now be labeled "low fat".
Concerning diabetes, a high card, whole-foods, plant-based diet has cured many people of type II diabetes, and has significantly lowered the insulin requirements of type I diabetics. You aren't actually curing your diabetes, you are just masking the high blood sugar by eating foods with little effect on blood sugar. It isn't the sugar that causes diabetes, it is fat in your pancreas that makes you less insulin sensitive. If you can't eat something because of its effect on your blood sugar, then you aren't cured. You are simply managing the disease.
If sugar caused diabetes, I would be diabetic. I eat well over 80% of my calories from carbs, mostly simple sugars such as fructose from fruit. I lost nearly 100 pounds of fat eating a high-raw diet, then turned around and added 30 pounds of muscle. I am not a fluke. There is a mountain of evidence showing a whole-foods, plant-based diet is by far the healthiest, and animal products only cause harm. Even a plant-based low carb diet is superior to an animal-based low carb diet. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-atkins-diet/
Plants have over 10,000 nutrients, animal products have a couple dozen or so. Plants have fiber and are low in fat, animal products have no fiber and are high in fat. Animal protein is damaging to the body. Plant protein is beneficial to the body.
You were fooled by the marketing propaganda of one fad diet, and now you are being fooled again with another fad diet. I am not trying to be mean, I just want to make you realize that you are diet jumping. I did the same thing for years. You need to change your lifestyle to succeed.
Of meat-eaters, semi-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans in the US, only vegans had a normal BMI. All other groups were overweight. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/thousands-of-vegans-studied/0 -
I do Keto add me if you want0
-
I know better than to weigh in with actual peer-reviewed research on a thread like this but what the h**l, it's saturday and I'm done with my chores
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14672862
Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?
Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance.
Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years.
Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.
or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364
Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.
Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety. The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.
EDIT: fixed paragraph breaks.
First, I noticed your web site reference and the ".gov" at the end....so I did not even bother to go and look at it. ".gov" has done a wonderful job of suggesting that I should continue to follow the low-fat diet I had been on for years. On that low-fat diet, I blossomed up to 328 pounds, had gestational diabetes, and now have full blown type II diabetes.
I started on the LCHF diet on May 1 of this year. I am now off of my injectable diabetes medication, while still taking my Metformin (which has been reduced by 50% by the doctor already). Even with no injectable medication and half my oral meds, I am still having sugar lows. Looks like tomorrow, I will be removed from all diabetes meds.
In one month, I have dropped 21 pounds. I am happy, feel great, never hungry and love the idea of the eggs and bacon I get every morning. I eat when my stomach growls and don't eat when I am not hungry. I eat about 1600 calories a day, have enough energy to work 12 hour days and still take a 20 mile bike ride at 16- 18 mph at the end of the day.
I eat a lot of veggies. Every day has about 5 cups spinach in it, along with celery, cucumber, avocado, some onion and green pepper, and romaine lettuce (literally plate-fulls). For desert, I have a cup of strawberries with 12 TBSP whipped cream on top (sugar free, of course). I limit my sugar substitutes to 3 packages, or the equivalent, each day.
So, to recap. In one month I have lost 21 pounds, have nearly gone off all diabetes meds and have sugars that hardly ever get above 100 (as opposed to the 180 - 320 I used to get in April). I feel great, exercise more (now that I have the energy). More importantly, my endo doctor approves of this diet, WHEN DONE CORRECTLY, and is absolutely amazed by the results.
I am wondering how this can be bad??
Hi Nancy,
Low fat is the healthiest diet, however, the marketing and propaganda from the food industry twisted the concept. If something is labeled as "low fat", you shouldn't eat it. You should avoid eating anything with a label if possible.
Many companies were able to relabel their products as low-fat by simply adding sugar. If a product was 50% fat by calories, the company would simply double the total calories by adding sugar to lower the percentage of fat calories. So, if one serving had 100 calories and 50% of that was from fat, they added 100 calories of sugar so now one serving had 200 calories and 25% of it was fat and could now be labeled "low fat".
Concerning diabetes, a high card, whole-foods, plant-based diet has cured many people of type II diabetes, and has significantly lowered the insulin requirements of type I diabetics. You aren't actually curing your diabetes, you are just masking the high blood sugar by eating foods with little effect on blood sugar. It isn't the sugar that causes diabetes, it is fat in your pancreas that makes you less insulin sensitive. If you can't eat something because of its effect on your blood sugar, then you aren't cured. You are simply managing the disease.
If sugar caused diabetes, I would be diabetic. I eat well over 80% of my calories from carbs, mostly simple sugars such as fructose from fruit. I lost nearly 100 pounds of fat eating a high-raw diet, then turned around and added 30 pounds of muscle. I am not a fluke. There is a mountain of evidence showing a whole-foods, plant-based diet is by far the healthiest, and animal products only cause harm. Even a plant-based low carb diet is superior to an animal-based low carb diet. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-atkins-diet/
Plants have over 10,000 nutrients, animal products have a couple dozen or so. Plants have fiber and are low in fat, animal products have no fiber and are high in fat. Animal protein is damaging to the body. Plant protein is beneficial to the body.
You were fooled by the marketing propaganda of one fad diet, and now you are being fooled again with another fad diet. I am not trying to be mean, I just want to make you realize that you are diet jumping. I did the same thing for years. You need to change your lifestyle to succeed.
Of meat-eaters, semi-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans in the US, only vegans had a normal BMI. All other groups were overweight. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/thousands-of-vegans-studied/
For every website you proposed, I could throw several at you that would be in disagreement. There are clear studies showing that vegans are NOT the only groups that had normal BMI. Follow that fact that there are at least five people I know that are LCHF, meat based, and have normal to just below normal BMI's. We will agree to disagree. You should read some of the older studies (pre 1980's) and some of the recent studies (2005 and older). I am not trying to be mean, either, but I think it is your personal preference that is making you knock the LCHF meat-based diet....especially since it is clear that you have not done any in-depth research on it. If you had, you would not have made some of the above comments.
Second, diabetes really can't be "cured". Once the islets have been destroyed, how could vegetable eating magically bring them back? This I would really like to know. They are now considering transplants, of islet cells, to return functioning insulin responses, but I did not read anything about them doing that by eating a vegan diet.
Please, it is very important that you do your research and be generally knowledgeable before making a post like yours. Of course, I think it completely appropriate to post your personal experiences based on your diet of choice. but to knock something you know little about, is dangerous to the new people reading here. Once you do some further research, you will find where you made your errors. I also suggest that you be more formidable in considering the source(s) of your facts. Good Day0 -
First, those were opinion articles, not peer-reviewed research.I know better than to weigh in with actual peer-reviewed research on a thread like this but what the h**l, it's saturday and I'm done with my chores
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14672862
Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?
Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance.
Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years.
Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.
or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364
Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.
Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety. The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.
EDIT: fixed paragraph breaks.
Second, the opinion is based on very old science, and both opinion pieces you linked to are over 11 years old. Since then we've had multiple studies spanning 2 years, and follow-up now at 4 years.
The research is now quite clear that there are NO long-term complications as a result of a proper low-carbohydrate / ketogenic diet.0 -
FYI - Vegans who get their "facts" from 'nutritionfacts' (a vegan-propaganda site full of half-truths and outright misinformation) aren't interested in real science.For every website you proposed, I could throw several at you that would be in disagreement. There are clear studies showing that vegans are NOT the only groups that had normal BMI. Follow that fact that there are at least five people I know that are LCHF, meat based, and have normal to just below normal BMI's. We will agree to disagree. You should read some of the older studies (pre 1980's) and some of the recent studies (2005 and older). I am not trying to be mean, either, but I think it is your personal preference that is making you knock the LCHF meat-based diet....especially since it is clear that you have not done any in-depth research on it. If you had, you would not have made some of the above comments.
While it's true that a raw-vegan diet is *marginally* better than a SAD diet for diabetes (in that it does eliminate refined carbohydrate), ketogenic/LCHF diets are vastly-superior to low-fat diets (whether vegan or not) in every clinical trial ever done testing glycemic control.Second, diabetes really can't be "cured". Once the islets have been destroyed, how could vegetable eating magically bring them back? This I would really like to know. They are now considering transplants, of islet cells, to return functioning insulin responses, but I did not read anything about them doing that by eating a vegan diet.
And FYI - the islet transplants aren't just being considered, they're being done here in Alberta, Canada. See http://www.islet.ca/ for more information.0 -
Horray...Just found out about this Keto diet after starting ideal protein. I am hacking my ideal protein routine to include coconut oil. My macros are about 60/25/15.
I was having a real problem with hunger following the ideal protein diet and I knew that fat was good for feeling full and satisfied. I tried the coconut oil in one of my shakes and it tasted like a candy bar, YUMYUM. I have more energy too!0 -
Bump0
-
"For every website you proposed, I could throw several at you that would be in disagreement. There are clear studies showing that vegans are NOT the only groups that had normal BMI. Follow that fact that there are at least five people I know that are LCHF, meat based, and have normal to just below normal BMI's. We will agree to disagree. You should read some of the older studies (pre 1980's) and some of the recent studies (2005 and older). I am not trying to be mean, either, but I think it is your personal preference that is making you knock the LCHF meat-based diet....especially since it is clear that you have not done any in-depth research on it. If you had, you would not have made some of the above comments. "
The study was based on a mean average of vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, and meat eaters. Please provide any studies you like.
"Second, diabetes really can't be "cured". Once the islets have been destroyed, how could vegetable eating magically bring them back? This I would really like to know. They are now considering transplants, of islet cells, to return functioning insulin responses, but I did not read anything about them doing that by eating a vegan diet. "
Oy! Ok, you really need to educate yourself on your disease. You stated you have type II diabetes. Type II diabetes is 100% curable. It is purely caused from a build-up of fat in the pancreas. Type I diabetes is when the insulin producing cells in the islets of Langerhans have been destroyed.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/jason-wyrick/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Bu6MJZbW0
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20081001/vegan-diet-good-type-2-diabetes
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diabetes-resources/beating-diabetes-vegan-diet-improves-blood-sugar
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diabetes/wireStory?id=2244647
"Please, it is very important that you do your research and be generally knowledgeable before making a post like yours. Of course, I think it completely appropriate to post your personal experiences based on your diet of choice. but to knock something you know little about, is dangerous to the new people reading here. Once you do some further research, you will find where you made your errors. I also suggest that you be more formidable in considering the source(s) of your facts. Good Day"
I am a nutritionist who has been studying nutrition for decades. I work with overweight and obese people to get them healthy. Including type I and II diabetics. You have a VERY serious disease. You need to take responsibility for your own health and educate yourself on the cause of your disease. If you want to get healthy, you will need to stop listening to the status quo and actually make a lifestyle change.0 -
"FYI - Vegans who get their "facts" from 'nutritionfacts' (a vegan-propaganda site full of half-truths and outright misinformation) aren't interested in real science. "
Everything on Nutritionfacts.org is backed up by peer-review science.
"While it's true that a raw-vegan diet is *marginally* better than a SAD diet for diabetes (in that it does eliminate refined carbohydrate), ketogenic/LCHF diets are vastly-superior to low-fat diets (whether vegan or not) in every clinical trial ever done testing glycemic control. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24232975
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/610S.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/193860290 -
"FYI - Vegans who get their "facts" from 'nutritionfacts' (a vegan-propaganda site full of half-truths and outright misinformation) aren't interested in real science. "
Everything on Nutritionfacts.org is cherry picked from peer-review science, but ignores the mountain of evidence that refutes their agenda.
FTFY0 -
Oy! Ok, you really need to educate yourself on your disease. You stated you have type II diabetes. Type II diabetes is 100% curable. It is purely caused from a build-up of fat in the pancreas. Type I diabetes is when the insulin producing cells in the islets of Langerhans have been destroyed.
Wrong again, but thanks for playingHe says it can be cured by a plant-based diet, but the general consensus of medical experts is that diabetes can’t be “cured.” Diabetes can be treated and controlled with diet, weight loss, medication, obesity surgery, and even islet cell transplants. The symptoms subside, the blood sugar normalizes, and some patients no longer need their medication after they lose weight and make other lifestyle changes. But we don’t consider it “cured.” If you’re going to say diet “cures” diabetes, it would only be fair to say medication also “cures” it. It’s better to think of it not as cured but as controlled and requiring continuing attention
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/0 -
What does a vegan diet have to do with a ketogenic diet? lol. Anyways it would be really hard to eat keto as a vegan. That would be starvation.0
-
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.0 -
What does a vegan diet have to do with a ketogenic diet? lol. Anyways it would be really hard to eat keto as a vegan. That would be starvation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820038
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/195061740 -
I know better than to weigh in with actual peer-reviewed research on a thread like this but what the h**l, it's saturday and I'm done with my chores
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14672862
Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?
Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance.
Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years.
Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.
or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364
Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.
Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety. The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.
EDIT: fixed paragraph breaks.
First, I noticed your web site reference and the ".gov" at the end....so I did not even bother to go and look at it. ".gov" has done a wonderful job of suggesting that I should continue to follow the low-fat diet I had been on for years. On that low-fat diet, I blossomed up to 328 pounds, had gestational diabetes, and now have full blown type II diabetes.
I started on the LCHF diet on May 1 of this year. I am now off of my injectable diabetes medication, while still taking my Metformin (which has been reduced by 50% by the doctor already). Even with no injectable medication and half my oral meds, I am still having sugar lows. Looks like tomorrow, I will be removed from all diabetes meds.
In one month, I have dropped 21 pounds. I am happy, feel great, never hungry and love the idea of the eggs and bacon I get every morning. I eat when my stomach growls and don't eat when I am not hungry. I eat about 1600 calories a day, have enough energy to work 12 hour days and still take a 20 mile bike ride at 16- 18 mph at the end of the day.
I eat a lot of veggies. Every day has about 5 cups spinach in it, along with celery, cucumber, avocado, some onion and green pepper, and romaine lettuce (literally plate-fulls). For desert, I have a cup of strawberries with 12 TBSP whipped cream on top (sugar free, of course). I limit my sugar substitutes to 3 packages, or the equivalent, each day.
So, to recap. In one month I have lost 21 pounds, have nearly gone off all diabetes meds and have sugars that hardly ever get above 100 (as opposed to the 180 - 320 I used to get in April). I feel great, exercise more (now that I have the energy). More importantly, my endo doctor approves of this diet, WHEN DONE CORRECTLY, and is absolutely amazed by the results.
I am wondering how this can be bad??
PubMed from the NIH, which is referenced is a database for published medical literature. Much like google scholar but for research available through Medline. It has nothing to do with being a "government" condoned/recommendation. Just a quick FYI for ya, you can click on the link and review the published peer-reviewed article without fear of bias (unless it's your own.)0 -
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.
Not even close. You can control symptoms without curing the disease (ie herpes).
And if you're going to look for a definition of a medical term, use a medical resource (not a dictionary)There's no cure for type 2 diabetes,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/type-2-diabetes/basics/definition/con-20031902Some people with type 2 diabetes can stop taking medicines after losing weight. This does not mean that their diabetes is cured. They still have diabetes.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm0 -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/cure
Herpes is a bad example because your can never get rid of one symptom which is the virus itself.
The medical profession never likes to cure anything. There goal is to keep people alive and sick, because those people are a continuous stream of income. Curing people is bad for business, so you rarely hear them use the word cure. However, by the definition of the word cure, type II diabetes can certainly be cured. Do you have another definition of the word "cure"?0 -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/cure
Herpes is a bad example because your can never get rid of one symptom which is the virus itself.
The medical profession never likes to cure anything. There goal is to keep people alive and sick, because those people are a continuous stream of income. Curing people is bad for business, so you rarely hear them use the word cure. However, by the definition of the word cure, type II diabetes can certainly be cured. Do you have another definition of the word "cure"?
Um, I'm bipolar and not exhibiting any symptoms so am I cured? By your definition I am. But my disease is certainly NOT curable, if I quite taking my meds I can guarantee you I will be hospitalized within a month because my brain chemistry will go haywire. I'm sorry but my doctors are not keeping me on my meds for a streamline of income, they are a necessary evil.0 -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/cure
Herpes is a bad example because your can never get rid of one symptom which is the virus itself.
The medical profession never likes to cure anything. There goal is to keep people alive and sick, because those people are a continuous stream of income. Curing people is bad for business, so you rarely hear them use the word cure. However, by the definition of the word cure, type II diabetes can certainly be cured. Do you have another definition of the word "cure"?
Um, I'm bipolar and not exhibiting any symptoms so am I cured? By your definition I am. But my disease is certainly NOT curable, if I quite taking my meds I can guarantee you I will be hospitalized within a month because my brain chemistry will go haywire. I'm sorry but my doctors are not keeping me on my meds for a streamline of income, they are a necessary evil.
You are taking medication. Obviously you are not "Cured" because the condition is still there and it is the medication masking the symptoms.
In the case of type II diabetes, the symptoms can be eliminated without any medication needed.
Heart disease can be completely cured as well, but you won't hear mainstream medicine talking about a cure. The reason, is that if they can't make a profit on it, they will never call it a cure or even a treatment. If you can do it by yourself with diet and exercise, they certainly don't make any money, and will never refer to it as a cure. They don't want to empower you to have control over your own life.0 -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/cure
Herpes is a bad example because your can never get rid of one symptom which is the virus itself.
The medical profession never likes to cure anything. There goal is to keep people alive and sick, because those people are a continuous stream of income. Curing people is bad for business, so you rarely hear them use the word cure. However, by the definition of the word cure, type II diabetes can certainly be cured. Do you have another definition of the word "cure"?
Um, I'm bipolar and not exhibiting any symptoms so am I cured? By your definition I am. But my disease is certainly NOT curable, if I quite taking my meds I can guarantee you I will be hospitalized within a month because my brain chemistry will go haywire. I'm sorry but my doctors are not keeping me on my meds for a streamline of income, they are a necessary evil.
I'm also bi-polar and eating high fat, moderate protein and carbs has allowed me to come off all meds and have even moods. I haven't had to be on meds since getting rid of the packaged foods in which my pDoc and nDoc have told me they can cause changes in brain chemistry due to the food dyes and such that are used in the manufacturing process.0 -
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
Conclusion from that paper: "Pancreatic fat is negatively associated with insulin secretion in subjects with IGT/IFG and, therefore, might represent an additional pathogenetic factor leading to beta-cell dysfunction."
Negatively associated =/= causative.
Plus the pancreas secretes insulin - other cells in the body have insulin receptors for insulin uptake. So pancreatic fat may play a role in the disease (I believe it probably does, for the record) but it is going to be at the levels of insulin secretion. Diabetics probably also have deficiencies in insulin uptake (the receptor itself) or at other points in the starch breakdown/glucose uptake pathways. Many different genes have been implicated in the T2 disease. It is all very complicated and cannot all be blamed on pancreatic fat alone."cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.
Personally, I would consider a cure the point at which I can eat any amount of sugar/carbs and not spike my blood sugar above 100. Control means I have found levels of carbs I can eat that don't spike my blood sugar. For me at least, that is just moderate carbs, not low/keto levels.0 -
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.
Did you read the source you quoted? It does not prove any cause for type II diabetes. The cause of type II is still unknown.
Summary of the paper's conclusion. Quoted from Pubmed because I can't be bothered to reformulate in my own words:
"Pancreatic fat is negatively associated with insulin secretion in subjects with IGT/IFG and, therefore, might represent an additional pathogenetic factor leading to beta-cell dysfunction."
Correlation does not equal causation. You notice the researchers recognize this and say that pancreatic fat might have something to do with causing beta-cell dysfunction. That is a hypothesis that needs further testing, unless there's another paper out there that's done it.
ETA: Yeah, agree completely w/ everything richardheath already posted. Including the definition of "cure"0 -
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.
Did you read the source you quoted? It does not prove any cause for type II diabetes. The cause of type II is still unknown.
Summary of the paper's conclusion. Quoted from Pubmed because I can't be bothered to reformulate in my own words:
"Pancreatic fat is negatively associated with insulin secretion in subjects with IGT/IFG and, therefore, might represent an additional pathogenetic factor leading to beta-cell dysfunction."
Correlation does not equal causation. You notice the researchers recognize this and say that pancreatic fat might have something to do with causing beta-cell dysfunction. That is a hypothesis that needs further testing, unless there's another paper out there that's done it.
ETA: Yeah, agree completely w/ everything richardheath already posted. Including the definition of "cure"
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2253.full0 -
You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.
Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.
Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188
Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.
"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."
If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.
Did you read the source you quoted? It does not prove any cause for type II diabetes. The cause of type II is still unknown.
Summary of the paper's conclusion. Quoted from Pubmed because I can't be bothered to reformulate in my own words:
"Pancreatic fat is negatively associated with insulin secretion in subjects with IGT/IFG and, therefore, might represent an additional pathogenetic factor leading to beta-cell dysfunction."
Correlation does not equal causation. You notice the researchers recognize this and say that pancreatic fat might have something to do with causing beta-cell dysfunction. That is a hypothesis that needs further testing, unless there's another paper out there that's done it.
ETA: Yeah, agree completely w/ everything richardheath already posted. Including the definition of "cure"
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2253.full
Sorry, this paper also does not provide causal evidence that, as you said, "type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin". There's evidence that elevation of plasma free fatty acids (FFAs) plays a role in insulin resistance, and that accumulation of visceral fat could increase insulin resistance through other mechanisms than through FFAs, but that's as far as it goes.
Again, you can build a hypothesis that fat build-up in the pancreas is a cause of type II diabetes, and it sounds reasonable, but that's all it is at this point. A hypothesis that needs to be tested.
Oh, and just FYI - review papers are in general not as good to reference as the primary sources. The writers don't always do a great job of critically analyzing the primary sources. In this case, since the evidence isn't there anyway, I'm just taking the review at face value. Otherwise, I'd have to track down the primary sources to confirm the reviewer's conclusions.0 -
Type 2 diabetes develops because pancreatic β-cells eventually fail to produce enough insulin to compensate for the ongoing insulin resistance.
Step 1: Insulin Resistance.
Step 2: Pancreas cannot produce enough insulin to keep up.
That paper suggests that extended elevated levels of free fatty acids in the blood are the primary cause of insulin resistance. At a calorie surplus, that FFA is deposited as adipose tissue (fat) some of which will be visceral (around organs, such as the pancreas). These high levels of fat around the pancreas then cause an impairment in insulin secretion. Together with the insulin resistance, you then get diabetes.
Other ways to become insulin resistant would be mutations in the gene for the insulin receptor or one of it's regulatory effectors or downstream signalling molecules...
Bottom line: the pancreas is just one part of the puzzle.0 -
Bottom line: Reduce body fat, cure type II diabetes.0
-
Actually, it is true that man developed from eating plants. The theory that meat increased intelligence is faulty. How did we develop tools to hunt so we could eat meat before we had the intelligence to make the tools? Intelligence came from a plant-based diet. Then, as humans start eating more and more meat, they become more and more destructive. Animal agriculture is the single largest threat to the environment. It produces the most greenhouse gases, most water and air pollution, most soil erosion, the cause of most of the deforestation, and it starves millions of people everyday.
Despite popular belief, humans are not omnivores. If we were omnivores, we wouldn't get sick from eating rotting flesh. We would have some biological adaptations for catching and killing prey. We wouldn't develop cancer, heart disease, and diabetes from eating animal flesh. But we do.
Animal agriculture is destroying the planet, starving millions, killing billions of sentient beings every year, and destroying people's health. This is where we are today from eating meat.
:sick: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
If that had been true, nobody with normal weight would have type 2 diabetes , which is NOT the case.Bottom line: Reduce body fat, cure type II diabetes.0 -
Great post! I just started a ketogenic diet 6 days ago and have experienced some good results so far. I'm finding that I have to be careful with my fat intake because I had my gallbladder out a few years ago. I'm still trying to find the balance of percent fat to percent protein that will work for me. So far, I don't get to 60-70% fat; I'm at about 50%. However, I'm in the moderate zone according to my keto sticks, and I've lost 6 pounds. So far, so good!
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to better handle fat intake with no gallbladder? Thanks!
I had my gallbladder taken out in 1988. I've done LCHF before and gave up do to issues (let's leave it at that). But then I decided to give it another go this time, so I upped my fat a little at a time. And while I still have some issues they are getting much better on a daily basis.
I would start with extra daily 510 grams increments at a time and go from there.
Anita0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions