The Ketogenic Diet REVIEW ( information you needed )

13

Replies

  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    "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.

    FTFY
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member



    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 playing
    He 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/
  • seashel812
    seashel812 Posts: 25
    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.
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    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.
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    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/19506174
  • climberlady
    climberlady Posts: 3 Member
    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.)
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    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-20031902

    Some 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.htm
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    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"?
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    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.
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    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.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    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.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    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.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    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"
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    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
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    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.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    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.
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    Bottom line: Reduce body fat, cure type II diabetes.
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    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:
  • redheadmommy
    redheadmommy Posts: 908 Member
    Bottom line: Reduce body fat, cure type II diabetes.
    If that had been true, nobody with normal weight would have type 2 diabetes , which is NOT the case.
  • rotnkat77
    rotnkat77 Posts: 28
    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.

    Anita