Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
A year later I'm still off the medication, my last HBA1C was 5.7 which is considered normal. Maintaining that does require daily exercise (and I do mean _every_ day) and good diet management but I've found it a fairly easy regime to follow (half an hour of 80% intensity is enough most days).
My quality of life is now excellent (it was terrible on the medication) and I'm able to eat a little more freely. The only big differences regarding diet are that I now only drink a couple of times a month and I don't go near anything with wheat flour in it.
EDIT: google docs doesn't seem to allow me to share the docs publicly (I can only share with specific email addresses or within my domain) so I've made them available as csv and excel files.
[1]
CSV - https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr1xwd3l6ziiows/newcastle_diet.csv...
Excel - https://www.dropbox.com/s/12tjf23oz7ihq4d/newcastle_diet.xls...
My personal hypothesis is that some people have intestinal bacteria that are really, really good at breaking down sugar very quickly. So when you eat high GI foods, your gut turns them into glucose very quickly releases them into your blood, and your body has to deal accordingly. IMO that would help explain why people who are very obese get type 2 with some regularity, but how otherwise healthy adults who are simply moderately overweight can also develop it.
A corollary to this hypothesis is that the ability of your (personal) intestinal bacteria to break down different types of foods at different rates means that there is no such thing as a "universal diet". Some people will be healthiest eating large amounts of red meat, some will be healthiest on a high-carb diet, while others may need something more fiber-rich (assuming appropriate calorie control, of course). This appears to be borne out anecdotally, with diet plans having different efficacy on different people.
Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand. There's something unique that happens in our intestines, and while there's obviously a genetic component to it, the genes your intestinal flora carry may be just as important. We don't understand the system or the feedback loops (maybe eating too much sugar causes these bacteria to over-populate the intestines in some people and crowd out other bacteria?) The point is, there's a whole lot we don't know about how our bodies process the nutrients we take in. There are a lot of studies underway, but holistic medicine is pretty obviously a real thing -- we just don't understand the science behind it yet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17927751 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11157352
If the lactose passed through intact, it wouldn't be a problem. If enzymes weren't responsible for breaking down sucrose and there were bacteria doing it, HFCS would probably be even more popular.
What's interesting is that intestinal flora can take time to adjust in response to dietary changes (wish I could find some good figures on precisely how long, but the whole field of research on the subject is so new). This means that those on a seemingly unhealthy diet can initially do far worse switching over to 'unfamiliar' healthy food as their gut flora are presented with something they have little 'experience' digesting.
In my own experience, cutting out grains and milk from my diet resulted in a good few months of problems before things settled down again which seemed very counter intuitive until I read up on the significant role gut bacteria play in digestion.
Are there such bacteria? I only know about intestinal bacteria breaking down indigestable carbohydrate (also called soluble "fiber") into short-chain fatty acids. Other carbs except fructose (handled by liver) should be broken down into glucose via digestive enzymes prior to colon throughout the digestive tract starting in your mouth.
> IMO that would help explain why people who are very obese get type 2 with some regularity, but how otherwise healthy adults who are simply moderately overweight can also develop it.
Well many obese also never develop T2DM either. The non-fat people who become T2 might have been on a high-carb-low-fat regimen rather than a high-carb-high-fat regimen.
> A corollary to this hypothesis is that the ability of your (personal) intestinal bacteria to break down different types of foods at different rates means that there is no such thing as a "universal diet". Some people will be healthiest eating large amounts of red meat, some will be healthiest on a high-carb diet, while others may need something more fiber-rich (assuming appropriate calorie control, of course).
This seems to assume an unduly large role for intestinal bacteria in digestion. Stomach acid and digestive enzymes do the bulk of the work prior, and colon bacteria get leftovers that our bodies don't handle "natively" AFAIK. Exception is some cause or other flushing stuff down the tract prematurely prior to absorption, perhaps something dangerous that stomach acid didn't neutralize, enzyme problems, overstuffing or what not..
> Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand. There's something unique that happens in our intestines
I agree but people shouldn't forget bacteria only get the leftovers and if bacteria are found to be the cause of weight or health issues, maybe one should first evaluate whether enzymes are broken or too much (improperly preprocessed) cellulose is being consumed?
I've read some advice about not drinking water with meals for this reason. The idea is that it will dilute your stomach acid making it more basic and less effective.
"[W]e just don't understand the science behind it yet" because there is none. Holistic medicine is quackery that has failed scientific tests if efficacy time and time again.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fountain-of-youth-drug-trial-has...
"Behind the mania is a widely used, inexpensive generic pill for Type 2 diabetes called metformin. Scientists are planning a clinical trial to see if the drug can delay or prevent some of the most devastating diseases of advanced age, from heart ailments to cognitive decline to cancer. To test the pill, gerontologists at 14 aging centers around the U.S. will follow 3,000 seniors for six years. Half the seniors involved would get the drug, while the others would receive a placebo."
It seems to me that you are treating your condition without medication, not reversing it. Exercise and regulating your blood sugar using diet is what doctors suggest but not many people follow it. You still have permanently increased insulin resistance and you must stay on your exercise and diet to prevent it getting worse.
> So, nearly four years down the line, is my diet still successful? Yes – but it takes close monitoring and willpower. We all know that diets are notoriously hard to stick to – unless the incentive is powerful enough. In my case, it is.
> …and the 1,750-calorie diet he follows now
As the theory goes some people are genetically predisposed to accumulating fat within the pancreas which causes insulin resistance. The (hypothesised) reason that the diet works is that it causes the body to use up fat from within the pancreas to the point where it begins to function again. Unfortunately the tendency remains, without continued management the pancreas will accumulate the fat again and the diabetic symptoms will return. This is borne out by the fact that a year later many of the original participants were experiencing diabetic symptoms once again.
Dr. Taylor's research, along with other research currently being done, is demonstrating that insulin resistance is not permanent as was once believed. The problem is, as ollysb noted below, getting people to make the lifestyle changes necessary and stick to them. Most people are not willing and able to make the changes required to keep the disease from progressing, let alone increase their insulin sensitivity again.
Edit:
Thanks!
the plank (an exercise to help lose excess fat round the stomach)
This is incorrect. The plank is an excellent exercise for building core strength (much better than situps), but it does not help lose excess fat around the stomach more or less so than any other exercise does.
Cringe. Hard to take the writer seriously after this statement. The rest of the article seemed fine so I googled around to see if there was some stunning new research showing the plank (or any specific movement) spot-reducing fat. Nope.
Nutrition and fitness seem to be areas which really lack good, hard science behind the many assumptions we make about them.
My brother has autoimmune diabetes (aka Type 1). We give to and volunteer with the JDRF as a result, because its mission is laser focussed on type 1 related research. I do not give to or support the ADA, because their efforts are really diffuse and seem to focus more on the cheeseburger type.
AFAIK there are certain correlations with the condition and the presence of certain gene combinations, and hypotheses abound that it is indeed a genetic condition, but they are still just hypotheses - research is ongoing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/437lyj/nsv_take_that_... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/1dws7z/nsv_defeated_d... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/3v1nq3/nsv_im_officia... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/41cu92/sv_nsv_pics_lo...
there's no junk food.
there's nothing junky in a hamburger. on the other hand, it is unhealthy if you eat hamburger every day or so.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
here's american diabetes association recommending a normal healthy high-carb diet with low GI foods.
it is also advised, funnily, that fruit consumption shouldn't be restricted.
You can see many medical reports posted by the members for your reference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/tamilhealth/
The average weight loss among participants was about 14 kg (33 pounds). And in many of them, the diabetes disappeared. Nearly half the participants had no symptoms of diabetes for nearly six months after they went back to eating normally.
http://qz.com/669254/its-possible-to-reverse-type-2-diabetes...
FAT causes diabetes (and high blood pressure and heart disease) NOT Sugar. Dietary fat clogs up your bloodstream preventing insulin from effectively doing it's job.
http://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabet...
So while you actually might be right, that in many cases a low fat vegan diet helps T2 diabetes, it's only one of many strategies to arrive at a suitable diet.
The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon and cheese so we keep looking for ways to say it is "OK". Big Pharma really wants you to keep eating your fats too. They make billions of dollars a year selling people drugs to offset their lack of will power.
There is basically no science that allows you to state this confidently.
> The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon and cheese so we keep looking for ways to say it is "OK". Big Pharma really wants you to keep eating your fats too. They make billions of dollars a year selling people drugs to offset their lack of will power.
It's been repeatedly shown that basically all fats, even the once thought of as "bad" like saturated fats, do not clog arteries (or raise cholesterol, while we are here) when not in the presence of caloric surplus. I don't follow it, but the success many have had with the keto diet is one great example of this. It's just not as simple as you are saying.
This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.
For example, if both high-fat/low-carbo and very-high-carbo/no-fat are good, can one combine them? If one eats very high fat meal, how long one has to wait before eating carbos-without-fat? Is it just few hours? Or should it be 16 hours? Or should one just not do that?
is more closer to what I was looking.
I totally agree that the nutritional "science" community is filled with snakeoil salesmen and that you have to careful.
But also, note that there is a difference between increasing your fat consumption absent of any other changes to your diet, and moving to a diet based mostly on fats, and that those changes have been pretty well described by me, to you, in our previous posts. I would agree that if you make no other changes, for the every day person increasing fat is bad. But literally no one is telling you to do that. NO ONE.
1)Spend 30 days eating paleo.
2)Monitor your blood pressure, energy levels, bowel movements, sleep quality
3)Get a fasting glucose test and complete blood lipid profile including HDL/LDL. Research how to read it or ask your dr to interpret the results.
4)Do the same for a very low fat diet (about 10% total calories from fat)
Prediction: You will notice the difference in your body and your energy levels. Your Dr will like the results of the low fat diet much better. (Spoiler: I went through a Paelo/Crossfit phase too so I have already tried this and I personally know many others who have so it is fairly easy to predict what will happen. )
This is the last comment that I will make... I don't want to offend anybody. Rather, I hope somebody finds this useful and starts on a path to being much healthier...
Remember: Fat+Carbs, not just carbs, causes insulin resistance and leads to type 2 diabetes. If you eliminate the fat your diabetes will improve. If you eliminate the carbs your diabetes will also improve... but you will reduce your energy levels by forcing your body into ketosis and greatly increase your odds of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, digestive problems and more.
> This is the last comment that I will make... I don't want to offend anybody.
No offense taken, I greatly appreciate the conversation and apologize if I've implied otherwise.
> Remember: Fat+Carbs, not just carbs, causes insulin resistance and leads to type 2 diabetes. If you eliminate the fat your diabetes will improve. If you eliminate the carbs your diabetes will also improve... but you will reduce your energy levels by forcing your body into ketosis and greatly increase your odds of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, digestive problems and more.
I would totally agree except that all of the things you mentioned as bad effects of a ketogenic diet are well studied bad effects of moderate fat moderate carb diet, not a high fat low carb (ie: keto) diet. I'm not here to argue for keto, just to say that there are many roads to the same place. A vegan diet may even be the best one for the most people, but if you believe that science is the best way to understand this stuff (and I do) then there isn't science to support that position.
"Less fat" has been the dominant message since the late 70's, and it's coincided with the explosion in the rate of consumption of sugar, overweight people and diabetics. The epidemiology suggests you're mistaken.