FAT: new article by Taubes in Globe & Mail
 

Another great article by Gary Taubes, Long opinion piece in Canada's Globe & Mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...rticle37402123/

Taubes is such a careful thinker and writer. He seems to be writing a new book that includes interviewing low carb medical practitioners. It should be interesting.

Jean

The Taubes' article is about lifestyle medicine. One thing that occurred to me is that lchf would not have to be considered medicine if people didn't first get sick eating the SAD. Then we could just call it healthy eating, no doctor required :) .

Jean

Thumbs up! :thup:

Very good article, though I found the illustrations about how glucose moves through the body to show the difference between type 1 and 2 diabetes to be confusing.

They indicate that type 1 can lead to dangerously low glucose levels and type 2 can lead to dangerously high glucose levels. I think they mean dangerously low and high insulin levels.

Anyone else confused by that?

I thought Taubes' primary message that more hard science is needed is excellent.

No I think in terms of blood glucose as a Type 1.

You're saying that type 1 is characterized by dangerously low blood glucose? I've never heard that before.

I think she's saying as a Type 1 that insulin is always low or non-existent (unless you inject it), so the dangerous changes are in blood glucose. This is why pre-Banting & Best T1s were told to avoid eating sugar & starch so the BG levels would stay lower.

My only thought about that diabetes illustration was “What the heck is this doing here?” Seems the editing author wanted to add something sciencey, but it has little to do with what Taubes wrote.
Like Jean I find it interesting that he is writing a book interviewing doctors who use LCHF. This one should be quick to write instead of the years it takes him with previous books. Easier for readers to get the idea quickly with real life cases. Can’t wait to read it!

Sciencey (a relative of truthy?) is the exact right word for that illustration.

I think the topic of this book may be a great strategic move on Taubes' part. If he amasses this wealth of clinical data it should be hard to ignore especially since the low fat folks have no clinical data to amass on its effectiveness in treating diabetes or obesity and a host of other related health issues. This book has the potential to push the science along. Of course I might just be delusional :) .

Jean

I can help with the distinction between type 1 and type 2.

Distinguishing characteristics

Type 1: No insulin + high blood glucose
Type 2: High insulin + high blood glucose

The often added "low insulin" for type 1 is misleading and gives the impression that more insulin is better than less. Type 2 clearly contradicts this impression. The statement in the illustration regarding type 1 "they can suffer from dangerously low blood glucose" is an error, in my opinion. It should read "they can suffer from dangerously high blood glucose", because that's what zero insulin allows to occur.


He's talking about really smart people who can't actuallly think it through. Question is, repeat what? Repeat going back to a diet that makes you fat and sick, that's what. This ain't just regain the weight, it's get sick again.

A brain is a beautiful thing, ain't it? I mean, when it thinks it through.

The converse is even more telling, i.e. being sick now means living longer?!? Here's another obviously obvious whatever. If you take meds - you're sick. Why else would you take meds?

Blind to the facts. Happened to me a few times. One guy was telling me "and I know 5,000 doctors who would disagree", to my face, looking right at me, after I'd gone from 220lbs down to 175lbs. In effect, he was saying "I do not believe you actually exist".

Article published same date. Coincidence? Unlikely. That article is bound to trigger a boatload of comments. GnM is prolly not ready to handle that.

Great article. In short, Taubes is telling the theoretical scientists to listen to the applied scientists.

The diagram just lacks some information, maybe where it was originally yoinked from there was supplementary text. Type 1 diabetics are prone to low blood glucose because of injecting insulin, and because mainstream dietary advice makes it hard to maintain glucose in a normal range. There are also issues like gastroparesis, compromised stomach emptying makes it hard to predict just when the carbohydrate in a meal will hit the system. injected insulin plus delayed absorption of dietary carbohydrate that the insulin was supposed to cover can make for a hypo. So there's a history of worrying more about hypos with type 1 diabetics, most of the long term damage might be done by elevated blood glucose, but higher than ideal blood glucose that leads to chronic, decade spanning complications has been recommended as a buffer to protect from acute hypos that can be immediately life threatening. Bernstein's law of small numbers, keeping carbohydrates low makes it much easier to get insulin just right and manage a normal blood glucose without hypos.

Trying to match what happens with centrally secreted insulin in a non-diabetic with peripherally administered insulin is ridiculous, if I eat some carbs, hopefully the lion's share of the insulin will be cleared by my liver, also the alpha cells will get the first effect of the increased insulin and reduce glucagon secretion, reducing insulin requirement, and my fat cells but maybe more importantly the cells lining my artery walls etc. won't be exposed to that much insulin, with a type I after a large carbohydrate meal, even if they could manage their blood glucose perfectly with exogenous insulin it would involve higher levels of insulin in the general circulation.

And for t2s, there's the issue of medication - especially glipizide. I found it led to dangerous lows even when I wasn't careful with my diet. With no meds at all, but bg never gets too low.