Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 08:19
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,656
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default 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/

Quote:

FAT. [written with bacon, of course ]

Minimal carbs, lots of fat, incredible dieting results – but not enough science To some, the word 'fat' conjures up a heart attack; to others, it may be the key to healthy living. The question is among the most important and controversial in all of medicine: Can a diet that has bacon at its centre, and shuns whole grains, actually be the key to a healthy waistline? Journalist Gary Taubes and a spate of doctors claim it is. So why won't the medical community accept their findings?

Long article with illustrations follows....
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 08:31
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 3,520
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 08:34
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 3,520
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 10:29
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,970
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
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!
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 14:07
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,135
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 14:57
never2late's Avatar
never2late never2late is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,768
 
Plan: My plan, my way
Stats: 233.8/178.2/179 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: Eastern Tennessee
Default

No I think in terms of blood glucose as a Type 1.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 15:31
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,135
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by never2late
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 15:54
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,744
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 16:38
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,656
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 17:32
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,135
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Sciencey (a relative of truthy?) is the exact right word for that illustration.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-17, 19:17
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 3,520
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sun, Dec-24-17, 01:11
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,274
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

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.

Quote:
Twenty years ago, when I began my investigative reporting on this subject, perhaps a dozen North American physicians were openly prescribing these diets to their patients. A handful of the researchers I interviewed admitted to using these diets – "It's a great way to lose weight," a renowned Stanford University endocrinologist told me, "that's not the issue" – but they would not prescribe them for their patients. The risk was too great. Hence their thinking: Eat Atkins until losing the excess pounds, then stop, regain the weight, repeat.

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.
Quote:
"Maybe it's not that my patients aren't following my advice," as Dr. Wolver described her thinking. "Maybe my advice stinks."

A brain is a beautiful thing, ain't it? I mean, when it thinks it through.
Quote:
More importantly, health can be quantified by numerous measures, not just LDL cholesterol. It also seems a reasonable bet that being healthier in the short term translates to health in the long term. Excess weight, poor blood-sugar control (i.e., prediabetes or diabetes) and high blood pressure are all major risk factors for heart disease – and all improve on LCHF diets.

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?
Quote:
So here's another way to ask the critical question: Can a diet that has so many beneficial effects be unhealthy because it elevates LDL cholesterol or allows for the conspicuous consumption of a processed meat such as bacon? An acquaintance of mine puts this question in the proper perspective by asking why her friends never criticized her diet when she weighed 380 pounds, but now, having lost 140 pounds in less than a year eating the LCHF way, they caution her about the supposed dangers of eating bacon.

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".
Quote:
As of December 20, 2017, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this resolved by the end of January 2018. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback~theglobeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters~globeandmail.com.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sun, Dec-24-17, 05:44
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,567
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sun, Dec-24-17, 11:29
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,076
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
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.


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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.