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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Jan-03-24, 01:27
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,565
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Does Diabetes Therapy Need a (Serious) Course Correction?

Quote:
Does Diabetes Therapy Need a (Serious) Course Correction?

My new book, Rethinking Diabetes, is out today. A Q&A.

GARY TAUBES


To the publishing industry, the first week of January kicks off diet season. New Year resolutions are often about eating healthy or losing weight or, for many, both. Publishers preferentially release books related to diet this week hoping to ride that wave.

January is also the month that the American Diabetes Association publishes a supplement in its journal Diabetes Care providing its updated standards of care for the new year. Since diabetes, of all chronic diseases, is the disease most closely associated with what we eat, and type 2 diabetes is so closely associated with obesity, this is also appropriate.

Finally, January is the month, and today is the day, that my new book, Rethinking Diabetes, is available. As the title implies, the premise is that expert thinking on diabetes has gone off the rails and needs to be rethought. Indeed, we can pinpoint the exact month this happened, another January, 102 years ago, when insulin therapy was used on its very first patient. Since then, thinking about diabetes and therapy has put drugs first and diet second, despite all protestations to the contrary.

Rethinking Diabetes asks how we got here and whether patients are the better for it. It’s a critical assessment of the history of diabetes therapy and the diet-drug-disease relationship. It begins with the regrettable observation that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic – a disease that was vanishingly rare in the 19th Century now afflicts one in every 9 Americans – that all attempts so far to reign it in have failed, and it is incumbent on someone to ask the question why. Did we fail because the current situation was inevitable -- the result of a food industry out of control, perhaps, and a nation of individuals who can’t say no to the next tasty, ultra-processed snack — or because mistakes were made by diabetes specialists and public health authorities that have allowed this to happen?

Read Gary's Unsettled Science blog post in full here



Quote:
Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals about Diet, Insulin and Successful Treatments

Over 400 million people around the world have been diagnosed with diabetes. Before the discovery of insulin, diabetes was treated through diet, from eating purely meat to the reliance on fats, and repeated fasting. After two centuries of conflicting medical advice, most authorities today believe that those with diabetes can have the same dietary freedom enjoyed by the rest of us, including the occasional ice-cream, leaving the job of controlling the disease to insulin therapy. However, this guiding principle has been accompanied by an explosive rise in diabetes over the last fifty years, and the expectation that sufferers' health will deteriorate steadily over time.

In this ground-breaking book, award-winning science writer Gary Taubes explores the history of the treatment of diabetes, elucidating the way that badly conceived research influences the guidance that doctors offer today, at the expense of patients' long-term well-being. Passionately argued and deeply researched, Rethinking Diabetes reimagines diabetes care with diet at its centre, and is hugely persuasive in its questioning of the established wisdom that may have enabled the current epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rethinking.../dp/1803510692/

An eye-opening investigation into the history of diabetes research and treatment by the award-winning journalist and best-selling author of Why We Get Fat • "[Gary] Taubes’s meticulous, science-based work makes him the Bryan Stevenson of nutrition, an early voice in the wilderness for an unorthodox view that is increasingly becoming accepted."—Niel Barsky, The Guardian

Before the discovery of insulin, diabetes was treated almost exclusively through diet, from subsistence on meat, to reliance on fats, to repeated fasting and near-starvation regimens. After two centuries of conflicting medical advice, most authorities today believe that those with diabetes can have the same dietary freedom enjoyed by the rest of us, leaving the job of controlling their disease to insulin therapy and other blood-sugar-lowering medications. Rather than embark on “futile” efforts to restrict sugar or carbohydrate intake, people with diabetes can lead a normal life, complete with the occasional ice-cream cake, side of fries, or soda.

These guiding principles, however, have been accompanied by an explosive rise in diabetes over the last fifty years, particularly among underserved populations. And the health of those with diabetes is expected to continue to deteriorate inexorably over time, with ever-increasing financial, physical, and psychological burdens. In Rethinking Diabetes, Gary Taubes explores the history underpinning the treatment of diabetes, types 1 and 2, elucidating how decades-old research that is rife with misconceptions has continued to influence the guidance physicians offer—at the expense of their patients’ long-term well-being.

The result of Taubes’s work is a reimagining of diabetes care that argues for a recentering of diet—particularly, fewer carbohydrates and more fat—over a reliance on insulin. Taubes argues critically and passionately that doctors and medical researchers should question the established wisdom that may have enabled the current epidemic of diabetes and obesity, and renew their focus on clinical trials to resolve controversies that are now a century in the making.

https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-D.../dp/0525520082/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Jan-03-24, 04:33
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,291
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/27%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Thank you for posting Gary's own review of the book…"not a breezey read"
Our library ordered 20 copies, I look forward to reading it soon. Much needed in the January diet season.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Jan-03-24, 06:36
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Thanks! I had points to use, and I find Gary a fun read.

But I'm a nerd that way, for sure. I read the BIG one, after all Good Calories, Bad Calories. And more than once.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 01:20
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,565
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Are we treating diabetes all wrong? This nutritionist thinks so

Gary Taubes has written a controversial new book, Rethinking Diabetes, which argues the Victorians managed the disease better than we do. Is he right, asks David Cox


Gary Taubes tells the story of a British Army doctor in the late 18th century called John Rollo, who had a patient called Captain Meredith with advanced diabetes. “Rollo does a typical diagnostic technique in that era in which he or his assistant tastes the urine and it’s sweet, which confirms the diagnosis,” Taubes says. “He advises Meredith to live on fatty meat, blood sausages and some green vegetables, and the disease basically goes into remission as long as he eats like that.”

Few nutritionists are as polarising as Taubes, an American science journalist and author. For two decades he has been one of the most vocal advocates of low-carb diets as a means of treating obesity and type 2 diabetes, the chronic disease that is predicted to affect as many as one in ten people in the UK by 2030.

In his latest book, Rethinking Diabetes, Taubes, 67, rails against what he feels is an overreliance on drugs for managing the disease, ever since insulin was discovered in 1921.

Instead of prescribing insulin to control blood sugars, which Taubes believes only worsens the disease over time, he argues that our Georgian and Victorian ancestors were on the right track by tweaking their diets.

People who develop type 2 diabetes — the risk of which increases if you are overweight or inactive — are unable to make enough insulin (a hormone produced in the pancreas) or the body’s cells stop reacting properly to it. Insulin is vital for our survival as it moves glucose from the blood into our cells to power them. Diabetes-related complications can lead to heart disease, stroke, nerve damage, even limb amputations and death.

Before the discovery of insulin, the main therapy for diabetics was a predominantly animal-based diet, with French doctors even recommending boiling green vegetables three times to remove starchy carbs. Taubes argues that our reliance on pharmacological solutions has seen us lose our way.

His central thesis — which he has repeated in his many books, from The Diet Delusion (2008) to The Case for Keto (2020) — is that too many refined carbohydrates such as bread and pasta result in the body producing an excessive amount of insulin and progressively becoming more resistant to its blood sugar-lowering effects. Ultimately this leads to blood sugars spiralling out of control — and type 2 diabetes.

“It turns out that type 2 diabetes is basically an insulin resistance disorder,” he says from his office in Oakland, California. “The diabetes community never wraps its head around the fact that it’s treating a disorder of too much insulin by giving more insulin.”

He describes carbs as “poison” for diabetics. “People with diabetes have an intolerance for the carbohydrate content of the diet — we’ve known this arguably since 1797. The diabetes associations and the government have never thought to ask the question, ‘What happens if people don’t eat these foods that are toxic to them?’ Maybe they’ll be healthier, on fewer drugs and this will not be a chronic degenerative disease because they won’t be eating the foods that cause the symptoms.”

Some doctors have backed his approach. Last year the NHS GP Dr David Unwin published a study in which he prescribed low-carb diets to 186 patients across an average of nearly three years. His results show that 51 per cent of these patients achieved complete remission.

Yet plenty of nutrition and diabetes specialists disagree with Taubes. After interviewing him in the wake of The Case for Keto, I received an email from a professor at the New York Nutrition Obesity Research Center who described his promotion of low-carb diets as “the equivalent of ads that promise weight loss, with no science behind him”.

Others accuse him of cherry-picking the studies in his books, omitting any contradictory evidence such as research that reports the benefits of low-fat diets.

While the charity Diabetes UK says that limiting carbs can potentially benefit diabetics by aiding weight loss and reducing levels of blood fats such as cholesterol, it also cautions that there is no evidence it is any better for managing diabetes than any other long-term dietary approach.

The lack of long-term data is a problem. Whenever this is put to Taubes, he cites a 2019 clinical trial run by a healthcare start-up called Virta Health, in which more than half of the patients being prescribed insulin at the start of the trial were able to discontinue their medication through consuming a modern version of Rollo’s animal diet. One fifth of the Virta patients who completed five years of treatment were in full remission, without any diabetes medications for at least three months. One third of the patients were able to quit all diabetes medications apart from the drug metformin.

“The clinical trial is not randomised, but that’s the best data we have,” Taubes says. (Randomisation helps ensure results are not biased.) He agrees that more research is needed and is calling for healthcare authorities to fund a large, randomised clinical trial comparing type 2 diabetes patients on different diets.

“I’ve been getting to the same place with these books and the [complaint] is that I’m seeing what I want to see,” he says. “Which may be true, maybe I’m deluded? So, diabetes associations, do this exercise yourself. Or better yet, hire a team of independent experts and let them find out.”

Ultimately, Taubes points to soaring diabetes rates — they have doubled in the UK since 2005 — as evidence of a drastic need for new thinking. “If you’ve failed for 50 years, one of the things you do is you investigate why.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-diet-pkvbtfxb5
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 01:33
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,565
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:

Unlocking the truth about diabetes: ‘The science has been pretty awful’


More than 400m people around the world have diabetes, and many control the condition using insulin. But science writer Gary Taubes believes it’s this very treatment that is behind the current epidemic. Does his controversial case for a diet-based alternative to medicine have any bite?

Gary Taubes is probably the most single-minded person I have ever met. In 2002, when he was a little-known science journalist and author of two books on scientific controversies, an article of his was published in the New York Times, headlined: What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? In it, he argued that the low-fat dietary advice of the previous couple of decades wasn’t only incorrect, but actively dangerous and the reason for, as he put it, the “rampaging epidemic of obesity in America”. For Taubes, dietary fat wasn’t a problem at all. Instead, the real danger was carbohydrate, he asserted, sparking a backlash, and fuelling the ongoing conversation about what constitutes a “healthy diet”. He wasn’t the first to assert that carbs were bad (Robert Atkins got there before him), but perhaps because of his serious and scientific background – he has a physics degree from Harvard and studied aerospace engineering at Stanford – he has been a polarising figure, with as many ardent followers as detractors.

Since 2007, Taubes has published five books on sugar, fat and carbohydrate, including his latest, Rethinking Diabetes, in which he posits that low-carb diets have been under-used as a way to manage blood glucose in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, in favour of drug-heavy treatment regimes which, he suspects, may do more harm than good.

His writing on nutrition has won several awards, notably from the US National Association of Science Writers, but it has also been sharply criticised, mainly for his almost evangelical attachment to the keto diet, in which you eat so little carbohydrate (50g or less per day) that the body goes into a state called ketosis, meaning you stop burning stored glucose and start burning fat instead. In 2021, he published The Case for Keto, a self-help book, after which, as he says, he went “from being a respected source of information to somebody who may indeed be a crank after all”. Taubes, who follows the diet himself, is now proposing it should be offered to people living with diabetes. (Keto diets were originally developed as a way to treat certain types of childhood epilepsy.) For Taubes, keto means he doesn’t “eat starches, grains or sweets, and I don’t eat breakfast because I think better in the morning without it. When I snack, it’s nuts or good cheese. If we were to go to dinner together, I’d order a piece of fish or half a roast chicken and ask the waiter to hold the rice or potatoes and give me a green salad or green vegetables instead.”

When we talk, it’s a bright morning in Oakland, California, where Taubes, 67, lives with his wife and sons. With his open-neck shirt, tan, salt-and-pepper short hair and slightly drawling delivery, he seems more like a professorial Owen Wilson than someone seeking to radically alter how diabetes is understood and treated.

The majority of his latest book is an exhaustive retelling of the history of diabetes research and how, in the first half of the 20th century, it went – as Taubes sees it – wrong, with the emergence of a treatment doctrine that mistakenly allowed people living with diabetes to eat whatever they wanted, all the while using insulin and drugs, such as metformin, to manage the blood-glucose consequences. Taubes has always been fascinated by bad science and for him this was bad science of the highest order, because the regime was based on dietary hypotheses which he says had not – and still have not – been rigorously tested.

Before the discovery of insulin in the 1920s, diet was the only way to manage diabetes and although various options were tried by early practitioners, low-carb was, says Taubes, among the most popular (with medics, at least). Insulin was a gamechanger. Not only did it almost magically save the lives of children with type 1 diabetes, who would often arrive at hospital comatose and die swiftly afterwards, but it also meant that people with diabetes of both types could eat a more or less normal diet.

Another example, for Taubes, of how early researchers were mistaken, concerns the differences between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which are so different they almost shouldn’t share a name. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, the hormone which regulates the level of glucose in our blood; people living with type 1 need insulin injections or an insulin pump, to survive. Like type 2, type 1 can cause complications such as heart, kidney or eye disease, and nerve damage.

Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90% of cases, and is a metabolic disorder in which the body either can’t make or can’t use insulin (AKA insulin resistance) to metabolise glucose, leading to persistently high levels in the blood. Ultimately, people living with type 2 diabetes may need insulin and other diabetes medications, too, but for a lot of people, diet and lifestyle modifications can defer that need. Many, but not all, specialists think there is often a causal relationship between weight and type 2 diabetes, which has led to a high level of stigma around the diagnosis. Diagnoses of both are rising globally – five million people live with diabetes in the UK.

What Taubes would like to see is low-carb diets being offered alongside or instead of diabetes medications. “When insulin therapy started in the 1920s, they had no idea what the long-term side-effects were or what the long-term consequences of living with diabetes were [because most people with type 1 died],” he says. “Then doctors find out that it’s just easier to let patients eat whatever they want and give them drugs to cover them. Then it’s another five, 10 or 20 years before they start seeing the long-term complications, which they think of as long-term complications of the disease.” What he wishes scientists at the time had concluded was: “The reason we’re keeping them alive is insulin therapy. So what we’re seeing is the long-term complications of the disease as controlled by insulin therapy, and the insulin therapy might be causing the complications as much as the disease is.

“By the late 1930s, you have this tidal wave of diabetic complications: the heart disease, the atherosclerosis, the neuropathy, the kidney failure, the blindness, amputations. And nobody ties it back.” By then, the low-carb diet had fallen far from favour. “Nobody wants to eat a diet. So nobody’s being told: ‘Look, if I give you insulin, I’m going to keep you alive until you’re 30, especially if I give you a lot of insulin and you do eat your carbs. But if I tell you not to eat the carbs and we minimise the insulin use – which for type 2 could be no insulin – I might keep you alive as long as anyone else in your family.’”

In the book, which is laden with references, studies and dense historical detail, Taubes mentions case records from the 1700s in which patients on low-sugar diets beg for a medical solution, suggesting that the preference for medication over a highly prescriptive diet has been with us for a long time. “If you’re told, a pill or a diet, we all want the pill. But if you’re told a pill or a diet and the diet will keep you healthy and the pill will give you a chronic degenerative disorder where you’re still going to have these horrible complications, they are just going to be 20 to 30 years later… the pill is going to be easier, because it always is. But if you change the diet, it’s not a hypothetical change: you can put your diabetes into remission, you can stop taking these medications.”

Convincing as this sounds, there are some apparent flaws in Taubes’s arguments, which are by no means widely accepted in the academic or medical communities. Professor Roy Taylor is a leading British diabetes researcher. “When a subgroup of the UK Government Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition was convened in 2021 to look at low-carbohydrate as an approach to diabetes in general, the literature was very thoroughly assessed and I was part of that panel. Very low-carbohydrate diets had no better results than the modest reduction of carbohydrates,” he says. Other studies, such as one in 2022 at Stanford that compared low-carb diets and the Mediterranean diet, have shown that while they both work when it comes to controlling blood glucose, the Mediterranean diet is easier to stick to.

Second, low-carb diets are now offered as one way of managing diabetes of both types, the pendulum swinging back in their direction after almost a century, possibly more so here in the UK than in the US (Taubes doesn’t include contemporary case histories in the book). Two members of my own family have been put on a very low-carbohydrate diet in recent years when they were deemed at risk of developing type 2 diabetes in their 70s (a risk both of them reversed).

Jack Leeson, 55, was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes six years ago and on the advice of his NHS doctor, radically altered his diet. “She put me on the diabetes drug metformin and told me about people who lose limbs with it. So I was very motivated.” She didn’t suggest keto, “but she made clear the volume of sugars in bread and pasta, and supposedly healthy things like fruit juice, which is just sugar. I gave them up. I didn’t replace them with fat, just more protein, lots of vegetables, berries, soya milk and yoghurt, beans and lentils and pasta made from Japanese konjac root.” Leeson also does an hour of aerobic exercise every day. “I binned off the diabetes, cholesterol and blood pressure issues in 18 months and lost about 5st.”

Diabetes UK, the biggest diabetes charity in the UK and diabetes.co.uk, an online support community, have information on their sites about low-carb diets, particularly for people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes UK states that “there is no consistent evidence that a low-carb diet is any more effective than other approaches in the long term. So it shouldn’t be seen as the diet for everyone… At the moment, there is no strong evidence to say that a low-carb diet is safe or effective for people with type 1 diabetes. Because of this, we do not recommend low-carb diets to people with type 1 diabetes.” What Taubes would probably add is that there isn’t much evidence that they’re unsafe either, because low-carb diets haven’t been studied intensively either within or beyond the diabetes research community. But diet is incredibly difficult to study – especially in a context like diabetes where subjects are also often medicated. One of the tropes of nutritional science is that drawing long-term health conclusions from what people eat is nigh on impossible, because diet interacts with lifestyle, because people lie, intentionally or not, about what they eat, and because longitudinal studies of diet are so expensive.

Munjeeta Sohal, 39, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a teenager and has mixed feelings about the idea it could or should be managed through carb restriction. “A low-carb diet might be a good way to control blood sugars,” she says, “but I am now on an insulin pump system that allows me complete freedom over what I eat. If I eat less carbs, my insulin stays more in range. I see the impact it has on my blood sugars, but that isn’t enough to make me want to do it full-time. My blood sugars are finally, thanks to the technology that’s available, in range between 70% and 90% of the time on an average day, and that is brilliant. I don’t need to eat low-carb for this to be the case.” Having diabetes is also a risk factor for eating disorders and Sohal’s relationship with food veered towards unhealthy when she was first diagnosed as a teen. Like many others she worries that “asking people to restrict may, for some, lead to secret bingeing, or guilt and shame around enjoying food.”

“They’re right, of course, to worry,” says Taubes. “But if diabetes, like obesity, is triggered in susceptible individuals by the carbohydrate content of the diet and can be put into remission by avoiding carbohydrate-rich foods, what would you tell patients?”

Another complication is that where Taubes is able to look at diabetes – indeed at diet as a whole – through a single, high-fat-low-carb lens, few others can. “I eat the same thing every day,” he says. “As long as I like it, I will continue to like it and be happy to eat it.” I suspect this makes it hard for him to understand why many of us have such a complicated relationship with cake.

While Taubes himself has stuck to keto for the last two decades, the rest of us might find it tough to follow. As Professor Taylor says: “The fall-off, in keto, is quite high. People have families and friends, and eating is part of social interaction.” Even in a highly motivated group, like people trying to control diabetes, adherence to low-carb is pretty patchy: a 2022 paper tracked this low adherence and pointed to cultural, religious and – perhaps most important – economic barriers. Keto can be expensive and labour-intensive, as well as socially awkward, at least in the beginning. (There are also some rare but potentially very serious health risks, says Taylor.)

Gregory Dodell, a New York-based endocrinologist who takes a weight-inclusive approach to managing diabetes, says: “You have to look at the social determinants of health. We’re not treating a population as a research experiment, we’re treating a population with a lot of different complicated variables and issues and a very complex, multifactorial chronic condition. One size does not fit all.”

In conversation, Taubes isn’t quite as dogmatic about diet as his writing makes him seem. He regularly says things like, “assuming what I’m arguing is correct”, and at one point casually notes that he could “have a heart attack tomorrow, which is possible the way I eat, and which, God knows, I keep expecting”. He does use a lot of caveats in his books (which apparently drives his publisher slightly crazy), but on the page, he nonetheless comes across as unwaveringly committed to the high-fat, low-carb way of life, so I find his concern surprising. “Well, my world is full of people pointing out the age other people died who believe what I believe. Which, of course, is selection bias, because you don’t see the people who are still alive, you only see the people who die. If I die tomorrow, maybe I would have died 10 years ago, had I not eaten the way I did. It’s always an experiment.”

Given that there is no control version of any of us against which to measure success, none of us will ever know if we chose the “right” diet. The paradox, of course, is that this kind of diet-by-hypothesis is exactly what Rethinking Diabetes rails against. But Taubes sees no alternative: “The science has been pretty awful. So many of the conceptions that have evolved around eating behaviour and nutrition are based on assumptions that may be wrong. The problem is that people don’t change their [dietary or health] advice because the longer they give it, the more invested they are that it had better have been right. I write from this perspective – of the history – so folks can see the damage that is done by allowing assumptions to be embraced as facts without definitive evidence.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society...based-treatment
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 02:00
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demi
Others accuse him of cherry-picking the studies in his books, omitting any contradictory evidence such as research that reports the benefits of low-fat diets.


I remember that emphasis shifting in the 80's. And diabetics took more insulin to "cover" the carbs, just as a dietician in my area is managing her clients, today. It's Standard of Care. Based on the marketing delusion tha dietary fat itself is "bad." And leads to heart disease. They are making the diabetics worse at all angles this way.

These fools did a huge study on keeping blood sugar under better control -- with drugs -- and had to cancel. But it was never about diet. STILL is not.

Hormone resistance is no joke. I have cortisol issues from chronic stress where my cortisol has trouble getting in my cells and working its magic. A big part of the link between stress and autoimmune, I've decided. So cortisol lowering strategies are how I manage.

A species-specific diet takes care of my insulin and leptin. I manage the cortisol. As Dr. Kruse says, "The next stage is death."

If I go to the doctor with these issues, they will give me MORE cortisol. They will force more celluar intake, just like with a diabetic's insulin shots. Only this increases the resistance.

And creates the slowly deteriorating condition that makes them tell us, "It's a chronic condition and it will slowly get worse."

Yes. Under their standard of care.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 02:03
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
After interviewing him in the wake of The Case for Keto, I received an email from a professor at the New York Nutrition Obesity Research Center who described his promotion of low-carb diets as “the equivalent of ads that promise weight loss, with no science behind him”.


This explains so much: that someone who is supposedly "an expert" in the science could say this. Which also explains how science has been corrupted by corporations which have all the benefits of personhood... and none of the responsiblity.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 07:22
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,291
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/27%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Demi, Thank you so much again for copying The Guardian review that includes the flaws in his uni-focal approach to diabetes. As a Taubes fan-girl from that 2002 NYT article ( copy now turning yellow in my diet file) I was so disappointed in this book.

Quote:
Convincing as this sounds, there are some apparent flaws in Taubes’s arguments, which are by no means widely accepted in the academic or medical communities. Professor Roy Taylor is a leading British diabetes researcher. “When a subgroup of the UK Government Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition was convened in 2021 to look at low-carbohydrate as an approach to diabetes in general, the literature was very thoroughly assessed and I was part of that panel. Very low-carbohydrate diets had no better results than the modest reduction of carbohydrates,” he says. Other studies, such as one in 2022 at Stanford that compared low-carb diets and the Mediterranean diet, have shown that while they both work when it comes to controlling blood glucose, the Mediterranean diet is easier to stick to.


He is so uni-focal on insulin, he ignored the past 15 years of research pointing to "It's More Complicated"! The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model is too simplistic to explain the increase in Diabetes.

Quote:
Over the past few years, many people have been led to believe that:
Insulin toxicity is the root cause of the majority of our western diseases.
Insulin is public enemy No. 1.
Reversing ‘insulin toxicity’ is the key to weight loss and health.~

Contrary to popular belief, the menace isn’t insulin toxicity but rather—energy toxicity. Insulin is really just trying to do its job in the face of an onslaught of low satiety, nutrient-poor hyperpalatable foods that cause us to eat more than our bodies require! Consider dietary choices, insulin levels, and the unseen peril of energy overload at the full article: https://optimisingnutrition.com/energy-toxicity/


He does not mention Dr Roy Taylor, Chris Gardner, Kevin Hall once, but the LC proponents often.

Last edited by JEY100 : Mon, Jan-22-24 at 04:14.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-24, 07:25
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is online now
Posts: 8,740
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Over twenty years ago, my physician gave me a copy of Taubes' What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? It opened my eyes to why I was close to being diabetic and why my low-fat diet was making it worse instead of better. I quickly decided to go low-carb, went through my house, and got rid of all the whole grains and other carbs that had been my foods. It didn't take long for me to be off the three drugs that I had been taking for glucose and cholesterol control.
I have remained low-cab and along with getting my blood glucose and cholesterol problems fixed, I lost 55 pounds.
I'm a low-carber for life.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 03:11
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Very low-carbohydrate diets had no better results than the modest reduction of carbohydrates,” he says. Other studies, such as one in 2022 at Stanford that compared low-carb diets and the Mediterranean diet, have shown that while they both work when it comes to controlling blood glucose, the Mediterranean diet is easier to stick to.


This is what confuses me. The Mediterranean diet would never work for ME. In my body, there's a direct correlation with disease symptoms and my carb content. Eating nothing but grass fed hamburger for a month WORKED WONDERS.

Of course this isn't everyone's experience, and that's my point. Maybe if only people like me were studied, Taubes would be right.

And, Taubes is likely influenced by what worked for HIM. And it sounds like it's very similar to my experience.

One meal plan will never rule them all. It does need to be personalized, and we have the tools to do that! Sometimes I think that is the part that is missing from this science struggle.

At the height of Atkins, we had people here who climbed all the way up the carb ladder with success. But Dr. Atkins kept emphasizing that not everyone can do that.

Realizing I was making myself sick with low-carb/high oxalate foods was a HUGE breakthrough for me. But for someone else, it's something else.

If we don't consider the large swings in individual human variation, all these people are just arguing about averaged data... not real information.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 03:26
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

And people can be half right.

Dr. Gundry alerted me to lectins. And all my problem foods were there: legumes in particular. Now I knew why I would get hit with terrible digestive attacks. When I eliminated sources of lectins, everything started working again.

Carnivore avoided all that. I'm not using plants for anything but condiments now.

But Dr. Gundry himself would be terrified of the way I eat. He's down on meat. While he's open about the ketogenic diet, he says:

Quote:
Other downsides: There’s an initial period during which your body is adjusting to its new carb-free existence, and many people experience symptoms like fatigue, brain fog, and nausea for a few weeks. You also end up deficient in important micronutrients, like folate, calcium, and potassium, which is why most ketogenic devotees recommend taking multivitamins. Personally, we prefer a diet that at least in its ideal state provides all of the nutrients you need via real, whole foods.


But I'm not deficient. I eat a lot of dairy, liver for folate, and citrus for vitamin C. (How can he say keto makes people low on potassium? Not the meat eaters!) It seems Dr. Gundry doesn't know about nose to tail. Still, he has come along from just a few years ago, when I read his site.

He's right, and he's wrong. That's the way theories go
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 04:10
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,291
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/27%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Marty Kendall supports 30 different diets, Dr Naiman's approach is to zoom way out to manage the Protein to Energy ratio no matter what you eat.
Every popular diet is right about something! How can the Carbohydrate- Insulin Model explain that half the world eats high carb diets and does not get diabetes? It doesn’t..so the theory needs to include Energy…somehow. I think PFT works best so far.
Quote:
I eat a lot of dairy, liver for folate, and citrus for vitamin C
Great, because you are aware of the nutrients in those three foods so consciously add them. But dieters who did "keto" and now "carnivore" are likely missing those, and ignore signs of micronutrient insufficiencies. Supplements do not replace the dairy and citrus fruits the latest fads avoid.

"Nutrition is about Nutrients. Everything else is just Noise"
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 05:09
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,514
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Oh, I'm excited about the Energy Equations, it's not at all that I think they are wrong. They took "eat to the meter" and ran with it!

But I also KNOW that this is WAAAAAAAY over the heads of most people. The people who are horrified by the thought of low carb. To them, we're angels dancing on the heads of pins.

I think people sharing their experiences and conclusions is great... and maybe we shouldn't force consensus, either. I'm STILL not eating in any way many doctors would endorse, and they would claim it was impossible to stay on.

What I'm getting out of the book (only a few chapters in, DENSE) is a gathering sense of how we got into the pit of poor diabetes treatment. Which is where we are. Twenty years ago I started Atkins as much to stave off the family history of diabetes as it was about weight loss. The two were tied together. If I solved one I'd solve the other. And my A1C had jumped from the last appointment. So I had a way of seeing if what I tried was working.

Yet if the world consensus was that one could avoid diabetes by not eating ANY UPF-4 level foods, and that was common knowledge, it would help a significant percentage of people. Even help break through the food addiction that, if we go by the number of people with enough overweight to compromise health, is 80% of the people in the major developed countries? I understand the US and Britain compete for this dubious honor.

If we studied the 20% of people who aren't compromised in this environment, what do they have in common? I would imagine a significant number certainly aren't eating the same way the diabetics are, even if this threshold is also how vulnerable they are. That information about variable body fat explains all those marathon runners who get diabetes even when thin, and so forth.

Eating real food has convinced me that eating real food rarely results in overeating problems. But it doesn't work with sugar, which I can now refer to as an "addictive substance" without people thinking I'm being ridiculous.

That's how knowledge filters out into people's brains, and can be acted on. My mother knew a man who ditched the sodas and was amazed at the results. He shouldn't have been amazed! He was in the double digits without really thinking about it.

But it was "normal" as few around him didn't do multiple daily sodas. But now, I hear, "don't drink your calories" which may be a boon to diet sodas but also an easily remembered catalyst for change.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 07:03
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,247
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

When I weighed 245 lbs and was having physical symptoms that seemed to me might indicate I had diabetes, especially since there was a family history of diabetes including my paternal grandmother who had two legs amputated, i simply decided that instead of going to a doctor I would do what I knew people with diabetes should do, cut out the high carb foods. Fortunately I had not caught up with the changing medical advice on diabetes. I also found the book Neanderthin by Ray Audette at that time, which advocated a paleo real food diet, so I adopted that way of eating too since it made sense to me. Having been raised with a doctor father, I had the self confidence to act on my own for certain health issues without needing a doctor’s approval. In fact it seemed foolish to consult a doctor when I already knew what to do, cut out the high carbs and eat real food. I also found Dr Bernstein and his low carb advice for diabetes. That was about 20 years ago. It worked then and it still works now. How fortunate I am. Keeping it simple worked for me.

I should add that learning from Marty Kendall about prioritizing protein was the icing on my low carb cake. I had always tried to make the nutritional value of what I was eating a priority and Marty Kendall’s approach addressed that issue too when no one else seemed to be addressing it.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Jan-22-24, 19:08
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 4,032
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
I should add that learning from Marty Kendall about prioritizing protein was the icing on my low carb cake. I had always tried to make the nutritional value of what I was eating a priority and Marty Kendall’s approach addressed that issue too when no one else seemed to be addressing it.

I’ve been referring to protein as the keystone macro. Kendall, Layman, Bikman, and many others have reported on the value of emphasizing healthy protein sources in one’s diet. There are many different ways of eating, and getting sufficient protein as I gain in years (and hopefully wisdom) works best for me.
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 09:14.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.