You have time to join up for free and start listening. I recommend listening to Cyrus Khambatta, PhD.
http://www.masteringdiabetes.org/summit/
http://www.masteringdiabetes.org/summit/
Last edited:
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Except this is not based in science. Insulin resistance is NOT caused by fat.while you are getting fat out if the cells which is causing insulin resistance.
Physiological insulin resistance is an adaptation, a normal biological reaction to a lack of dietary glucose. As I’ve said in the past, the brain must have glucose. It can use ketones and lactate quite effectively, thus reducing the glucose requirement, but at the end of the day it still requires a portion of glucose. Now, in a low-glucose state, where the body senses that dietary glucose might not be coming anytime soon, peripheral insulin resistance is triggered. This prevents the muscles from taking up “precious” glucose that the brain requires. The brain’s sensitivity to insulin is preserved, allowing it to grab what glucose it needs from the paltry – but sufficient – levels available to it.
These "experts" are cherry picking the nutritional science to support their agenda in the most contemptible way possible....because for all but a very lucky few, eating this way will worsen their diabetes, not treat or prevent it.
Of COURSE he would say that about an independent review of the science...because attacking her analysis is the only argument he has, no additional data showing his interpretation is correct. Because it is not correct. Denise Minger is not the only one to come to the same conclusion about The China Study. It’s completely laughable.Reply to Mingers article:
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/...campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html
"In summary, Denise's critique lacks a sense of proportionality. She gives (with considerable hyperbole, at times) the analyses of the China data more weight than they deserve by ignoring the remaining evidence discussed in the other 17 chapters in the book. The China research project was a cornerstone study, yes, but it was NOT the sole determinant of my views (as I have repeated, almost ad nauseum in my lectures). In doing so, and except for a few denigrating remarks on our experimental animal research, she also ignores the remaining findings that I presented in our book. She seems not to understand what our laboratory research was showing. Using univariate correlations mostly without adjustment for confounding factors, qualification of variable authenticity, and/or biological plausibility can lead to haphazard evidence, subject to the whims of personal bias. Also, univariate correlations of this type can lead to too much emphasis on individual nutrients and foods as potential causes of events.
Also, as I already mentioned, she questions our omission of the Tuoli County data as if this was some sort of sleight of hand on my part (in addition to my comments above, I already explained this omission in one of my papers and on my preliminary blog). She over-interprets our very limited 'dairy' data which only includes 3 counties (of 65) that use a very different product from what we consider to be dairy. And she continues to characterize my views in reference to veganism and vegetarianism (I don't even use these words) as if I were motivated by an ideology instead of by my consideration of empirical data and biological plausibility.
Not only does Denise misrepresent and misunderstand the rationale for the science in The China Study, her choice of words do not facilitate what she hopes to achieve. Her overall message, often embellished with adjectives and subjective remarks, appeals to some questionable characters sympathetic to or subservient to the Weston A Price Foundation, a farm lobbying group whose advocates and apologists have accused me of being a "fraud", a "liar", a "buffoon" and (earlier) an associate of a "terrorist" organization. I doubt that this is what she wanted to achieve. These individuals, for much too long, have been carelessly using or even ignoring science to further their own interests, such as advocating for the use of a very high fat, high protein diet mostly consistent with the diet that has caused us so much difficulty."
The A to Z study compared the Atkins (low-carb, high-fat) diet to the Ornish (low-fat, near-vegan) diet (20).
This study clearly shows that the Atkins diet causes greater improvements in pretty much all health markers, although not all of them were statistically significant:
Put simply, the Atkins diet had several important advantages while the Ornish diet performed poorly for all health markers measured.
- The Atkins group lost more weight, 10.4 lbs, while the Ornish group lost only 5.6 lbs.
- The Atkins group had greater decreases in blood pressure.
- The Atkins group had greater increases in HDL (the "good") cholesterol.
- The Atkins group had greater decreases in Triglycerides. They went down by 29.3 mg/dL on Atkins, only 14.9 mg/dL on Ornish.
- Then the Atkins dieters were about twice as likely to make it to the end of the study, indicating that the Atkins diet was easier to follow.
One controlled trial showed that a vegan diet was more effective against diabetes than the official diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association (24).
However, a low-carb diet has also been studied for this purpose and led to much more powerful beneficial effects (25).
A vegan diet may be better than the typical low-fat diet recommended by the mainstream nutrition organizations, but pretty much any diet fits that description.
Bottom line: Despite all the propaganda, there isn't any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature.
The book, while not entirely without value, is not about the China Study, nor is it a comprehensive look at the current state of health research. It would be more aptly titled, A Comprehensive Case for the Vegan Diet, and the reader should be cautioned that the evidence is selected, presented, and interpreted with the goal of making that case in mind.
I was on the high fat low carb diet so have experience here. I improved over 18 months but my IR did not and I could not eat carbs. The plant based diet without fat has within 3 weeks lowered my BG, BP and weight, and has cured my cravings for sugar and salt.
Dominant sympathetic types: Typ ‘A’ personalities, disciplined; mostly solid cancers; do good on much plant based foods: fruits, vegies, seeds, grains, nuts, plant based oils: hemp, flax; Vitamin B1, B2, B3, 8:1 ratio magnesium to calcium, High vitamin C & D; but not on much meat protein, No b12, no choline, no pantheonic acid, no zinc, no selenium, no fish oil. Yes to beta Carotene, chromium, folic acid, riboflavin, thiamin,& niacin
Parasympathetic types are rather creative with unconventional ‘formal’ education; mostly blood-based cancers; do good on lots of meat and a ketogenic diet, saturated fats, fats from fish oils, Calcium 10-15 ratio to magnesium (High magnesium causes depression), Vitamin B12, B5, Choline; not as good on grains or seed. Need zinc & selenium, not good with other large Vitamin B doses.
Mixed or balanced types: suffer rather from allergies and fatigue.
There are still at least some who eat anything they want, smoke and drink, and still hold the record in longevity as Jeanne Calment.
... A few relevant observations are as follows: (1) any diet type resulting in reduced energy intake will result in weight loss and related favorable metabolic and functional changes; (2) short-term LCHF studies show both favorable and less desirable effects; (3) sustained adherence to a ketogenic LCHF diet appears to be difficult. A non-ketogenic diet supplying 100–150 g carbohydrate/day, under good control, may be more practical. (4) There is lack of data supporting long-term efficacy, safety and health benefits of LCHF diets. Any recommendation should be judged in this light. (5) Lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while maintaining a relative carbohydrate-rich diet, results in long-term prevention of progression to type 2 diabetes and is generally seen as safe.
(2) short-term LCHF studies show both favorable and less desirable effects;
(3) sustained adherence to a ketogenic LCHF diet appears to be difficult. A non-ketogenic diet supplying 100–150 g carbohydrate/day, under good control, may be more practical.
(4) There is lack of data supporting long-term efficacy, safety and health benefits of LCHF diets. Any recommendation should be judged in this light.
(5) Lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while maintaining a relative carbohydrate-rich diet, results in long-term prevention of progression to type 2 diabetes and is generally seen as safe.
Low-fat vs low-carb? Major study concludes: it doesn’t matter for weight loss
A year-long randomized clinical trial has found that a low-fat diet and a low-carb diet produced similar weight loss and improvements in metabolic health markers. Furthermore, insulin production and tested genes had no impact on predicting weight loss success or failure. Thus, you should choose your diet based on personal preferences, health goals, and sustainability.
... Don't ever believe such ideological tainted expert-studies...
Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index.
CONCLUSION:
This study suggests that replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with low-GI values is associated with a lower risk of MI, whereas replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with high-GI values is associated with a higher risk of MI.
The role of long-term elevated consumption of fat combined with low-carbohydrate consumption warrants further study before general recommendations can be made.
... Don't ever believe such ideological tainted expert-studies...
I think that attack is unwarranted.
It's still relatively short-term though. As the study I cited earlier said:
Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index.
CONCLUSION:
This study suggests that replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with low-GI values is associated with a lower risk of MI, whereas replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with high-GI values is associated with a higher risk of MI.
Our prospective cohort study included 53,644 women and men free of MI at baseline.
Wow. The other randomized trial wasn't getting it's participants to stay low-carb or low-fat even for just one year!
Therefore it is most likely that what this prospective cohort study really observed wasn't low-carb vs. low-fat, but a variable mixture relatively high in both. Mixing high carb with high fat is dangerous.
Would you interpret me saying, don't even believe in me, as an unwarranted attack too? - Because that is what I just wanted to repeat with emphasis again.