Mastering Diabetes online summit on now.

[brenda]

You have time to join up for free and start listening. I recommend listening to Cyrus Khambatta, PhD.

http://www.masteringdiabetes.org/summit/

 

[Timaca]

A lot of these speakers are excellent. If you have prediabetes or diabetes, I highly recommend listening.

Best,

 

[Ema]

No, no, no, no and NO. This summit is simply propaganda for a plant based, low fat vegan diet.

While eating lots of plants is a great idea for everyone, diabetic or not, eliminating fat from the diet is just about the WORST thing one could do in a prediabetic or diabetic state. These are not health "experts"; they have an agenda, specifically a vegan one.

Denise Minger has written an excellent commentary on the science in the movie Forks over Knives that you can find here.

 

[brenda]

You don't eliminate fats. You eat plenty of fats but not as oil or animal fat. The fats are in nuts, seeds, advocado, and green vegetables. In fact they can be easily overdone so you need to limit them while you are getting fat out if the cells which is causing insulin resistance.

So how is a vegan plant based diet going to profit anyone but the farmers who grow the stuff? It certainly gives a lot less profit to the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

 

[Ema]

while you are getting fat out if the cells which is causing insulin resistance.

Except this is not based in science. Insulin resistance is NOT caused by fat.

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.

Is this diet better than the SAD? Sure, but that is a VERY low bar indeed.

https://www.drberg.com/blog/fat-is-not-the-cause-of-insulin-resistance

A very nice take down on The China Study here too.

 

[brenda]

@Ema

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.

So what agenda is this? Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn & Dr. Barnard, Dr Fuhrman etc would not have the success they do in addressing cancer, heart disease and diabetes and returning thousands upon thousands of people to good health if they were wrong. And you can follow their advice without paying to see them or buy their books as they publish their findings freely on their websites and on summits like the one I have posted, not to mention that you only have to look at them to see that they do what they preach. Compare them to a conference of allopathic medical doctors and how they look.

Here is one of the many studies conducted since the 1930's to show the value of a plant based diet:

https://www.drfuhrman.com/content-image.ashx?id=65m12xy24xsjpvi3uuoa7e

Glycemic and cardiovascular parameters improvedin type 2 diabetes with the high nutrient density(HND) diet

D. M. Dunaief 1 , J. Fuhrman 2*, J. L. Dunaief 3, G. Ying 4 1 Private Practice, Medical Compass MD, East Setauket, NY, USA 2 Private Practice, Flemington, NJ, USA;*
Corresponding Author: mdoffice@drfuhrman.com 3 F.M.Kirby Center for Molecular O
phthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA4 Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Perelman School ofMedicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, P A,USAReceived 6 April 2012; revised 26 May 2012; accepted 8 June 2012

ABSTRACT
Objective: The purpose of this study was to provide an initial assessment of the effective-
ness of the high nutrient density (HND) diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors
in participants with type 2 diabetes. Design: This was a retrospective case series study. Partici-
pants were 13 adult type 2 diabetic U.S. women and men between the ages of 30 - 80 years old.Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C), lipid profile, blood pressure, BMI, and medication require-ments before and after commencement of the HND diet were compared. Results: After a median length on the HND diet of 7 months, the mean HbA1C dropped from 8.2% to 5.8% (p=0.002), with sixty-two percent of participants reaching normoglycemic levels (HbA1C < 6.0%). There was a substantial reduction in mean blood pressure for hypertensive participants (n=10) from a pre-intervention level of 148/87 mmHg to 121/74 mmHg (p 00.0004 for systolic blood pressure, p= 0.01 for diastolic blood pressure). Triglycerides significantly decreased from a mean of 171 mg/dl to a mean of 103 mg/dl (p= 0.02). The mean HDL increased significantly from 48.3 mg/dl to 54.6 mg/dl (p= 0.03). The mean number of medications dropped from 4 to 1 (p= 0.0006).

Conclusions: The HND diet was very effective in controlling glycemic levels and cardiovascular
risk factors in 13 participants with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, there is a well-justified need for
further study with the HND diet.

I don't have the time, energy or expertise to spend checking out all of the conflicting opinions. But I do have a tried and tested method of asertaining truth - follow the money. Who will benefit from encouraging people to eat a diet that has been shown to give the appearance that they are improving but whose long term affects are not good? Of course we all know by now that a highly processed diet is bad. But what can we do to stop people from gaining their full health as it will put certain industries out of business?

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. The very large community of people doing the same have the same results. Studies that do not imterpret into real life are meaningless.

 

[brenda]

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."

 

[Ema]

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."

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.

The agenda I’m referring to is the vegan one. They spread so much misinformation regarding nutrition, animal and land management and environmental issues that they may as well slap a FOX news banner on their propaganda.

I’m delighted that you have found something that works for you but that doesn’t make the science any more robust or correct. People have varying tolerance to carbohydrates, for sure, but most diabetics will worsen on this diet according to research.

Plus the satiety factor of fat is huge. I would personally be starving all the time on this kind of diet, and fat to boot, despite being hungry. I know this because I ate this way for most of the late 90s and came very close to becoming insulin dependent before I found a ketogenic diet that turned everything around.

 

[Ema]

Chris Kresser on the cultlike aspects of the vegan movement, in the review of the book, The Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Keith.

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegetarian-myth-review/

 

[Ema]

94% of participants reduced or eliminated insulin in this recent trial by Virta Health. They are curing diabetes with a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet in almost everyone, not just a rare few with exceptional glucose tolerance.

Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Williams P, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Ther. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9

 

[Ema]

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:

• 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.

Put simply, the Atkins diet had several important advantages while the Ornish diet performed poorly for all health markers measured.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck#page-5

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.

Chris Masterjohn, PhD on The China Study as propaganda:

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.

 

[pamojja]

For me it's not about the unsettled science on either side of this believe-war of the low-fat/high-carb vs. low-carb/high-fat divide, or worse vegan vs. omnivorous - but what helps me with my particular unique preconditions and bio-chemical individuality to improve insulin-sensitivity?

Most who follow either of these believes: please to yourself the favor and do test your insulin-sensitivity over time to go sure it's fits your individuality, which even might change over time.

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.

While I was low-fat vegan since age 10, but earned with it a number of non-reversible diseases along a 60% walking disability with age 41. Turning to low-carb/high fat (~68% of calories from healthy fats) reversed my disability and prediabetes.

Such personal experience it all what's counts for one's own and future well-being. Not at all being right in such simplified black or white discussions, which can't accommodate that we all might react differently to different approaches.

One rare physician who even prescribed such an individualized approach, to mainly his end-stage cancer patients, was the late Dr. Nicolas Gonzales. Here the notes how he would approach different types I jotted down from one of his interviews:

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.

Of course, such simplification again wont do full justice to the many shades of gray possible.

However, testing one's own insulin-sensitivity and how it modulates on a particular diet intervention is almost as easy as proselytizing on forums , with the huge advantage of giving the answer for one's own health. But never to any other.

A consistent fasting glucose over 100, or post-prandial over 125 and you can consider yourself pre-diabetic.
Together with this online calculator and fasting insulin or C-peptide you can monitor how your insulin-resistance is improving or worsening, and adapt accordingly.

And let ideologists fight their own wars, which in the end don't do anything for one's own health. Only experimenting, measuring and adapting one's own ways does.

The only problem I see with either low-carb or low-fat is, that the largest randomized trials found that in both groups there wasn't anyone following left after 1 year. They all reverted to a mixed diet of high-carb with high-fat, as is the SAD. And that is really deathly dangerous.

Don't believe because I and others say so. But because you tested it out with your body yourself.

There are still at least some who eat anything they want, smoke and drink, and still hold the record in longevity as Jeanne Calment.

 

[pamojja]

http://www.masteringdiabetes.org/summit/

For anyone not having reversed his insulin-resistance yet, and still interested in differing opinions, here an other Diabetes Summit April 23-29, with experts of the low-carb fold.

 

[Eastman]

There are still at least some who eat anything they want, smoke and drink, and still hold the record in longevity as Jeanne Calment.

Maybe it's the chocolate that she eats.

The Benefits of Chocolate for Diabetes

Or the olive oil.

Extra virgin olive oil lowers blood glucose and cholesterol, study finds

Incidentally, both chocolate and, obviously, olive oil, are plant foods that are high in fat.

As for the low carb vs low fat debate, I linked to this paper in another thread:

Overweight and diabetes prevention: is a low-carbohydrate–high-fat diet recommendable?

A few observations mentioned in the abstract:

... 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.

 

[pamojja]

(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.

Uhmm, exactly the opposite is my experience. 100 g of carbs a day and I am diabetic. Don't ever believe such ideological tainted expert-studies. Test yourself!

And then look at the breakdown of this recent relatively long-term randomized study:

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.

That was the study I was referring to when I said, long term trail all fail because of lack of ongoing adherence.

Also not my experience, with a deathly disease it was easy as a breeze, now already for 9 years.

 

[bertiedog]

I have a friend who is now 72 years old. She has been vegetarian since her 20s but she has a horrible time with the most severe osteoarthritis in her wrists to the extent she has no cartilage left and is due for surgery on her wrists any day now.

Having cortisone injections helped at first but didn't last so for her there is no question her diet has been very inflammatory so certainly not healthy. She has always eaten lots of vegetables and fruits but generally low fat and no meat.

I am 70 now and also have osteoarthritis in my hands but I don't suffer with pain and I put this down to my low carb diet with plenty of fats and reasonable protein. If only I had eaten in this way for the first 50 years of my life I believe I wouldn't have had the problem in the first place but my father also had bad osteoarthritis in his hands and feet so I am definitely genetically set up for it.

I also have issues with insulin resistance because I have to take a steroid daily because of adrenal insufficiency and like @Ema mentioned if I don't eat lots of fats I am starving and want to keep eating but having a low carb, high fat diet has kept my HbA1c down to good levels.

Pam

 

[Eastman]

... Don't ever believe such ideological tainted expert-studies...

I think that attack is unwarranted. As you yourself said, everybody is different, so you can't always extrapolate your experience to the general population or study results, and vice versa.

One problem that I think most diet studies have is that they don't distinguish between types of carbs in high-carb diets. Many high-carb diets may be bad because of the high amounts of sugar and other refined carbs, not necessarily because of high-carb per se.

I've posted this study before but probably worth repeating:

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.

In contrast to most studies, the study cited by the article you mentioned compared healthy low-fat diet with healthy low-carb diet and found no significant difference in weight loss.

Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion

It's still relatively short-term though. As the study I cited earlier said:

The role of long-term elevated consumption of fat combined with low-carbohydrate consumption warrants further study before general recommendations can be made.

 

[pamojja]

... Don't ever believe such ideological tainted expert-studies...

I think that attack is unwarranted.

Wasn't even meant as an attack. Just as my principle to never believe anything blindly.

It's still relatively short-term though. As the study I cited earlier said:

The problem is not this year-long study is (relatively) the longest we have, but that the adherence was so low that it's results say more about anything, but low-carb or low-fat.

 

[pamojja]

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.

 

[Eastman]

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.

I'm not sure what trial you're looking at. You appear to quote the Jakobsen et al study, but that was comparing high GI to low GI carbs, not low carb to low fat. If it's some other study, then I can't comment since I haven't seen it.

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.

Again, don't understand why you're saying this. Are you aware that you implied in your earlier post that the Brouns paper is an "ideological tainted" expert study? I hope you're not saying something similar about the Jakobsen study.