Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Vegetarian Diet Forum
Mastering diabetes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Beating-My-Betes" data-source="post: 2555901" data-attributes="member: 532959"><p>I'm not sure how there's any real comparison to be made here. </p><p></p><p>You seem to be placing a dividing line between the MD protocol and your protocol, with the inference that your protocol and that of the wider forum are one and the same. Of course, its true that the majority here (You included) defer to a low-carb protocol. But the way you manage your particular condition, via your lifestyle, is very different than the majority of members here are going to be able to achieve, assuming they'd even want to. Moreover, your personal interpretation of metrics (Yours and of the broader community) is something that I don't believe most will be interested to entertain.</p><p></p><p>I don't think there's anything wrong with you deciding your personal thresholds for acceptability when it comes to the data that you measure. If you personally find it unacceptable to wake up with a BG over 4.0, then good for you (With caveats, imo). If you don't like the idea of ever going above 6.0 BG, then good for you (Again...caveats). You wanna walk after every meal? Excellent idea. </p><p></p><p>Your results come to you with an effort that most aren't going to be able to sustain.</p><p></p><p>There are other things that I think are being missed in this broad-brush comparison:</p><p></p><p> I might be wrong, but I think Cedar is older than you (The gap might not be huge, but it could be a consideration). We also don't know (And he's under no obligation to share) his current weight, or his current 'trend' (up; down; stable) in weight. Certainly, any increase and definitely decrease is going to affect his numbers.</p><p></p><p>At the time of posting this post we had no idea of Cedar's meals, exercise and carb-intake. Now we know he averages 2 miles-a-day walking, and eats up to 300grams of carbs per-day, seemingly eating 3 meals plus snacks, containing many foods on the T2D 'no-no' list. So there's really no like-for-like comparison that can be made between his numbers and that of someone who eats low-carb, exercises at a high-level (In terms of both time and exertion). Objectively and empirically your numbers are better. But while I don't think it's your deliberate intention to do so, this imo is just distraction from the actual conversation that Cedar's results should prompt.</p><p></p><p>If it Is true, as many seem to post here, that T2D is a condition characterised by an inability to deal with carbs, how do we reconcile that position with Cedar's results? And in such a case, does the term "Remission" apply?</p><p></p><p>I've seen David Unwin qualify remission on the grounds of an unmedicated HbA1C and (I can't remember, but assume) a non-diabetic FBG. However, he was quick to caution that a return to 'normal' eating will quickly undo the good results. Though I assume he is cautioning against returning to eating carbs, in the video I watched he strangely (though not untypical in the context of the wider movement) gives the example of ice-cream. Of course, as any ice-cream lover knows, any tub worth a scoop is gonna be high in fat <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>I find it to be a great source of ongoing frustration that carbs get the blame for food concoctions of which they're only one part (Often, calorically-speaking, not even the major part). To flip a low-carb meme on it's head: "Don't blame rice and potatoes for what the processed food containing high amounts of carbs, often even higher amounts of fat and salt did".</p><p></p><p>[<em>And before someone says "All carbs turn to sugar" - which is a statement of fact - the real human outcomes, in the context of high-carb, low-fat, whole foods, plant-based diet, show that it doesn't seem to be a hinderance in either weight-management, diabetes remission or any of the other disease for which carbs are blamed and subsequently demonised.</em>]</p><p></p><p>I know that Robby and Cyrus (MD program) roll remission and reversal into one, ostensibly because their criteria for success encompasses more checkpoints: They site an ongoing (Year, minimum) non-medicated HBA1C and FBG, along with the ability to pass an OGTT. So whereas the low-carb idea of remission seems to suggest that everything will remain fine-and-dandy, as long as one doesn't go back to eating carbs, the MD program ONLY determines success within a ongoing (highly) carb-challenged state.</p><p></p><p>As far as your assessment of Cedar's other markers:</p><p></p><p>[<em>I'm going to avoid a wider discussion of cholesterol, because a) it's outside of the purview of this thread, b) my intention to disappear for a month or so means I don't want to wade into such a deep topic.</em>]</p><p></p><p>With the exception of HDL (which is low, and seemingly trending in the wrong direction), Cedar's numbers seem to be well within range. And I think this idea of ranges is important. Trigs are given a very generous range (<150). Whether lower is better is somewhat irrelevant. Unless there Is a surfeit of robust evidence to suggest that very undesirable health effects start occurring above 60, and that the range is dangerously generous, then Cedar seems to be doing fine. </p><p></p><p>As I've addressed earlier, if you personally aren't satisfied with numbers higher than a certain level, that's ok for you. However, pointing out that you are 33% better in absolute terms is kinda meaningless unless you can reliably demonstrate that Cedar's numbers are not good, and that very real, observable positive outcomes would result from him reducing his numbers by 33% or higher.</p><p></p><p>And you seem to have inferred that what makes your numbers perhaps more special is that you manage such a result while eating lots of fat. This, of course works both ways i.e in the case of Cedar's HbA1C being similar to yours despite age difference, exponentially higher carb grammage and exponentially less body muscle-mass and weekly energy expenditure.</p><p></p><p>Would it not be fair to say that not only are Cedar's trigs perfectly fine, but (and I think this is more important) that they are much lower than would be expected (from a LC'ers perspective) given his current lifestyle?</p><p></p><p>Going back to the comparison aspect of this post, one of the biggest confounders here is time-on-program. You've been at this for some years now, I believe) whereas Cedar has only been on MD for 6 months. And though it's perhaps not relevant to this comparison, it is worth remembering that he has experience of 20 years of low-carb not working out for him. The oft-claimed "We're all different" may be all that's needed to explain his personal negative experience. Regardless, his numbers seem to be improving now.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We know (certainly at least since Dave Feldman got hold of a personal cholesterol testing kit) how variable cholesterol readings can be. Judging Cedar's numbers at the 6 month mark, without any idea of his weight trends is a little early, no?</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I hope it's clear that this is not an attack on you. If anything, I believe your results are exceptional. I also admire your ability, much in contrast to my own lack, to seemingly be able to decide something and then just unwaveringly hammering at it until you get it done. I just think that getting lost in the trees (especially with the demanding of ever-increasing tests and statistics and quibbling over minor percentages) is stopping this conversation widening to encompass the entire forest, and the implications for how diabetes treatment is viewed and offered.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, I don't think comparison is totally without merit. However, you're 'fighting' in very different 'weight' classes. </p><p></p><p>Cedar's is just another example, in an ever-growing pile of examples, demonstrating that within the context of a lowered-fat, higher-carb, whole foods lifestyle (e.g MD program et al), that (at least in terms of commonly-used markers), it's possible to not only see the progression of diabetes T2D halt, but also start to reverse.</p><p></p><p>Watch this space, as I think this is just the tip of the iceberg <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>à tout à l'heure</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Beating-My-Betes, post: 2555901, member: 532959"] I'm not sure how there's any real comparison to be made here. You seem to be placing a dividing line between the MD protocol and your protocol, with the inference that your protocol and that of the wider forum are one and the same. Of course, its true that the majority here (You included) defer to a low-carb protocol. But the way you manage your particular condition, via your lifestyle, is very different than the majority of members here are going to be able to achieve, assuming they'd even want to. Moreover, your personal interpretation of metrics (Yours and of the broader community) is something that I don't believe most will be interested to entertain. I don't think there's anything wrong with you deciding your personal thresholds for acceptability when it comes to the data that you measure. If you personally find it unacceptable to wake up with a BG over 4.0, then good for you (With caveats, imo). If you don't like the idea of ever going above 6.0 BG, then good for you (Again...caveats). You wanna walk after every meal? Excellent idea. Your results come to you with an effort that most aren't going to be able to sustain. There are other things that I think are being missed in this broad-brush comparison: I might be wrong, but I think Cedar is older than you (The gap might not be huge, but it could be a consideration). We also don't know (And he's under no obligation to share) his current weight, or his current 'trend' (up; down; stable) in weight. Certainly, any increase and definitely decrease is going to affect his numbers. At the time of posting this post we had no idea of Cedar's meals, exercise and carb-intake. Now we know he averages 2 miles-a-day walking, and eats up to 300grams of carbs per-day, seemingly eating 3 meals plus snacks, containing many foods on the T2D 'no-no' list. So there's really no like-for-like comparison that can be made between his numbers and that of someone who eats low-carb, exercises at a high-level (In terms of both time and exertion). Objectively and empirically your numbers are better. But while I don't think it's your deliberate intention to do so, this imo is just distraction from the actual conversation that Cedar's results should prompt. If it Is true, as many seem to post here, that T2D is a condition characterised by an inability to deal with carbs, how do we reconcile that position with Cedar's results? And in such a case, does the term "Remission" apply? I've seen David Unwin qualify remission on the grounds of an unmedicated HbA1C and (I can't remember, but assume) a non-diabetic FBG. However, he was quick to caution that a return to 'normal' eating will quickly undo the good results. Though I assume he is cautioning against returning to eating carbs, in the video I watched he strangely (though not untypical in the context of the wider movement) gives the example of ice-cream. Of course, as any ice-cream lover knows, any tub worth a scoop is gonna be high in fat ;) I find it to be a great source of ongoing frustration that carbs get the blame for food concoctions of which they're only one part (Often, calorically-speaking, not even the major part). To flip a low-carb meme on it's head: "Don't blame rice and potatoes for what the processed food containing high amounts of carbs, often even higher amounts of fat and salt did". [[I]And before someone says "All carbs turn to sugar" - which is a statement of fact - the real human outcomes, in the context of high-carb, low-fat, whole foods, plant-based diet, show that it doesn't seem to be a hinderance in either weight-management, diabetes remission or any of the other disease for which carbs are blamed and subsequently demonised.[/I]] I know that Robby and Cyrus (MD program) roll remission and reversal into one, ostensibly because their criteria for success encompasses more checkpoints: They site an ongoing (Year, minimum) non-medicated HBA1C and FBG, along with the ability to pass an OGTT. So whereas the low-carb idea of remission seems to suggest that everything will remain fine-and-dandy, as long as one doesn't go back to eating carbs, the MD program ONLY determines success within a ongoing (highly) carb-challenged state. As far as your assessment of Cedar's other markers: [[I]I'm going to avoid a wider discussion of cholesterol, because a) it's outside of the purview of this thread, b) my intention to disappear for a month or so means I don't want to wade into such a deep topic.[/I]] With the exception of HDL (which is low, and seemingly trending in the wrong direction), Cedar's numbers seem to be well within range. And I think this idea of ranges is important. Trigs are given a very generous range (<150). Whether lower is better is somewhat irrelevant. Unless there Is a surfeit of robust evidence to suggest that very undesirable health effects start occurring above 60, and that the range is dangerously generous, then Cedar seems to be doing fine. As I've addressed earlier, if you personally aren't satisfied with numbers higher than a certain level, that's ok for you. However, pointing out that you are 33% better in absolute terms is kinda meaningless unless you can reliably demonstrate that Cedar's numbers are not good, and that very real, observable positive outcomes would result from him reducing his numbers by 33% or higher. And you seem to have inferred that what makes your numbers perhaps more special is that you manage such a result while eating lots of fat. This, of course works both ways i.e in the case of Cedar's HbA1C being similar to yours despite age difference, exponentially higher carb grammage and exponentially less body muscle-mass and weekly energy expenditure. Would it not be fair to say that not only are Cedar's trigs perfectly fine, but (and I think this is more important) that they are much lower than would be expected (from a LC'ers perspective) given his current lifestyle? Going back to the comparison aspect of this post, one of the biggest confounders here is time-on-program. You've been at this for some years now, I believe) whereas Cedar has only been on MD for 6 months. And though it's perhaps not relevant to this comparison, it is worth remembering that he has experience of 20 years of low-carb not working out for him. The oft-claimed "We're all different" may be all that's needed to explain his personal negative experience. Regardless, his numbers seem to be improving now. We know (certainly at least since Dave Feldman got hold of a personal cholesterol testing kit) how variable cholesterol readings can be. Judging Cedar's numbers at the 6 month mark, without any idea of his weight trends is a little early, no? Anyway, I hope it's clear that this is not an attack on you. If anything, I believe your results are exceptional. I also admire your ability, much in contrast to my own lack, to seemingly be able to decide something and then just unwaveringly hammering at it until you get it done. I just think that getting lost in the trees (especially with the demanding of ever-increasing tests and statistics and quibbling over minor percentages) is stopping this conversation widening to encompass the entire forest, and the implications for how diabetes treatment is viewed and offered. Ultimately, I don't think comparison is totally without merit. However, you're 'fighting' in very different 'weight' classes. Cedar's is just another example, in an ever-growing pile of examples, demonstrating that within the context of a lowered-fat, higher-carb, whole foods lifestyle (e.g MD program et al), that (at least in terms of commonly-used markers), it's possible to not only see the progression of diabetes T2D halt, but also start to reverse. Watch this space, as I think this is just the tip of the iceberg :) à tout à l'heure [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Vegetarian Diet Forum
Mastering diabetes
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…