The Cure for Type 2 Diabetes

[Sid Bonkers]

If it wasn't for unconventional thinkers then scienctific progress wouldn't move very fast. People called Bernstein a crank when he first proposed the whole low-carb thing, and still delight in calling people like Taubs and Lustig crazies, because they're not prepared to accept challenges to conventional wisdom.

Personally I dont agree with Gary Taubs at all and think his theories are mostly all wrong, carbohydrates dont make you fat unless you eat too many just like everything else and as for fat not making you fat I know from my own diet that when I increased my fat intake I put on weight, just as I did over xmas.

To often people read about low carb high fat and get it all wrong, as I have posted many times it is pointless increasing your fat intake unless you are in ketosis ie eating under 30g of carbs a day if you are eating more carbs that and increase your fat intake the fat is not burned as energy it is stored as fat.

I dont think anyone would argue that Taubs 's views are controversial and controversial as we all know is rarely right, and please dont bother posting about Galileo Galilei borofergie as for every genius there are millions of nutters who are simply wrong just as I believe Taubs is wrong in most of his assumptions.

 

[mbudzi]

John

I need a Noddy guide to understanding Trans Fats. Can you point me at a beginners guide to understanding fats so that I can begin to follow some of the stuff on here and the papers you reference? I'm skeptical about looking for my own papers as you seem to have unearthed a few that are not telling the whole truth.

Thanks

 

[al_leister]

I don’t think I will be supping the three oils.

Drug companies however cannot patent 3 oils therefore would definitely not be interested in cures they can’t make money from.
Most people do not realise that drug companies have one purpose one goal….to make money.
Drug companies do not exist to find cures.
A large percentage of drug trials and those that make it to the journals and then to “market” leave out a lot of important information on the negative effects on patients. All legal of course.

Stupidity is rampant amongst the masses. See links below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... olite-left

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

 

[xyzzy]

So all the scientists and importantly students who do the majority of the research actively colude with governments and companies taking bribes to falsify results for their own personal gain.

What a totally offensive and warped attitude you have to life. :crazy:

 

[al_leister]

So all the scientists and importantly students who do the majority of the research actively colude with governments and companies taking bribes to falsify results for their own personal gain.

What a totally offensive and warped attitude you have to life

Of course not all but some do, set out to reach a particular conclusion that the drug company would like to hear. It is the drug company who funds the research.

Bit like the prevailing ethos at some of our newspapers.
Editors, reporters, labour gov, conservative gov, met police, big business: Christ the list goes on.

I think describing the above as offensive is a little childish.

All the best.

 

[borofergie]

Personally I dont agree with Gary Taubs at all and think his theories are mostly all wrong, carbohydrates dont make you fat unless you eat too many

Funnily enough, that's what Taubes says too...

as for fat not making you fat I know from my own diet that when I increased my fat intake I put on weight, just as I did over xmas.

Nothing to do with the two tins of Celebrations then?

To often people read about low carb high fat and get it all wrong, as I have posted many times it is pointless increasing your fat intake unless you are in ketosis ie eating under 30g of carbs a day if you are eating more carbs that and increase your fat intake the fat is not burned as energy it is stored as fat.

It's just simple maths Sid...

4kcal per gram of carb.
30g of carbs = 120kcal
100g of carbs = 400kcal
150g of carbs = 600kcal

Recommended average energy consumption* for men is 2550 kcal/day. 45-60% of this is supposed to come from carbs (55% would be 350g of carbohydrate). Even if you ate 150g of Carbohydrate per day (a la Grazer) you'd still be looking for nearly 2000 kcal from protein and fat.

If you want to keep your enery consumption constant, while not increasing your fat intake, as you suggest, then you'd have to add an extra 200g of protein to your diet - about the same as 10 eggs. That's on top of the 80g a day that you're supposed to be eating as part of a balanced diet. Do you really put away 280g of protein every day?

It's much easier to consume this energy by increasing both your fat intake (9 kcal/g) and your protein intake (4 kcal/g), especialy because most protein rich food contains fat too.

*(even if you were completely sedentary, then you'd still be burning more that 1500kcal/day).

But then you know all this...

I dont think anyone would argue that Taubs 's views are controversial and controversial as we all know is rarely right, and please dont bother posting about Galileo Galilei borofergie as for every genius there are millions of nutters who are simply wrong just as I believe Taubs is wrong in most of his assumptions.

I have a long list of "nutters". Sir Frank Whittle is probably my favourite.

You might disagree with his concluisions, but it would be difficult to disagree with most of Taubes assumptions...

But all of this is just proving my original point. It's easy just to call someone a nutter and dismiss their ideas. There isn't really any point in flogging this dead horse.

 

[al_leister]

Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'

Just one link of many I could source if i had the time today.
Excellent one a couple of years ago on radio 4. 11 out of 14 trials/research funded by drug company. Will try to find it. Got a lot of bad press at the time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 ... iased.html

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Nothing to do with the two tins of Celebrations then?

Probably quite a lot yes, now how much fat is in a tin of chocs

Recommended average energy consumption* for men is 2550 kcal/day.

Is that the same for a 25 year old athlete and a 65 year old sedentary male and what about a female??? More useless statistics, the truth is that most people in the west eat way too much which is why incidentally 50% of them are obese/overweight.

It's much easier to consume this energy by increasing both your fat intake (9 kcal/g) and your protein intake (4 kcal/g), especialy because most protein rich food contains fat too.

No, its easier just to eat less food, perhaps you should give it a try

You might disagree with his concluisions, but it would be difficult to disagree with most of Taubes assumptions...

No its easy I've already said I disagree with most of what he says, perhaps you missed that part of my post :roll:

There isn't really any point in flogging this dead horse.

No, none at all but its you who is flogging the Taubs thing I just said I disagreed with him its you who is continually trying to justify what he says is right

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'

Just one link of many I could source if i had the time today.
Excellent one a couple of years ago on radio 4. 11 out of 14 trials/research funded by drug company. Will try to find it. Got a lot of bad press at the time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 ... iased.html

I beleive that every Registrar has to undergo a year of clinical research before they can become a Consultant and I dont think that is financed by the big Pharma, what about charity's like cancer research? Sorry but there is lots of research done outside of the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[xyzzy]

Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'l

Surely it depends on the research and who does it and who reports its results. If research is biased because a drug company wants it that way then its not good science and is just as bad as any nutty alternative therapy claim....

Except for one thing...

When its bad science then it has normally been examined and proven bad by other scientists who want to keep the reputation of science good, so for example your last link was from a article in the New Scientist! i.e. scientists policing other scientists results. This is exactly how science works and how progress is made. Why are you shocked at this?

When alternative therapists and their ilk make their claims who polices them? Why are they so defensive when it comes to having their products tested rigorously? Why should I believe them not to be just as corrupt and pocket lining as a corrupt pocket lining drug company?

Please be careful with accusations of corruption. I do agree that the profit motive can corrupt companies however that is not the same as saying it corrupts science. Much research is done by professors and their students at universities around the world and yes it maybe funded by private business but implying that all those professors and students take bribes is a very offensive statement and one I hope you are not making. It's also down right silly :crazy:

Just remember that it was a scientist who invented insulin treatment of diabetics not an alternative therapist. Come to that it was a scientist who invented TV, DVD's computers, iPads, cars, aeroplanes, the wheel and fire. You name it a scientist invented it so please show us some respect.

 

[borofergie]

[
No, none at all but its you who is flogging the Taubs thing I just said I disagreed with him its you who is continually trying to justify what he says is right

Of course you're right Sid. I apologise unreservedly for mentioning his name after you so elegantly disproved his theories.

 

[Patch]

:wave:

Hi everybody!

 

[Helenababe]

Hi Patch. Have they 'let you off'?

Heck, is that pic 'you'?? You didn't tell us you were a frazzled old doctor! :lol:

Helena

 

[Patch]

Have they 'let you off'?

I don't know what you mean...

You didn't tell us you were a frazzled old doctor!

I'm not! (Old, or a Doctor...)

 

[Helenababe]

Soreee.

 

[Patch]

S'okay. I forgive you. :thumbup:

 

[ladybird64]

with regards to your comments regarding Dr Joanna Budwig and her treatment methods Wikipedia states the following;
"After creating and using the "Budwig Protocol" on a number of patients, Budwig was "prosecuted by the medical establishment for malpractice" in Germany for having used flax oil on patients, even though they had untreatable cancers. Though there were many court cases filed against her, "in each instance the courts exonerated her because case histories supported the benefits of her treatment methods."
You and Xzzy chose to omit and ignore the last part of the above for reasons that are unclear, I certainly did not intend to 'push drivel on to vulnerable people'
I never claimed that either the Budwig treatment or http://www.cancertutor was a cure, I stated clearly in my posts I did not believe it was a 'magic cure'
You state you have a daughter with 'mental retardation' and a granddaughter with Cerebral Palsy and I did not mean to offend them in any way with the treatment methods I mentioned, however, I have a wife with Breast Cancer but I did not think it was appropiate to mention this although surely I am allowed to explore alternative treatments?
In your own words 'Here's the deal' Ladybird/Xzzy; your way of criticism regarding the methods I described made the debate personal by using words like 'complete b*****ks, 'A grade nutter', 'complete moron', 'very dangerous people' etc, these are indeed personal comments and as such, are excessive, unecessary and won't do anything to encourage newly diagnosed and inexperienced Forum members like myself to use the Forums.
You have made using the Forum a hostile, unfriendly and unpleasant experience.

You posted a link to a website, I highlighted the issues that concerned me. I did not talk about the Budwig protocol, I commented on the topics of a site which YOU posted. If I choose to speak of my daughter and granddaughter that is my prerogative..my comments were in direct response to the paragraphs which I copied and pasted. I stand absolutely by what I said and I do consider someone who would write such unsubstantiated comments about young babies with brain damage expects comments. I still think HE not YOU is a moron.

I did not make any personal remarks about your intelligence or intellect..to do that IS personal, aimed directly at you. Please show me where I insulted you PERSONALLY.

This was your reply.

FAO of Ladybird & Xzzy - It seems I was completely wrong re. Budwig and Cancertutor, forgive me for trying these alternative treatments, if only I was as well educated as you so obviously are. It must give you enormous pleasure to belittle uneducated, desperate people like myself, please forgive me for insulting your superior intellects, I will refrain from posting any more buffoonery.dodd4721


I consider this aimed at me, Xzzy is mentioned but that's between you and him. This is a big forum, you post where you want and I will be sure to avoid answering any of your posts, not a problem. It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad regardless of what you think but you post a link publically, then you invite opinion, sometimes strong opinions. Where I think something is completely wrong I will say so and will always give my reasons why. I take great care in my posts not to make personal comments, if I disagree with something posted I say so but am never rude to the poster.

I did so on your post. I extended an olive branch. I am genuinely sorry if you felt unwelcome but I will not apologise for what I wrote in direct response to what I read on the Cancertutor site regarding the issues that I raised in respect to diabetes and brain damage caused by aspartame.

I have got nothing more to add now, I genuinely wish you and your wife well for the future and wish you both good health and success in whatever way you decide to look after yourselves.

 

[Patch]

 

[alliebee]

ha ha ha :lol: :

 

[al_leister]

Response to ZYZZY

so for example your last link was from a article in the New Scientist! i.e. scientists policing other scientists results. This is exactly how science works and how progress is made. Why are you shocked at this?

u]I am in no way shocked at this and made no hint that I was.[/u]

When alternative therapists and their ilk make their claims who polices them? Why are they so defensive when it comes to having their products tested rigorously? Why should I believe them not to be just as corrupt and pocket lining as a corrupt pocket lining drug company?

They should be policed and should not be defensive regarding the testing of their products. Of course they can be just as corrupt.

Much research is done by professors and their students at universities around the world and yes it maybe funded by private business but implying that all those professors and students take bribes is a very offensive statement and one I hope you are not making. It's also down right silly

I certainly did not imply that “all” professors and students take bribes. I did not even mention the words professors/students.

Just remember that it was a scientist who invented insulin treatment of diabetics not an alternative therapist. Come to that it was a scientist who invented TV, DVD's computers, iPads, cars, aeroplanes, the wheel and fire. You name it a scientist invented it so please show us some respect.

Most scientists are good/great people. I have not said anything to the contrary. Calm down ZYZZY. You are sailing in the silly sea. Read my posts carefully before launching your response.

As per my first post, I will certainly not be supping the three oils.

Of course the fact remains; Drug companies exist and operate to make a profit not to supply drugs that cure illness.