Why won't the NHS tell you the secret to treating diabetes?

[Mbaker]

The first link leads to a reference to less than 35% of fat, which is about the level of fat in the Standard American Diet (Pretty similar to all developing countries, now). Other data I've seen referred to with such claims low-fat as 25% of calories. This is not what would be considered low-fat on the high-carb side of the nutrition-sphere. Moreover, I don't see any references to the types of carbohydrates that made up the extra 75-85%

The Virta link says nothing about what constitutes "Usual Care", and is only referring to diabetes results.

For the moment, I'm interested in the claim from the chart you posted i.e that high-fat diets are better than low-fat in reversing all coronary risk factors.

There are many anecdotes of people getting control over their sugars on various protocols.

Sugars are one thing, what about fat in the blood, and other markers. As with all tests percentages here and there. The make up of the fat is often not what I would call fat but a slight of hand including fake fat. Whilst it would be interesting to pick apart the studies, it is not usually LCK groups creating these studies - they can't afford them, or cannot get funding them. For me I think real world results trump the "literature" all day, everyday. Example, last week there was a study that said LC works for 6 months only.....this would have been peer reviewed. Should I give this a moments credence when my official NHS remission says different and I see many posters on this site and elsewhere who are 5 years plus. One word - rubbish.

Virta cannot answer for usual care, but this would follow the guidelines. Sarah Halberg, who is on the Virta team, did a previous study whilst in another practice, where she beat "them" again in a trial. I have seen Atkins vs what ever (I think dash and another) where again LC beats what is before it, I would say for obvious reasons.

Here's another comparison:

You mention calories, this is another unnecessary modern construct. Calories, are like telling Lewis Hamilton he needs to learn the highway code this season for Formula One. Calories are interesting for those who are interested, the rest of us just eat.

The chart is from Dr Paul Mason, he has a practice for regular people and sports people, again with real data and results to show (like Jason Fung, Eric Westman, Ted Naiman etc). I believe https://phcuk.org/rcts/ would cross reference some of the studies you need.

I know about the hierarchy of evidence. I think historical observation and anecdotes wipe the floor with most trials. When people just eat what is seasonal and local not knowing this will be looked at 50-100 years later, that is real truth. So I would suggest you review the works of Weston A. Price. I would also suggest looking at the plains Indians, Inuit (pre-western diet), aborigines (pre-western diet), Maasai Warriors and Hadza, their CVD and other health markers with high sat based diets. Even cross referencing disease states with the time when the UK was doing Meat and 2 Veg. I can't remember what islanders get around 70% sat fat from coconuts, again not "our" disease states. This for me is the real science...... when there is none.

I don't know if there are direct comparisons to low calorie / low fat but I know this resource has lots of studies that infer no issues with meat and disease states:

https://meatrx.com/category/research-articles/meat-consumption-research/

Here's my yesterday breakfast (the first 2), followed by the afternoon meals. Stacks of calories, not low fat. Last time I measured muscle 72% mass

Blood glucose this morning after the above

This shows to me sat fat is not causing me diabetes. I have pictures everyday of my red meat and dairy intake. My other markers last measured:
HOMA-IR is below 1, my HS-CRP is 0.3 - 0.4, QRISK 2.1 (down by 200% since increasing fat and protein), Trigs 0.3-0.4 (so no fat in the blood). HDL circa 2.5

 

[Mbaker]

The first link leads to a reference to less than 35% of fat, which is about the level of fat in the Standard American Diet (Pretty similar to all developing countries, now). Other data I've seen referred to with such claims low-fat as 25% of calories. This is not what would be considered low-fat on the high-carb side of the nutrition-sphere. Moreover, I don't see any references to the types of carbohydrates that made up the extra 75-85%

The Virta link says nothing about what constitutes "Usual Care", and is only referring to diabetes results.

For the moment, I'm interested in the claim from the chart you posted i.e that high-fat diets are better than low-fat in reversing all coronary risk factors.

There are many anecdotes of people getting control over their sugars on various protocols.

Sugars are one thing, what about fat in the blood, and other markers. As with all tests percentages here and there. The make up of the fat is often not what I would call fat but a slight of hand including fake fat. Whilst it would be interesting to pick apart the studies, it is not usually LCK groups creating these studies - they can't afford them, or cannot get funding them. For me I think real world results trump the "literature" all day, everyday. Example, last week there was a study that said LC works for 6 months only.....this would have been peer reviewed. Should I give this a moments credence when my official NHS remission says different and I see many posters on this site and elsewhere who are 5 years plus. One word - rubbish.

Virta cannot answer for usual care, but this would follow the guidelines. Sarah Halberg, who is on the Virta team, did a previous study whilst in another practice, where she beat "them" again in a trial. I have seen Atkins vs what ever (I think dash and another) where again LC beats what is before it, I would say for obvious reasons.

Here's another comparison:

View attachment 47105

You mention calories, this is another unnecessary modern construct. No trial required, I will reference

The chart is from Dr Paul Mason, he has a practice for regular people and sports people, again with real data and results to show (like Jason Fung, Eric Westman, Ted Naiman etc). I believe https://phcuk.org/rcts/ would cross reference some of the studies you need.

I know about the hierarchy of evidence. I think historical observation and anecdotes wipe the floor with most trials. When people just eat what is seasonal and local not knowing this will be looked at 50-100 years later, that is real truth. So I would suggest you review the works of Weston A. Price. I would also suggest looking at the plains Indians, Inuit (pre-western diet), aborigines (pre-western diet), Maasai Warriors and Hadza, their CVD and other health markers with high sat based diets. Even cross referencing disease states with the time when the UK was doing Meat and 2 Veg. I can't remember what islanders get around 70% sat fat from coconuts, again not "our" disease states. This for me is the real science...... when there is none.

I don't know if there are direct comparisons to low calorie / low fat but I know this resource has lots of studies that infer no issues with meat and disease states:

https://meatrx.com/category/research-articles/meat-consumption-research/

Here's my yesterday breakfast (the first 2), followed by the afternoon meals. Stacks of calories, not low fat. Last time I measured muscle 72% mass

View attachment 47104

Blood glucose this morning after the above

View attachment 47102

This shows to me sat fat is not causing me diabetes. I have pictures everyday of my red meat and dairy intake. My other markers last measured:
HOMA-IR is below 1, my HS-CRP is 0.3 - 0.4, QRISK 2.1 (down by 200% since increasing fat and protein), Trigs 0.3-0.4 (so no fat in the blood). HDL circa 2.5

 

[HSSS]

I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol

Another saying not true. Dropped several total points, massively improved hdl and triglycerides and small reduction in ldl for me despite increasing saturated fats.
Please evidence “many” having very high cholesterol. And specify which cholesterol type including which ldl particle size increases and decreases. Using totals alone is like using a chocolate teapot.

 

[bulkbiker]

Here's one for @Tannith

Reduction of visceral fat from eating an animal based diet in pictures.

https://twitter.com/CarnivoreMD/status/1354880271821242368

 

[donnellysdogs]

Low cholesterol is also a problem that isn’t talked about. My lean hubby had heart attack in May 20. I kept telling him for 6 months (only knew him before May for 15months) that his low cholesterol and high trigs were a problem and he would have a heart attack. Sure enough he did.
Despite changing his diet hugely (he said I would never change his eating habits of 50 years), he has changed hugely after speaking to Aseem Malhotra (pioppi / cardiologist) for an hour. He is not high fat but Aseem did say to have to tablespoons of EVOO everyday and 10 eggs a week!
Despite the change in diet his cholesterol remains low but his trigs have come down hugely.

 

[oldgreymare]

Low cholesterol is also a problem that isn’t talked about. My lean hubby had heart attack in May 20. I kept telling him for 6 months (only knew him before May for 15months) that his low cholesterol and high trigs were a problem and he would have a heart attack. Sure enough he did.
Despite changing his diet hugely (he said I would never change his eating habits of 50 years), he has changed hugely after speaking to Aseem Malhotra (pioppi / cardiologist) for an hour. He is not high fat but Aseem did say to have to tablespoons of EVOO everyday and 10 eggs a week!
Despite the change in diet his cholesterol remains low but his trigs have come down hugely.

My understanding is that fastest way to reduce Triglycerides is to reduce/eliminate fructose = naturally needs big reduction in sweet fruits, starchy carbohydrates. True for me!

 

[Mbaker]

@Beating-My-Betes I may have found a partial answer to your question:

"For the moment, I'm interested in the claim from the chart you posted i.e that high-fat diets are better than low-fat in reversing all coronary risk factors."

In my post #442, I tried to remember from memory the islanders who had coconuts, it was from the above video my memory was engaged - these are the Tokelauans, and the correct amount of coconut in their diet is 54 -82% of calories.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

@Beating-My-Betes I may have found a partial answer to your question:

"For the moment, I'm interested in the claim from the chart you posted i.e that high-fat diets are better than low-fat in reversing all coronary risk factors."

In my post #442, I tried to remember from memory the islanders who had coconuts, it was from the above video my memory was engaged - these are the Tokelauans, and the correct amount of coconut in their diet is 54 -82% of calories.

Thanks! But you still seem to be missing my main bone-of-contention, regarding your posting of these graphs and abstracts. You're answering a question I wasn't really asking.

I have no problem understanding the levels of fat you are referring to. I am also no stranger to the common traits of certain islanders and indigenous tribes (more about that, at another time) that you previously mentioned, having experimented with Paleo, Primal & Low-carb 7-9 years ago. I have spent many hours down various nutrition rabbit-holes. And all that despite having first tried veganism, circa 1997 and raw-veganism, circa 2005. My interest in all these cases was the pursuit of truth regarding health information, and it was only in the last few years that I became vegan due to ethics and animal rights concerns. I also have experience of the benefits of being in ketosis, due to experiments with Atkins dieting and also multiple 3-5 day water-fasts, over the years. Suffice to say: This ain't my first rodeo

I thought it was worth mentioning this, as I believe you are making certain assumptions that are informing your communication with me. I am not coming at nutrition debates from a veganism standpoint (despite being extremely confident that it can be a very health WOE), but from an interest in getting closer to the truth.

Anyway, I do intend to answer your original post. However, I have a project to finish over the next few days. Until then, perhaps check out Denise Minger's deep-dive. It's a very good primer on what a low-fat really looks like, and why knowing what a particular study constitutes as low-fat is absolutely crucial. Denise is an infamous ex-vegan (I used to be on the same raw-vegan forums as her, over ten years ago) who notoriously/infamously played 'David' to T.Colin Campbell's 'Goliath'. I'm one of probably a minority of vegans who thought that many of her criticisms were founded, though it's been a while since I read the articles:

https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06...-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

A tout a l'heure!

-----

 

[Mbaker]

Thanks! But you still seem to be missing my main bone-of-contention, regarding your posting of these graphs and abstracts. You're answering a question I wasn't really asking.

I have no problem understanding the levels of fat you are referring to. I am also no stranger to the common traits of certain islanders and indigenous tribes (more about that, at another time) that you previously mentioned, having experimented with Paleo, Primal & Low-carb 7-9 years ago. I have spent many hours down various nutrition rabbit-holes. And all that despite having first tried veganism, circa 1997 and raw-veganism, circa 2005. My interest in all these cases was the pursuit of truth regarding health information, and it was only in the last few years that I became vegan due to ethics and animal rights concerns. I also have experience of the benefits of being in ketosis, due to experiments with Atkins dieting and also multiple 3-5 day water-fasts, over the years. Suffice to say: This ain't my first rodeo

I thought it was worth mentioning this, as I believe you are making certain assumptions that are informing your communication with me. I am not coming at nutrition debates from a veganism standpoint (despite being extremely confident that it can be a very health WOE), but from an interest in getting closer to the truth.

Anyway, I do intend to answer your original post. However, I have a project to finish over the next few days. Until then, perhaps check out Denise Minger's deep-dive. It's a very good primer on what a low-fat really looks like, and why knowing what a particular study constitutes as low-fat is absolutely crucial. Denise is an infamous ex-vegan (I used to be on the same raw-vegan forums as her, over ten years ago) who notoriously/infamously played 'David' to T.Colin Campbell's 'Goliath'. I'm one of probably a minority of vegans who thought that many of her criticisms were founded, though it's been a while since I read the articles:

https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06...-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

A tout a l'heure!

-----

This type of response from Denise is very similar to other articulate advocates of the garden of eaten / eat lancet propagandists - same play book. The formula is to embrace the salient points and then make them appear smaller than they are, thereby deflecting from the truth. I stopped reading up to the rice point, but will respond up to that junction.

As an intro I was quite plant based having seen this film and taken in the meat causes cancer stuff at face value

and this shows I was all in:

I have more but will stop there, basically setting the seen that I am not biased and dabbled with the plant heavy, low fat side (took me 9 months to try full fat yogurt, thought people on here were mad).

Denise compares young fruitarians (I am guessing they are young as these are the YouTubes I see, never see any 5 years in and my age 53) who can metabolise anything and after 2 hours have a 5.x reading. It is my position they will go the same way as videos I could reference (but will not to trigger sensitivities, but standards searches of YouTube find examples easily). I would say skinny does not mean healthy. they should show their full blood panels (never do) and also body composition. Compare this to Dr Shawn Baker who used to have pre-diabetic numbers (as he is a sportsman), he has posted on YouTube and Instagram everyday this month what he is eating and his blood glucose in the 50's / 60's on loads of meat only and 17-18 fasted

Similar to Cyrus and Robby, who are still extoling the virtues of their method despite being schooled by Paul Saladino. Cyrus I recall found spikes of circa 170 mg/dl acceptable, yet he claims insulin sensitivity and that his switch from low carb / high fat to high carb was better. The numbers he gets are not comparable with Type 1's on Bernstein's protocol.

Denise states too many exceptions find low fat / high carb works. I have only seen 2 societies where high carb and what I would say is moderate fat working, always importantly in the context of minimal sugars, seed oils and flour - I have not seen 1 society where the high carbs (potatoes, rice, cereals and processed foods) have great outcomes. This is a reason why rice and sweet potatoes can work aka the Randell Cycle. But just as in China, note the explosion of disease when rice was fine before. America it is said has 88% of adults with at least some metabolic damage, this would lay Denise's claim to waste, or at least suggest the number she is inferring is a significant minority.

I find this type of opinion by Denise more dangerous than those who are ideologically driven, as she references everything that actually works with low carb high fat, so could have just stopped there. Often is is forgotten that outcomes such as blindness, amputations and premature death are the results of what one eats. When people encourage others to eat higher sugar to cure a sugar disease that is scary.

As I hinted at previously low calorie just means scales and trying to shoe horn in fake foods in the real world with a leaning towards plants, whole grains, sins, points, skimmed milk etc.

I wish you luck in your search. I cannot engage further as I do not think it is natural to remove fat content and I believe seed oils should not be allowed to masquerade as equal to animal fats, when they are known to oxidise LDL (along with sugar).

 

[Tannith]

Just to inject a bit of perspective, I am happy with my diabetes control and my weight but I have never seen a FBG under 5.0, maybe you are aiming to low.

There is only one way to find out whether or not you have reached your "personal fat threshold" which can reverse T2, and that is to get your tests down to normoglycaemic level or just above ((I believe Prof Taylor's subjects only regained 94% of normoglycaemic level as some of their beta cells had been permanently damaged, but 94% would do me nicely). If you can't find out from OGT and FBG tests you have no choice but to lose a full 15% of your original weight. Even though you might have found if you had done tests that you personally did not have to lose quite that much weight.

 

[Mr_Pot]

There is only one way to find out whether or not you have reached your "personal fat threshold" which can reverse T2, and that is to get your tests down to normoglycaemic level or just above ((I believe Prof Taylor's subjects only regained 94% off normoglycaemic level as some of their beta cells had been permanently damaged, but 94% would do me nicely). If you can't find out from OGT and FBG tests you have no choice but to lose a full 15% of your original weight. Even though you might have found if you had done tests that you personally did not have to lose quite that much weight.

I adopted a moderately low carb diet, about 75g a day when I was diagnosed. 4 months later I had a non diabetic HbA1c and I lost 3 stone, 20% of my original weight. I didn't intend to lose weight, it was just a bonus.
I have never been on any sort of diet before and I have never counted Calories so I don't know if a Calorie reduction occurred due to cutting carbs, but I have never been hungry on the diet. I don't purposely eat fat but I certainly don't avoid it. I don't know what a normoglycaemic level is but I am happy with an HbA1c of 38. As my diet is not difficult to keep to, just occasionally annoying, when there is a Danish pastry or similar I have to turn down, I have no intention of changing it. I doubt I could pass a OGT test but I don't think I need to.

 

[lucylocket61]

I would like to point out that I havent, in over 9 years, lost even 10% of my excess weight. However, within 4 months of lowering my carb intake, while losing virtually no weight, I got back to good blood sugar levels and have maintained them, except when ill.

 

[Tannith]

I adopted a moderately low carb diet, about 75g a day when I was diagnosed. 4 months later I had a non diabetic HbA1c and I lost 3 stone, 20% of my original weight. I didn't intend to lose weight, it was just a bonus.
I have never been on any sort of diet before and I have never counted Calories so I don't know if a Calorie reduction occurred due to cutting carbs, but I have never been hungry on the diet. I don't purposely eat fat but I certainly don't avoid it. I don't know what a normoglycaemic level is but I am happy with an HbA1c of 38. As my diet is not difficult to keep to, just occasionally annoying, when there is a Danish pastry or similar I have to turn down, I have no intention of changing it. I doubt I could pass a OGT test but I don't think I need to.

Very well done for losing 3 stone.

 

[Tannith]

OGT
Any Problems from Taking It?
The OGTT has very few issues. Some people have minor side effects from the sugary drink or from the needle stick.

Side effects from the drink include:

• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Bloating
• Headache

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/oral-glucose-tolerance-test
So much for all the scaremongers who claimed it was dangerous. Complete codswallop.

 

[lucylocket61]

OGT
Any Problems from Taking It?
The OGTT has very few issues. Some people have minor side effects from the sugary drink or from the needle stick.

Side effects from the drink include:

• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Bloating
• Headache

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/oral-glucose-tolerance-test
So much for all the scaremongers who claimed it was dangerous. Complete codswallop.

Again you miss the point. Doing it repeatedly, knowing you are diabetic, is the dangerous bit. Dangerous to your pancreas.

 

[HSSS]

Again you miss the point. Doing it repeatedly, knowing you are diabetic, is the dangerous bit. Dangerous to your pancreas.

Agree. Substitute the word damaging instead of dangerous and maybe @Tannith will get our point. Damaging in the same way repeated glucose spikes of any sort are, with these likely to be quite strong spikes.
And that’s without any insulin overshoot such as @lamont suffers and resulting hypos. I’m not RH
as far as I know or suspect but on the odd occasion I’ve seriously overindulged (as a OGTT would be) then I’ve actually hit a 3.9 afterwards when I’m rarely much below a 6.

 

[lucylocket61]

Agree. Substitute the word damaging instead of dangerous and maybe @Tannith will get our point. Damaging in the same way repeated glucose spikes of any sort are, with these likely to be quite strong spikes.
And that’s without any insulin overshoot such as @lamont suffers and resulting hypos. I’m not RH
as far as I know or suspect but on the odd occasion I’ve seriously overindulged (as a OGTT would be) then I’ve actually hit a 3.9 afterwards when I’m rarely much below a 6.

Yes, damaging is a better word.

As you say, the rebound downs are a consideration too.

 

[lucylocket61]

You know, everything I have read cites OGT as a diagnostic tool, annually max, not one for frequent monitoring of progress and changes.

 

[Hotpepper20000]

You know, everything I have read cites OGT as a diagnostic tool, annually max, not one for frequent monitoring of progress and changes.

But a blood glucose meter can be used with out harm multiple times a day. And is much more useful.

 

[lucylocket61]

But a blood glucose meter can be used with out harm multiple times a day. And is much more useful.

Yes, quick, easy, does no harm. I feel so lucky to have the chance to use one, even though I am self funding. It's a life saver.