Hi Forge,
With the greatest of respect, you claim to have dug in and “know it all” yet the two links you originally provided do very little to support your case. This is because they assess Low carb versus low fat diets, and their readout is weight loss.
I am pretty sure I acknowledged the references were for weight loss. and what happened long term re weight loss.
They do not largely interrogate low carb + high fat versus low carb + high protein (which is what you largely seem to be resisting, i.e. the idea that you need to have high fat for a successful low carb diet) and they also do not interrogate the benefits most here look for in a diet – not weight loss, but sustainability in a diet
From memory the 23 trial report summary does in fact refer to the drop outs (read sustainability) and the drop out for calorie counting was always higher. Not sure about the other report but I think it did too
that provides the most stable BS levels, whilst reducing insulin/meds needs and hypo episodes (while retaining other good health markers). Those studies do not largely assess this.
I referred to these for weight loss only so I did not get that wrong
Additionally, you are a Type 2 who cannot tolerate fat (which is unfortunate for you) and of course you are coming from your own experience – which was the point of my previous post that people who experience positive benefit are not part of a “fad” – it is real to them.
I am sure it is real to them but that does not stop it from being a fad
Fad Definition
dictionary.search.yahoo.com
n. noun
- A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
Something has worked for you – great, that does not mean it will work for everyone. I never said it will work for everyone but that said we are all the same species.and what my specialist predicted happened so my guess is I am not too different after all.
You may be the outlier, you may be the norm. That is what we are trying to establish. Furthermore, the issues that face a T1 are quite different to T2 when it comes to protein intake and also how many carbs they can tolerate and which type of carbs.
I have never stated that I know what a type 1 protein intake is nor how many carbs they can tolerate but I expect the T1 carb tolerence = zero seeing as they cannot produce insulin. Maybe some produce some insulin and they are still called T1 I have never checked the definition.
Looking at it from the T1 perspective, someone like myself (and many others claim) may most benefit from stable BS and reduced insulin usage (hence reduced hypos) by utilising as low as 50g/day of carbohydrates in their diet. This 50g comes largely from vegetables, nuts, etc and non-sugary or starchy sources (i.e. they make up a small percentage of the food). As such, I would be achieving 200kCal from carbohydrate per day. If I wish to maintain my weight let us say I need as a “typical male”, around 2500kCal/day. Thus I have to make up 2300kCal from fat and protein. Now if you choose to keep fats lower, i.e. say 30% of cals: that is 750kCal from fat (i.e.80-85g). So this leaves me with 1550kCal to consume and the only source will be protein. That is therefore 385-390g of protein per day.
I expect you probably got your maths right but re:the assumption that it reduces the risk of lows, if I were you I would be doing more research into that because small variations could be larger % variations if you have less carbs and therefore could be more difficult to control.
Now I realise that the literature may often overestimate the damage of high protein diets on the kidney but this is still an issue along with other problems that high protein diets entail. Anyway, nearly 400g of protein a day is not only a potential health issue (renal function) and very hard to achieve, but as a T1 it is an issue for need of insulin. The point being – excess of protein can cause a rise in BS of an insulin-sensitive, insulin-dependent individual. This is more extreme then with a T1 than a T2. Fat does not have the same outcome and is an excellent source (better than protein) of energy..
My specialist wants me to increase carbs when my resistance to insulin reduces with weight loss and my cardiologist wants me to keep off the greasies and in particular too much cheese and processed meats and my brother died from hardened arteries so before I even get to kidneys (and mine are still good at age 71.
Might I add that I attribute my good kidney health and eye health to following my old specialist who advised me the same as the UK advice ie low gi and jabs when tabs cannot cope.My new specialist has prescribed my diet and I am being monitored - I have not ignored my medical team and I take them all seriously
If you want to understand this better I suggest reading Volek and Phinney on the subject. They have over 50 years’ experience between them in this field and published many papers on the subject. What they interestingly show (apart from diabetes) as well with regards to weight loss is that when you look in general at people who take LC vs LF diets, you sometimes do not see a large difference over say an extended time period such as 1 year. But when you select for those people who show the classic pre-markers for a disposition to insulin resistance (and metabolic syndrome), you see a marked difference and the LC diet hugely outperforms a LF diet. This highlights the individuality of responses, and how studies performed on non-stratified individuals can dilute out such observations.
I am not sure what you are getting at I have already acknowledged that 12 months weight loss methods makes little difference at the end of the year it is back to calories in and effort out for a year. I have never seen a study on pre diabetes and LC diets nor do I know how the would set such a program up re providing a level playing field especially if stress is a factor.
It has also been mentioned before that a big issue for anyone who needs to adopt a lifestyle diet, is adherence. Studies generally show that diets richer in fats and low in carbs fare better for satiety and dietary adherence when compared with low fat diets rich in carbohydrates. Further, the satiety of fat often is reported to outperform the satiety of protein.
I read it in here that the HF claim they are not hungry but I can claim that too so maybe it is the low carbs and not the LF that reduces hunger. The low calorie diet will always be associated with hunger because it is portion control so that is not rocket science.
It is fantastic that you have found a diet that works well for you and that you can adhere to. Please do not though as a consequence assume that a) it will work for others just as well and b) other approaches are inferior/do not work. Neither are true. You claim that humans are actually quite similar but if that is the case why do some people get type 2 diabetes with a great life diet whilst others completely abuse their diets and never develop T2 diabetes?
You have not been doing your homework on this one. In Australia if you are Aboriginal descent you will be more susceptible to diabetes and overweight and quite a few other things as well as family history. T2 is the hunter and gatherers "disease" and is probably part of a design for survival through lean times that fails with our modern lifestyle. High Bs to run down breakfast and put on weight when we can for when we do not run down breakfast lunch or dinner.
Evolution is interesting, it only works on our life's experience from weaning to breeding plus it is only a 100 or max 200 pairings back to year 0001
So it is not a lot of evolution hours for many people back to hunting and gathering.
