• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

new research shows how foods affect individuals differently.

M

Mandy p

Member
Messages
17
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
An article in yesterdays Guardian (JUNE 11) described research which confirms the experiences of many of the wise ones on this forum. 1000 volunteers wore a blood glucose monitor which measured blood glucose every 5 minutes (Blimey!..where do you get one of those?...)
The findings showed that the same food can cause spikes in some people but not others. The study also compared different diets of similar calorie levels but with differing ingredients. They were very surprised to find for example that bread and butter trigger less of a response than straight bread.They reckon that they will be able to come u with individualised diets and now realise that calories are not the only player.
I know, I know....you lot have known this for years. But this is the ultimate eating to your meter, yes? And it is good to have what we already know confirmed by research...
 
Its called a CGM, a number of members (including me!) have them.

They are fab but have their own drawbacks.
 
Mandy p said:
An article in yesterdays Guardian (JUNE 11) described research which confirms the experiences of many of the wise ones on this forum. 1000 volunteers wore a blood glucose monitor which measured blood glucose every 5 minutes (Blimey!..where do you get one of those?...)
The findings showed that the same food can cause spikes in some people but not others. The study also compared different diets of similar calorie levels but with differing ingredients. They were very surprised to find for example that bread and butter trigger less of a response than straight bread.They reckon that they will be able to come u with individualised diets and now realise that calories are not the only player.
I know, I know....you lot have known this for years. But this is the ultimate eating to your meter, yes? And it is good to have what we already know confirmed by research...
Click to expand...

Now run that past me again. They found that....

People are different
Including fat in a meal lowers the GI
Your post lifestyle change menu is individual to you.

Wow, I must write this down.
 
graj0 said:
Ahhhh! Don't spoil their fun, they have made an important discovery.
Click to expand...
Sad but true - there have probably been thousands of people who've controlled their BG by following the principles of eat to your meter, but unless some boffins "prove" it in research, then people will keep spouting "anecdotal evidence is not data". I guess the scientists have their uses.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
Now run that past me again. They found that....

People are different
Including fat in a meal lowers the GI
Your post lifestyle change menu is individual to you.

Wow, I must write this down.
Click to expand...
But you forgot that they sent 10 million in research grant on this.
 
Andrew Colvin said:
But you forgot that they sent 10 million in research grant on this.
Click to expand...

It comes into the category of "No-one will listen to you until you do"

I learned that Engineer Bernstein was not listened to until he took a medical degree. He devised the portable blood glucose machine and calculated all the insulin doses.

I also learned that Professor of Nutrition Robert Lustig had to take time off to take a law degree so that the food industry will talk to him.

I think the 10 million might be money well spent.
 
I think that the interesting and novel part of this research is not the part that most people have commented on. It's not really to do with fat slowing glucose responses etc. It's to do with how your gut bacteria affect your individual response.
From the studies website:
Insulin resistance is a state in which the cells of our body do not respond to insulin produced by the pancreas. As a result, our body cannot lower the level of glucose in our blood. A recent study (Koren et al. 2012, Cell) showed that insulin resistance is associated with certain communities of gut microbes in humans. Transferring these communities to healthy mice caused them to develop insulin resistance as well.

Another study (Qin et al. 2012, Nature) showed a strong association between type 2 diabetes and a certain "fingerprint" of gut microbes. Type 2 diabetes is a disease in which the pancreas is exhausted by trying to supply more and more insulin to an insulin resistant body. Currently, about 300 million people worldwide have type 2 diabetes, and experts predict that this number will double over the next 15 years
Click to expand...
If you have the too many of the 'wrong' bacteria and not enough of the 'right ones' then that may be the reason for an abnormal response to some foods.
If , as it is thought, diet can change the microbiome then eating the right type of diet may stop pre diabetes developing into diabetes. That's in the future. However you can't just use common sense or guess at the right diet for changing the biome . You need data .
There are no answers yet because research is in it's infancy but the low carb diet, may avoid glucose spikes but not do anything to change your biome to a more protective one. ( There are indications this may be true but absolutely no answers yet; hence need for research ) http://humanfoodproject.com/sorry-low-carbers-your-microbiome-is-just-not-that-into-you/
 
phoenix said:
However you can't just use common sense or guess at the right diet for changing the biome . You need data .
There are no answers yet because research is in it's infancy but the low carb diet, may avoid glucose spikes but not do anything to change your biome to a more protective one. ( There are indications this may be true but absolutely no answers yet; hence need for research ) http://humanfoodproject.com/sorry-low-carbers-your-microbiome-is-just-not-that-into-you/
Click to expand...

I agree and I think another 10 million should be ring fenced immediately.
 
I think we should be pleased that more research is taking place into the fundamental physiological processes that give rise to diabetes. Also this research may contribute to the body of evidence that is required for official dietary advice to change. I agree that advice should be based on proper peer reviewed research. I just wish they would get on with it as I am convinced that erroneous advice about low fat diets and eating starchy foods with every meal etc is still being doled out to diabetics hundreds of times a day, doing more harm than good.
 
Interestingly, in view of one of the other threads going on, the most recent published research from this group involved producing glucose intolerance in mice and humans with artificial sweeteners. These changed the gut biome
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tutes--Gut-Bacteria--and-Glucose-Intolerance/
The paper was published in Nature
'Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota'
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html#author-information
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a thought...If official dietary advice must be evidence based and based on accumulated data (and I agree it should be), where is the evidence used to inform current advice to diabetics ie to eat plenty of starchy carbohydrates?
 
As I said earlier, I think this research is from a very different perspective

But evidence for present guidelines:
Recent SACN draft report on carbohydrates, it summarises most of the evidence that will be used for future UK guidelines. This is for the general population but includes sections on various conditions including diabetes but and also heart disease, colo-rectal health and oral health. (all of which are important to everyone; diabetic or not)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...bohydrates_and_Health_report_consultation.pdf

Jim Mann, was the chairman of the European committee that oversaw the last European diabetes dietary guidelines. He gave a lecture to the EASD on Carbohydrate quality (and quantity) a couple of years ago.
He believes that the guidelines have been misinterpreted and advice can be confusing and unhelpful He cited the phrase from DUK about 'plenty of carbohydrates'.( I don't think that they actually use the phrase anymore. )
In the video he says
"The problem is that many dietitians around the world are telling people to have wholegrain bread when most wholegrain bread is roughly comparable to eating a bag of glucose.”
Click to expand...
Link to a blog summarising Mann's lecture with a link to the actual presentation http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1069

He has also very recently published a paper
Carbohydrates in the treatment and prevention of Type 2 diabetes. ( includes and expands on many of the same points as in the lecture ).
He points out that the original controlled trials that showed a benefit from higher carb lower fat diets
"included legumes, pulses,minimally processed wholegrain cereals, vegetables (excluding potatoes and other starchy vegetables) and fruit, all witha high dietary fibre content and low glycaemic index"
Click to expand...
http://qap2.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.12673/pdf

This debate has been going on for a very long time.
From Diet, Delusion and Diabetes.L Sawyer and E.A.M Gale
From an historical perspective, it is easy to see that the investigators of diet have confused circular motion with progress. The very low carbohydrate diets of the pre-insulin era yielded to the high carbohydrate diets of the late 1920s and 1930s, and these gave way to the free diets of the 1930s through to the 1950s. The cycle then resumed with the low carbohydrate diet of the 1960s, the high carbohydrate/high fibre diet of the 1970s, the free diets of the latter part of the century and the reincarnation of the pre-insulin regimen in the form of the Atkins diet. The enthusiasts have come and
gone, each claiming unique virtue and spectacular success for their own particular regimen, and it would be hard toimagine a diet that has not at some stage constituted anarticle of faith in diabetes management. Almost all these diets worked some of the time, but we may suspect that few were followed with any degree of rigour for most of the
time
Click to expand...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-008-1203-9
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mandy p said:
Just a thought...If official dietary advice must be evidence based and based on accumulated data (and I agree it should be), where is the evidence used to inform current advice to diabetics ie to eat plenty of starchy carbohydrates?
Click to expand...
There isn't any evidence; look and you won't find it. So much for NHS evidence-based medicine.
 
Mandy p said:
An article in yesterdays Guardian (JUNE 11) described research which confirms the experiences of many of the wise ones on this forum. 1000 volunteers wore a blood glucose monitor which measured blood glucose every 5 minutes (Blimey!..where do you get one of those?...)
The findings showed that the same food can cause spikes in some people but not others. The study also compared different diets of similar calorie levels but with differing ingredients. They were very surprised to find for example that bread and butter trigger less of a response than straight bread.They reckon that they will be able to come u with individualised diets and now realise that calories are not the only player.
I know, I know....you lot have known this for years. But this is the ultimate eating to your meter, yes? And it is good to have what we already know confirmed by research...
Click to expand...
For how many years has it scientifically been proven that e.g. intake of fat at same time of starch slows down the uptake of sugars into the bg? (your bread + butter example). Sure some of the low carb / Atkins specialists on this forum will know. Just surprised (AND disappointed!) that such research is still getting any attention, as its like all well researched and known dynamics.
=>
Waste of good research money that should have been spent more wisely on diabetes cure research instead !
 
No mention of different levels of amylase in human saliva.
Scientists from the Monell Center report that blood glucose levels following starch ingestion are influenced by genetically-determined differences in salivary amylase, an enzyme that breaks down dietary starches. Specifically, higher salivary amylase activity is related to lower blood glucose.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404144115.htm
 
Back
Top