Reversing Type 2 diabetes

[zand]

Out of curiosity when you say 14g of fat do you mean all fats or a particular fat that is saturated, unsaturated, transfats or monounsaturated fats?

I won't be having any processed foods, so trans fats won't come into it. Any fats that are from plants not animals, mostly from seeds and nuts.

 

[Indy51]

the Krebs cycle

This picture popped up in my twitter feed recently and I thought you might enjoy it - Dr Krebs on his actual cycle:

 

[zand]

I am not convinced WFPB claims are valid. There is a distinct lack of scientific debate and study backing it up, and that worries me greatly. It seems that the main research studies that get referred to are the Harvard Nurses Study and the China Study. The Harvard was a valid research project, and indeed the data has been heavily analysed by many independant reviewers, but they seem to come to fundamentally different conclusions on the effect of diet on health. The China study is quite frankly a farce, and was not properly conducted. The data and the conclusions could have a horse and cart drawn through them. I have not myself reviewed the study report since it is now withdrawn from the archive, but the book based on the conclusions is still around.

I can see how an ultra low fat diet could possibly reduce fat stores over time, and that this could possibly reduce muscle IR, but not immediately (or miraculously.?). So with high carb intake, and presumably high bgl initially then this will lock out the fat path ( and stop any thoughts of ketosis) so how does this square up? Glucose freely available, so fat not required by muscle, so IR is not reduced, so cycle continues its upward spiral.

So for this to work, something must be preventing the bgl levels from rising when carbs are consumed. What is it about WGPB that is so different to all the other diets.. Of course, it must be Low GI and high fibre. But will this be sufficient to cover a large portion of rice? or oats. or those things that I use in my current diet that are equally low GI but still spike me? I cannot find a proper explantion in the videos that explains how a high carb intake is handled without causing rise in bgl and insulin. The ones I watched simply said that the insulin takes care of things. Not in my case it doesn;t. My insulin is blocked by IR.

I have so far looked at Muscle IR which is the predominant affectation of T2D. There is of course the Metabolic syndrome IR that concerns lipids stored in the adipose tissue. How is this tackled by WFPB? I can see how ketogenesis does it in LC diets, but WFPB is not LC. Adipose fat is very difficult to shift. It is reluctant to go even when faced with serious workouts in the gym. So how can I as a sedentary T2D use WFPB to shift my baby bump? These things are not explained in the videos, and I do not have time or energy to buy the books and read them No one has come back to this thread with proper data in support of WFPB, so I for one will no longer consider it to be a valid diet for me to try. You are all, I hope, going to make up your own minds, and I hope I have helped you to have a more informed decision path, but now you tread it without me.

I have ordered some new test strips (the ones I am using are a little out of date) and when I start the diet properly I will log my BGs and start a thread at a later date. I am not saying this will work, just that I want to try. I will add in some of the things my naturopath advised too, such as having warm cooked foods, not raw to be kinder to my gut and cortisol levels. I stopped taking Metformin a few months ago so any reduction in weight or IR will be because of diet and very mild exercise (again advice for naturopath to only do gentle exercise)

 

[zand]

Are these quantities per meal or per day? I think the original WFPB recommendation was 10 g max a day of all fat including nuts, but I see that Forks over Knives has relaxed it to 15g. Remember that for IR to be reduced then fat must be ultra low, else the fat stores will not become depleted, Low fat aka Eatwell#2 does not even come within waving distance of this.

Per day. I am buying into the concept of eating plants not animals, not the claims made by WFPB. I got the figure of 14g fat by working on 80% carb cals, 10% fat and 10% protein. At 200g carbs that works out at only 999 calories. I do not want to restrict calories that much. I damaged my metabolism by doing that and it has taken years to improve it. So I went up to 250g carbs which gives the 14g fat. If I am hungry I will increase the carbs until I am satiated, the other 2 macros will stay the same. (just like LCHF in reverse). I did a virtually fat free diet 6 years ago and ended up in a lot of pain, so that's why I want as much as 14g.

This is simply an experiment by me on myself (just like my fat fast where I had something like 92% fat) I have been finding that I am wanting more carbs now and less fat, so now seems the right time to try it. I will let you know in 3 months or so. I don't expect to be too rigid about this, I will find out how to do it as I go along.

 

[Oldvatr]

I won't be having any processed foods, so trans fats won't come into it. Any fats that are from plants not animals, mostly from seeds and nuts.

cooking oils that are a nice colour, are clear not cloudy and smell nice, have probably been industrially processed, and contain transfats as a result, Cold pressed oils are best, but carry a price penalty.

I have no problem with you going WFPB, but I hope you do due diligence research of your own to make sure your risk levels are low. I am doing the same thing here that I did for LCHF, and I note that whereas I found ample independant science studies to back the diet claims, I do NOT see this for WFPB, and this rings warning bells in my head, Sorry, its the way I am, but as the Romans say “Quod me nutrit, me destruit”

 

[Oldvatr]

Many of us are where we are due to toxins. Although not absolute, in general, fruits and vegetables tend to be catabolic, whilst animal foods tend to be anabolic.

In order to heal and repair properly, the body has to be able to do both functions.

Fasting is catabolic. The benefits of longer fasting and shorter eating phases are becoming apparent. When the body is in anabolic mode longer than in catabolic, it cannot cleanse itself properly in order to heal.

....

Sorry, what you write above is not the scientific explantion for catabolic or anabolic. It comes from the Nutritionfacts.org which is Dr Gregers website. It is a very poor interpretation of the two primary processes involved in metabolism.

 

[zand]

cooking oils that are a nice colour, are clear not cloudy and smell nice, have probably been industrially processed, and contain transfats as a result, Cold pressed oils are best, but carry a price penalty.

I won't be using cooking oils, I gave them up a long time ago. As for due diligence, I just want to lose the weight, I'm that desperate.

 

[AliB]

Per day. I am buying into the concept of eating plants not animals, not the claims made by WFPB. I got the figure of 14g fat by working on 80% carb cals, 10% fat and 10% protein. At 200g carbs that works out at only 999 calories. I do not want to restrict calories that much. I damaged my metabolism by doing that and it has taken years to improve it. So I went up to 250g carbs which gives the 14g fat. If I am hungry I will increase the carbs until I am satiated, the other 2 macros will stay the same. (just like LCHF in reverse). I did a virtually fat free diet 6 years ago and ended up in a lot of pain, so that's why I want as much as 14g.

This is simply an experiment by me on myself (just like my fat fast where I had something like 92% fat) I have been finding that I am wanting more carbs now and less fat, so now seems the right time to try it. I will let you know in 3 months or so. I don't expect to be too rigid about this, I will find out how to do it as I go along.

Dr. Neil Barnard's book on reversing diabetes seems a good place to start. I downloaded mine on Kindle. John McDougall's programme is good too and I am pretty sure much of that is on his website. Neither seem to restrict whole carbs specifically, unlike the 80/10/10. Joel Furhman seems to be another proponent with his Beans n Greens regimen.

There are a couple of McDougall groups, Neil Barnard, Michael Greger's Nutrition Facts and Cyrus Khambatta and Robby Barbaro of Mastering Diabetes (both of whom are Type 1) on Facebook. All have websites.

 

[AliB]

cooking oils that are a nice colour, are clear not cloudy and smell nice, have probably been industrially processed, and contain transfats as a result, Cold pressed oils are best, but carry a price penalty.

I have no problem with you going WFPB, but I hope you do due diligence research of your own to make sure your risk levels are low. I am doing the same thing here that I did for LCHF, and I note that whereas I found ample independant science studies to back the diet claims, I do NOT see this for WFPB, and this rings warning bells in my head, Sorry, its the way I am, but as the Romans say “Quod me nutrit, me destruit”

There are studies out there - Michael Greger seems to have quite a lot of references out there but unlike LCHF it is not (yet) in the psyche and the interest is not there. That does not mean there is no credence. Many of us were experimenting with LCHF long before the data was there. They do not start to do that until the anecdotal evidence becomes too great to ignore......

 

[AliB]

Sorry, what you write above is not the scientific explantion for catabolic or anabolic. It comes from the Nutritionfacts.org which is Dr Gregers website. It is a very poor interpretation of the two primary processes involved in metabolism.

I did not get this from Dr. Greger. Never heard him speak about it. This has been my viewpoint for many a year. Ok, it is a very basic interpretation - of course there are far more complex processes involved - but in layman' terms it is an easy way to understand it. Catabolism in essence is breaking down, anabolism in essence is building up. Do you mean to tell me I have had it wrong all these years....?

 

[Oldvatr]

I did not get this from Dr. Greger. Never heard him speak about it. This has been my viewpoint for many a year. Ok, it is a very basic interpretation - of course there are far more complex processes involved - but in layman' terms it is an easy way to understand it. Catabolism in essence is breaking down, anabolism in essence is building up. Do you mean to tell me I have had it wrong all these years....?

Your description in the 2nd to last sentance is better, When we digest food, we catabolise it so that complex carbohyrates gety broken down to become simpler bulding blocks, then the anabolic proces takes these products to build things like muscles, cartilage cholesterol, lipids, and bone,i.e. all the bits in the body that are not just energy i,e, glucose. The two processes go hand in hand, are essential, and healthy for us

To then say animal foods are anabolic, whereas plant foods are catabolic, , is very much a thought process too far. This is something the WFPB fraternity seen to preach quite often as an explanation as to why animal food is carcinogenic You call them toxic. The implication from this is not warranted by the WHO data, which shows there is a slight benefit from going vegetarian, but not a game changer rise in risk. The animal food contains more complex carbohydrates so needs more catabolising, but this releases more energy (i,e, calories) but is not inherently a danger - humans have been doing this for millenia. Without the long chain molecules from meat then our bodies have to work harder to manufacture things it needs, which consumes energy, This is why bodybuilders use anabolic steroids to put on muscle - its a short cut,.

For example, exogenic cholesterol such as in eggs and shellfish is not compatible with human cholesterol. It has the wrong shape and signalling labels. We need human cholesterol, or we die without it. So our body catalyses the incoming cholesterol, then uses bits of it to rebuild the type we can use. So to banish eggs and shellfish from our diet is actually forcing our bodies to manufacture it from scratch, which again uses more energy. It is a proven fallacy that eating cholesterol is dangerous.

 

[Oldvatr]

There are studies out there - Michael Greger seems to have quite a lot of references out there but unlike LCHF it is not (yet) in the psyche and the interest is not there. That does not mean there is no credence. Many of us were experimenting with LCHF long before the data was there. They do not start to do that until the anecdotal evidence becomes too great to ignore......

OK I looked up Dr Greger on the net, and got bombarded with pages of search entries selling his books. When I foud his website nutritionfacts.org, I did find buried a tweet of his where he stated that he used the Adventist-2 study report to back up his claims. Now I have seen this study before, and it does indeed come out with a lower all case mortality risk for vegetarians as opposed to non veggies. It divided the participants into 5 main groups, none of which was WFPB. I assume that a further trawl using the non-ovo, the non-lacto, the non-pescatorials might be interpreted as WFPB

<<<The reason I keep going back to that Adventist-2 study is that it’s not only the biggest study of those eating plant-based diets in North America, but the largest such study anywhere anytime. We owe those investigators a great debt (not to mention the 96,741 participants!). ..<<<<<

Actually they eliminated 20 odd thousand before they started so it was 73000.

I have viewed many of his videos and he has still not provided me with any description as to how the diet works, nor have I found any proper references either, even to the Adventist-2 study he cites.

I did find the following list of diseases 'cured' by WFPB in the section of videos specific to plant based diets
<<<A more plant-based diet may also help prevent Alzheimer’s disease, certain forms of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and Parkinsons, age-related macular degeneration, cataracts, Crohn’s disease, gallstones, kidney stones, diverticulosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis and vaginal infections

Additionally, plant-based eating may have a beneficial effect on abdominal fat, acne, aging, allergies, asthma, body odor, cellulite, childhood IQ, cognition, dysmenorrhea, eczema, gut flora, fibromyalgia, kidney stones, metabolic syndrome, menstrual breast pain, mood, multiple sclerosis, oral health, rheumatoid arthritis, waist circumference and weight control.>>>>>

Quite an impressive list if it can actually live up to it and produce the goods, I suppose one other it may cure is Metformin collywobbles.

 

[Pipp]

I would say that lchf is the best way to control diabetes. It worked for me for a few years, but my weight loss has stalled. I don't yet know about wfpb until I have tried it. The Newcastle diet is in effect high carb and seems to work because of its low calorie content.

I can identify with the notion of LCHF to control my T2. Like zand I have maintained weight on LCHF for about two years. By that I mean I keep losing and finding again the same 6kg. BG has remained below diagnostic levels as has HbA1c, apart from a scare on one occasion with straying into prediabetes 43. Last month HbA1c was 41, just on the cusp of pre-diabetes again. It scares me. I am of the opinion that I am almost at what ND Prof Taylor would call my person fat threshold. (I believe this can alter as we age, become less active, other health conditions, for example). So I too need to find a different eating regime perhaps? Lots of food for thought here. (Yeah, lousy pun, I know). I am limited by allergies / intolerances to some foods. Whilst I read up, and consider, I have embarked on another Very Low Calorie Diet /ND / 800 cal blood sugar diet. Emphasis is on calorie restriction. Will also have another shot at intermittent fasting. For me, and I am not suggesting it will suit everyone, the fasting /restricted calorie intake seems to stabilise some of my other health conditions. Of course, calorie restriction to below 800 is not a long term way of eating, but it is allowing me time to consider what to do next. I enjoy LCHF, but perhaps should not return to that until I have lost a fair bit more weight.

As an aside, @zand, I would query your comment about ND being high carb. Checking some of the meal replacement products I have at the moment, they have 12 or 13 g of carb per portion. With the requirement for 3 or 4 per day that would still come as low carb?

 

[zand]

As an aside, @zand, I would query your comment about ND being high carb. Checking some of the meal replacement products I have at the moment, they have 12 or 13 g of carb per portion. With the requirement for 3 or 4 per day that would still come as low carb?

I was remembering the Optifast ready to use meals that I looked up a while back as Optifast was what Professor Taylor used. They were 16g carbs each and 16g protein and almost 4g fat. So 3 of these meals a day = 48g carbs and 48g protein and 11g fat a day.. Add the 200 cals (50g of veggies) and you get 98g carbs 48g protein and 11g fat. So in calories that's roughly 57% carbs, 28% protein and 14% fat. Of course some of the veggies may have a little protein or fat and less carbs, but that's still a high carb diet, albeit a low cal one. I agree that if using the lower carb ones and only having the replacements they would come under the 50g limit for low carbers, (4x12) so on the face of it they are low carb. It's simply very low calorie so of course is low carb, low protein and low fat too in that sense. However looking at the original diet as a whole it isn't low carb as there are more carb calories than anything else.

 

[Pipp]

Thanks @zand
Just want to make sure that folks are not rejecting ND as high carb, per se. Certainly with the break down to proportions what you say makes more sense now you have explained.
I was looking simplistically as being low carb, by total grammes of carb per day. It was mentioned elsewhere that one cannot be in ketosis on ND, and I needed to clear that up too, because I was / am. Suggests that the carb content is low enough.
As there is a broader definition now about what a purist ND would be, as it has evolved and been redefined by the Newcastle team, there is ambiguity, and some confusion, even with those of us who have used it or considered it. Optifast is not readily available in UK, so I would urge anyone considering ND, with meal replacement products to check the carb content.
Not wishing to derail.
Good luck in your endeavour to solve your IR, zand. I hope you achieve success.

 

[loiphamp]

I would say that lchf is the best way to control diabetes. It worked for me for a few years, but my weight loss has stalled. I don't yet know about wfpb until I have tried it. The Newcastle diet is in effect high carb and seems to work because of its low calorie content.

So basically LCHF just control diabetes not to reverse.In USA have a couples online diabetes reverse clinic ,they do same thing like us follow LCHF program.I really cannot understand about diabetes reversing

 

[Pipp]

So basically LCHF just control diabetes not to reverse.In USA have a couples online diabetes reverse clinic ,they do same thing like us follow LCHF program.I really cannot understand about diabetes reversing

Hi @loiphamp
There is much debate about the definition of 'reversed diabetes'.
Members have reversed (meaning have non-diabetes blood glucose levels) by using LCHF.
My understanding is that reverse does not equal cure. It is possible that blood glucose levels can return to higher diabetic levels, if one does not find a way to control. Many continue to control by using LCHF.

 

[zand]

So basically LCHF just control diabetes not to reverse.In USA have a couples online diabetes reverse clinic ,they do same thing like us follow LCHF program.I really cannot understand about diabetes reversing

To me true reversal is when you can eat carbs again and still not be diabetic. So to me reversal would be a cure. Theoretically at least if you no longer are insulin resistant so that your body can produce and use enough insulin to keep your BGs in the non-diabetic levels even when you eat a normal amount of carbs, then you are cured (reversed) Some call controlling it by having less carbs a reversal too, but to me this is merely controlling it. Others may (will!!!!) argue with me on this point. I have controlled my T2 for 6 years , mostly by following LCHF, but if I eat a normal diet for more than a few days then my BGs get into the diabetic range again. The experiment I am trying isn't one I would recommend to a new T2, you need to get your BGs down to a good level and keep them there for a while first. (Again others may argue here) I would like to improve my insulin sensitivity and am trying to see if not having animal fats helps me to do this. If I get high BGs at any time I will stop.

 

[loiphamp]

To me true reversal is when you can eat carbs again and still not be diabetic. So to me reversal would be a cure. Theoretically at least if you no longer are insulin resistant so that your body can produce and use enough insulin to keep your BGs in the non-diabetic levels even when you eat a normal amount of carbs, then you are cured (reversed) Some call controlling it by having less carbs a reversal too, but to me this is merely controlling it. Others may (will!!!!) argue with me on this point. I have controlled my T2 for 6 years , mostly by following LCHF, but if I eat a normal diet for more than a few days then my BGs get into the diabetic range again. The experiment I am trying isn't one I would recommend to a new T2, you need to get your BGs down to a good level and keep them there for a while first. (Again others may argue here) I would like to improve my insulin sensitivity and am trying to see if not having animal fats helps me to do this. If I get high BGs at any time I will stop.

yes right now my fb is normal but i still taken med (500mg metformin daily)

 

[zand]

Metformin has protective uses against other things and that's a low dose, so no problem. If you're happy with the food you eat right now then I wouldn't change that. I'm trying plant based eating to lose weight. I have put on a pound after day 1 lol. So anyone who experiments should use caution