Atkins Horror!

[xyzzy]

Well perhaps these latest obesity figures might be helpful .... from the OECD ....

When it comes to knowing how to deal with obesity .... who would you believe ?



The UK has twice the obesity rate of Sweden ....

 

[xyzzy]

So now we want the straight shoot-out between you and Wiflib! Who gets the LCHF gold star for outstanding results!

She does, she beat me on almost every score:

HbA1c=4.9%
Total = 3.6
HDL = 0.9
Trigs = 0.99
LDL = 2.2
Total/HDL = 3.6

I'm glad, because wiflib is my low-carb hero.

As far as I know, me and Lib are the only two that religiously follow Bernstein at <30g a day. Do you think it's a coincidence that our results are so good?

I eat over 80% of my calories as fat, as much of it as possible as saturated fat. I'd be surprised if wiflib was much different.

Do we still think that eating saturated fat is bad for your blood lipid profile.

No statins for me today.

Wow! Brilliant! Fantastic! Well Done!

Looking forward to getting mine ....

Come on doubters what do you say to borofergie and wiflibs stunning results?

You can't have it both ways and trash LCHF Swedish or otherwise and then congratulate them both in open forum ....

 

[borofergie]

Well perhaps these latest obesity figures might be helpful .... from the OECD ....

When it comes to knowing how to deal with obesity .... who would you believe ?



The UK has twice the obesity rate of Sweden ....

Funnily enough, I tried correlating the obesity figures with the Diabetes rates from the interactive Atlas.

The two appear to be almost completely unrelated (there is no statistical correlation between them)., which kind of rubbishes the argument that obesity causes T2 diabetes.

 

[Defren]

Wow! Brilliant! Fantastic! Well Done!

Looking forward to getting mine ....

Come on doubters what do you say to borofergie and wiflibs stunning results?

You can't have it both ways and trash LCHF Swedish or otherwise and then congratulate them both in open forum ....

It's impossible to doubt with results like these, they are brilliant. Libby and Stephen really have pushed me to do even better with these amazing results. Well done you two, brilliant results!

 

[jopar]

As far as I know, me and Lib are the only two that religiously follow Bernstein at <30g a day. Do you think it's a coincidence that our results are so good?

No your wrong Stephen as Dillinger also follows a strict Bernstein diet and has done for several years, perhaps he may post his cholesterol results also so you can all compare.

That's true too. I was forgetting my T1 Low-Carb/Anchorman idol Dillinger. His HbA1c as a T1 blows the socks off mine.

Problem with comparing members individual results to the findings of this study really doesn't work, for various reasons...

A comparable comparison could be made between Dillinger and myself, both T1's and both use different dietary regimes! Not sure how long Dillinger has been following the VLC diet, but going by his very first post in 2009, then he's only been VLC'ing for around 3 years! As to my diet pretty traditional based, and the only difference between pre-diabetes and diabetes, is dropping things like sugar in coffee etc.. So could say a lot of history to my dietary regime..

So straight comparison, Dillinger's HbA1c's on his sig, is 6.1% my last one taken in April was 5.8%, Dillinger takes Metformin and several supplements he feels are beneficial I don't take any other medication apart from insulin, and my cholesterol is in the low 3's! So I could claim my way of doing things is better as the results are better! and no complications after 23 years.

But if you take a look at the Swedish 4 year study just released for T1 and VLC diet (75g's>) that study showed that precipitants who adhered to the diet for 4 years, were back to where they started from, weight dropped in the first 6 months, but then increased at the 24 month check, they were back to starting weight, their cholesterol level has increased slightly from the start of the trial!

But as I pointed out earlier that findings from LC/HF diets showed a very good conclusion when monitored for a short period, 3 months, 6 months but extend the period time to the trial then the picture get murkier as two factors hit's most of the trials, in general the drop out rate of the precipitants which both seem to be higher the lower the carbs are reduced, and then over time increases the drop out rate! Going back to the T1 study, 52% drop out rate, before year 2 of the study, sadly apart from mention 3 dropped out after the first meeting, no time scale provided where others stopped adhering to the diet regime just it happen between 3month's and 24 months!

But going back to the study itself...

Now there's diff something going on with Fats as Fat increased carb consumption dropped and cholesterol went up!

So perhaps it's isn't Fat alone nor is it Carb's alone but how people combine the two within their diets...

But to me it suggests, that some proper long term and when I say long term I mean, 10-15 plus rather than the norm 6 month trail is carried out..

As this study goes to show it isn't as clean cut as some like to suggest it is..

 

[wiflib]

My total cholesterol was only 3.2 on diagnosis, most of which was the bad stuff. My HDL was almost non-existent and my HbA1c was about 5.6

My Chol has stabilised now and HbA1c dropped. As a trend, it's is what I've seen here, on other blogs and forums and amongst my mates, most of whom are doctors and Midwives.

 

[xyzzy]

Going back to the T1 study, 52% drop out rate, before year 2 of the study, sadly apart from mention 3 dropped out after the first meeting, no time scale provided where others stopped adhering to the diet regime just it happen between 3month's and 24 months!

Like I said in last nights post Jopar 48% adhered to the T1 low carb diet that's 15% MORE than T1's who adhere to the regime they're told here in the UK.

Over the period of the trial the 48% who adhered REDUCED their hBA1C's significantly.

How on earth do you get that to be a failure?

 

[borofergie]

I'm getting rather tired of hearing what we shouldn't do.
"Atkins is dangerous"
"Too much saturated fat is bad for your cholesterol"
"Low-carb is not sustainable"

How about some positive advice on what we should do, rather than what we shouldn't?

 

[Defren]

I'm getting rather tired of hearing what we shouldn't do.
"Atkins is dangerous"
"Too much saturated fat is bad for your cholesterol"
"Low-carb is not sustainable"

How about some positive advice on what we should do, rather than what we shouldn't?

+1

 

[xyzzy]

I'm getting rather tired of hearing what we shouldn't do.
"Atkins is dangerous"
"Too much saturated fat is bad for your cholesterol"
"Low-carb is not sustainable"

How about some positive advice on what we should do, rather than what we shouldn't?

Yes or constantly spin data to suit their own purposes .... Those who have criticised in the context of this thread have yet to show ....

1) Why we shouldn't take advice from Sweden .... the country that has the second lowest rate of diabetes in the industrialised world.

2) Why when Sweden's obesity rate is half that of the UK .... it must obviously be worse at telling it's people what a good diet is.

3) Why an increase of 15% in adherence rates and subsequent reductions in HbA1c .... is a thing to be discouraged.

4) Why the increase seen in cholesterol is not .... purely or partially down to an increase in good HDL levels.

5) Why whenever anyone anti to LCHF is asked "Well what diet ratios do you follow" .... they never tell you a straight answer.

All of this makes no sense to me .... or am I just being plain stupid ... Perhaps someone would like to explain ....

 

[viviennem]

Viv,

I dont mean to be dim.. But what is a "diagnosis profile"..

Or it could be the lasck of sugar making me dim.. lol lol

Simple H.

What I meant was, that Borofergie should ask for a copy of the lipid profile he had done at diagnosis, and compare it with the lipid profile they'll prepare on today's blood sample.

A Total Cholesterol figure can be quite misleading; more important is how much HDL, LDL, triglycerides you have, and particularly the ratio of Total/HDL. This is a lipid profile. Your doctor should ask the lab for a full lipid profile whenever your cholesterol levels are checked, and you are entitled to a copy of this - it's part of your medical records. I started getting mine in 2007, and I have every one since being diagnosed Type 2 - quarterly tests since April 2010.

Cholesterol is a very complex subject, and there are far more "types" of it in your blood than just HDL, LDL and trigs; for instance, 'dense' LDL particles are very bad for you, while 'soft, fluffy' LDL particles are fine. There are also alpha and beta particles, and all sorts of other things! :?

Don't query me further, please - I'm not a scientist, just trying to keep myself informed! But I have a sneaky suspicion that some General Practitioners may know no more about it than I do - they can't all be experts in everything (not even diabetes! :wink: :lol: ).

I drink too much wine, which is bad for cholesterol levels, in particular triglycerides. I'm having my next blood tests tomorrow, so we'll see what my 'Atkins plus wine' does to my cholesterol levels. I'll gladly post my results when they come back.

Please let's keep things civilised and not get this thread locked - it's much too interesting! But even if it is locked - I'll still post my results.

Viv 8)

 

[IanD]

Just had a 20 min chat with DUK Careline about low carb. I haven't been able to contact the young lady I met at the Hounslow meeting. She insisted on the importance of carbs in the diet, accepted that my experience was of interest, & recommended thatI send my data to their research dept.

Next Hounslow meeting is again on diet:
26/06/2012

talk 1
Diabetes specialist dietician: Topic to be advised

talk 2
Stroke and Cardiac Rehabilitation Dietitian: Topic to be advised

As the organiser wrote after my talk:
"At our next meeting we will have two dieticians - perhaps they will be able to make an input into this debate."

 

[xyzzy]

A Total Cholesterol figure can be quite misleading; more important is how much HDL, LDL, triglycerides you have, and particularly the ratio of Total/HDL. This is a lipid profile.

Agree entirely as does "Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease: The discrepancy between the scientific literature and dietary advice" which was published in "Nutrition" earlier this year.

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(11)00314-5/fulltext

It effectively highlights the difference between what scientists found to be the case regarding cholesterol and CVD and what actually got put out by various major advisory committees around the world.

It makes a very shocking conclusion

The results and conclusions about saturated fat intake in relation to CVD, from leading advisory committees, do not reflect the available scientific literature.

For example we are all told in the UK the strongest predictor of CVD risk is total cholesterol, no one can deny there has been a drive in recent years to get everyone's total cholesterol value under 4. Whenever we go to our GP's they try and stuff statins at us to get the number under 4. What most research actually shows is its the ratio between total and HDL which is the key value not the total.

analysis of 61 prospective studies found the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol to be the strongest predictor of ischemic heart disease mortality

HDL is "good" cholesterol that by definition does your heart and body good. You will implicitly get more of it by adopting LCHF. You can see the results by looking at Borofergies, wiflibs or even my own lipid profile.

....

It's there in black and white and no amount of spinning and misinformation or even ignoring the results by some will change that fact. As Stephen, I and many others on this forum keep saying if you know of a better system for maintaining excellent blood levels and cholesterol levels for diet only T2's then rather than keep trashing our way tell us your way and importantly be as open about sharing your experiences as we have. We have nothing to hide so tell us what your carbohydrate, fat and protein ratios are, tell us some typical meals you eat, how many carbs, how many calories, what your meter is telling you. It's certainly not a taboo subject to discuss on a diabetic forum I would hope.

....

I really would like to hear this better way you have.

....

 

[borofergie]

A Total Cholesterol figure can be quite misleading; more important is how much HDL, LDL, triglycerides you have, and particularly the ratio of Total/HDL. This is a lipid profile.

I agree too. If your trigs are OK, you can probably discount the rest.

Total Cholesterol is a ridiculous made up number.

 

[lucylocket61]

I would really like detailed info from the ones who do not do what xyzzy and borofergie and similar ones do.

Not because i doubt xyzzy or brorfergie's word or results, but to enable me to take a balanced view and make an informed decision based on factual (albeit anecdotal) evidence for other types of eating.

at the moment i am only getting detailed info from one side about their day-to-day methods of control.

PS What type of eating is it called that borofergie, xyzzy and other similar posters do? Is it LCHF, or something else?

Completely confused of Coventry.

 

[borofergie]

I would really like detailed info from the ones who do not do what xyzzy and borofergie and similar ones do.

Not because i doubt xyzzy or brorfergie's word or results, but to enable me to take a balanced view and make an informed decision based on factual (albeit anecdotal) evidence for other types of eating.

at the moment i am only getting detailed info from one side about their day-to-day methods of control.

PS What type of eating is it called that borofergie, xyzzy and other similar posters do? Is it LCHF, or something else?

Completely confused of Coventry.

I agree Lucy. The low-carbers often get moaned at for dominating the conversation, but in a democracy of ideas, the best ones get the most attention.

What me and wiflib do could probably be called "Very Low Carb" or "Ultra Low Carb" or "Ketogenic".
50 to 150g is probably LCHF.

I honestly think that above 50g is the place to be for most people. However, if you can manage <30g, then I think that there are benefits in terms in terms of BG and blood lipid control.

Why don't you start a "Share your diet" thread? It would be interesting to know how much carb, fat, and protein people typically eat. If only to demonstrate that there are several equally valid methods of getting good BG control.

 

[Scardoc]

[quote="borofergie, but in a democracy of ideas, the best ones get the most attention.

[/quote]

Unless your in Government :lol:

 

[lucylocket61]

Borofergie: thread started here http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30311

Scardoc: who told you this country is run by a Democracy?? They lied!!!

 

[Grazer]

I would really like detailed info from the ones who do not do what xyzzy and borofergie and similar ones do.

Well, I'm a mile away from borofergie does, and a half-mile from xyzzy! I think it all boils down to the same thing though ultimately. I think we ALL accept that a T2 on diet only/metformin can't get good BGs on normal amount of carbs that non-diabetics eat. So we ALL reduce them, or accept the higher bg figures, or go on stronger meds. It's just that borofergie has gone REALLY low on the carbs (and got exceptional results), and as a result has had to replace those carbs with something, choosing fats (hence LCHF) I, on the other hand, am happy to accept the risks of a slightly higher BG (A1C of 5.7% is good enough for an old sheep like me) so don't have so many carbs to replace with fat or protein; although I applaud those like borofergie and Wiflib who make the effort. Xyzzy sits in between. Even so, with my REDUCED carbs, I've seen good improvements not just in A1c but in cholesterol and BP; and weight, although now with BMI 22 I don't want to lose more. So I think in us, you have a spectrum of highish carbs to downright ultra low saying the same thing, and getting graduated results as you'd expect.
Not sure what you wanted when you asked for "detailed info..." apart from that?

 

[lucylocket61]

Thank you Grazer. Thats great info. I can see from your bottom what meds you are on too and what type you are so I can take that into account as well.