DUK's new position statement on Low carbing.

[ally5555]

Morning - I am up early!

there are several things to address here.

Daibell - Dietitians understand perfectly well how the body works. Let me explain how they qualify. They complete a 4 year BSc Hons degree - a year longer than most. They are usually in uni every day - unlike most degrees today. I have taught on a dietetics degree so I have experience of that, They study physiology, biochem etc to the same level as medical students. They also have 3 placements during the 4 years - hospital , community etc but are supervised. When they qualify they usually do general dietetics befor specialising. They are governed by a code of conduct from the health Professions Council - cannot see pts without the medical notes, cannot give one to one advice without them ( hence I do not on here) and cannot endorse products or sell supplements!
There are very few of us - only around 6 500 registered for the whole of the Uk so as a professionwe are drowning in work! They do not just see diabetics - if I am being honest as a younger dietitian I had no interest in diabetes as I wanted to do more specialist nutrition - ICU, special care babies and now sport. I think Diabetes is a bit of a cinderalla service really. I am not saying that is right by the way but I can understand why dietitians would want to work in a different area!

They look at evidence - of which there is an abundance on both sides of the carb camp!

Viv - that talk was obviously very general and not a substitute for a one to one which is very focussed on you as an individual.

Ka - mon - thank you for telling us your experience. I am certain there are many more like you! In my own practice I see pts very quickly after diagnosis and I am convinced this makes a huge difference. I take a moderate approach and I am seeing many pts with excellent control - why is this without the need to cut carbs to an extremenly low level. I think it is early intervention, portion control and advice that is sustainable.
Perhaps later I will post a dietary calculation showing how carbs are worked out - but for now I am off to my public duty - I am on jury service!

Allyx

 

[benniesmum]

I thought the article was quite balanced.

The problem seems to be the lack of long term wide scale research into the impact of different diets on diabetes. Like many people here, my own experience is that lowering my carb intake has been good. But, equally, I know others who are very happy with a greater carb intake. The other issue is the quality of carbs eaten too. Perhaps, rather than banging on about the virtues of low carbing, what we should really be doing is pressing for more research.

Incidentally, the message I got from my dietician (and Doc) was to try it and see how it worked for me.

 

[Ka-Mon]

Ka - mon - thank you for telling us your experience. I am certain there are many more like you! In my own practice I see pts very quickly after diagnosis and I am convinced this makes a huge difference. I take a moderate approach and I am seeing many pts with excellent control - why is this without the need to cut carbs to an extremenly low level. I think it is early intervention, portion control and advice that is sustainable.
Perhaps later I will post a dietary calculation showing how carbs are worked out - but for now I am off to my public duty - I am on jury service!

Allyx

As far as I am concerned "portion control" is the key word for diabetics as it is for non-diabetics. It is common knowledge that if a non-diabetic person eats more than what his/her body needs then that person is going to put weight on. It is also common knowledge that if a diabetic person eats more carbs than his/her body can handle then that persons BG is going to go sky high. Therefore, it is imperative that every diabetic has got to control how much carbs he/she consumes, how much carbs one eats depends on how bad their disease is or how much control they personally want.

Not every diabetics pancreas produces the same amount of insulin so therefore some people may be able to consume more carbs than others. I am happy to keep my after meals BG between 6 and 8. Then there are people who are not satisfied if their BG is not in the 4's with or without medication, that's their choice and I respect their decision. The only thing I can not accept is people telling me that I am going to lose my limbs, go blind and die a horrible death if I eat more than 50 carbs a day and/or restrict how much fat I eat without knowing my medical history. Eating fat isn't just a medical thing for people like myself, taste has a lot to do with it as well, I just don't like a mouth full of fat, neither does my clapped out and clogged arteries.

Live and let live, let everyone decide for themselves what's best for them, then, if something was to go wrong then we can't blame anyone but ourselves.

 

[IanD]

The big problem is D UK's official advice.

Its a 2010 revision, but the pernicious advice is unchanged.

Why is carbohydrate important?
All carbohydrate is converted into glucose and will have an impact on blood glucose levels. As this is the case, some people with diabetes wonder if it would be better not to have any
carbohydrate in their diet to keep their glucose levels under control. This is not recommended as:
• glucose from carbohydrate is essential to the body, especially the brain
• high fibre carbohydrates, such as wholegrains and fruit, also play an important role in the health of the gut
• some carbohydrates may help you to feel fuller for longer after eating.

How much do I need?
The actual amount of carbohydrate that the body needs varies depending on your age, weight and activity levels, but it should make up about half of what you eat and drink. For good health most of this should be from starchy carbohydrate, fruits and some dairy foods, with no more than one fifth of your total carbohydrate to come from added sugar or table sugar.
(See pages 11–13 for a clearer guide.)

When you look at pages 11-13, it would be quite difficult to eat the amount we SHOULD eat daily:
the equivalent of
7 - 14 slices of bread;
14 - 28 new potatoes;
14 - 42 tablespoons of mashed potato or rice
etc.

 

[catherinecherub]

The big problem is D UK's official advice.



When you look at pages 11-13, it would be quite difficult to eat the amount we SHOULD eat daily:
the equivalent of
7 - 14 slices of bread;
14 - 28 new potatoes;
14 - 42 tablespoons of mashed potato or rice
etc.

When you look at the top of Page 11, it says,

"A good way to see if you are achieving the right balance is to think about how many portions of these foods you normally eat and see how it compares with the table below.
Everyone's nutritional needs are different and you may need more or less portions than those suggested."

It also says, " If you are trying to lose weight the size of your portions may need to change. Check with your Dietitian for specific advice"

I also think it is not saying you need 7 portions of one particular starchy carb, like the bread mentioned, but a variety of them. Many here include a small portion of starchy carbs with their meals and it works for them. It all comes down to what you can tolerate, not what someone else can.

Portion control works for me.

 

[Daibell]

Allyx

Thanks for your clarification of qualifications; the training sounds excellent. I wonder whether some of the dietitions in the media are not actually fully qualified as such.

 

[IanD]

This is a very significant point on the website's The low carb diabetes diet debate

On the last point about long term research studies, it could also be argued that there is also a lack of long term studies, specifically relating to people with diabetes, which confirm patient safety of the Department of Health’s recommended diet.

My personal observation, after following that diet for 7-8 years, is that it does not protect from serious complications.

 

[ally5555]

Hi Ian and everyone

I have just had an email from Mark Daley - bounced back.

When I get a mo I will ring my contact in Exeter - prob after easter as when a holiday is looming hospitals are manic!

You know my opinion of DMUK and their meal plans - they are awful and encourage sugar!

The food plate has been validated but what you all forget is that it is just a tool to teach people food groups. For some , I hasten to say not all, using the groups on the plate is the easiest way to explain food. Not everyone understands the terms CHO, Fat and protein!

Daibell - I am glad that made it clear. There is an added complication - most of the people on the TV are NOT Dietitians. In fact the term is protected and you can only call yourself one if you are - some have been taken to court!

People like Gillian Mckeith , Patrick Holford , John Briffa etc call themselves nutritionists as any one can - they have no respected qualifications ! The Assocoation for Nutrition ( Nutrition Society ) has set up a professional register for graduates - some of these so called nutritionists have done a weekend course! Eventually I hope they will also protect the term Nutritionist. I am currently applying to join the register and I have to complete a portfolio which is peer reveiwed!

Allyx

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Lumbering round the US in an RV at the moment so I have limited online time.
So I'm posting this before reading all the thread - will get back to it next stop.

The DUK report said:

"If carbohydrate intake is severely restricted and glucose stores are exhausted, the fat stores will be broken down and used as energy. During this process ketones are produced and excreted in the urine: this is known as ketosis. Approximately 50–70g per day of carbohydrate is required to prevent ketosis "

Taken as a stand alone statement this seems to imply that this is the only way that fat is broken down. Surely this can not be so!

It also implies that any use of fat results in ketosis, which may well be true but then you wonder what the issue is because anybody losing weight through e.g. increased exercise must be experiencing ketosis.

It also says:

"Low-carbohydrate diet: less than 130g per day (26%) of a 2000kcal diet"
So you can officially low carb in the range 70-130g per day and stay clear of the ketosis line.

So my overall point is that on first read through there seem to be logical inconsitencies and possible ommissions in the report which cloud the positive information.

The one thing they seem to focus on is that the possitive short term effects may not last beyond a year.
This is the point levelled at ALL diet plans because a diet is seen as a short term thing, and only a permanent change in eating habits will maintain any short term gains.

Oh, and there seems to be little or no consideration of people who are NOT on medication.
Possibly because most people get put on Metformin or similar as a matter of course, but hypos due to medication combined with low carbing are not an issue for many on diet & exercise only.
[Still need to have that discussion with Sue about hypos for T2 D&E if it hasn't already happened.]

The open road is calling!

Oh, and the US is a bad place for people with diabetes - EVERYTHING has sugar added as a matter of course.
The good old standby of baked beans (as we know them in the UK) are not available. The local version usually have bacon added, and even heinz "vegetarian" baked beans have dollops of brown sugar added.
They boast if their bread is not loaded with modified corn starch.

Cheers

LGC

P.S.
Oh, Wikipedia says:

"When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) is cleaved to give 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process called lipolysis. Most of the body is able to use fatty acids as an alternative source of energy in a process called beta-oxidation. One of the products of beta-oxidation is acetyl-CoA, which can be further used in the Krebs cycle. During prolonged fasting or starvation, acetyl-CoA in the liver is used to produce ketone bodies instead, leading to a state of ketosis.

During starvation or a long physical training session, the body starts using fatty acids instead of glucose. The brain cannot use long-chain fatty acids for energy because they are completely albumin-bound and cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Not all medium-chain fatty acids are bound to albumin. The unbound medium-chain fatty acids are soluble in the blood and can cross the blood-brain barrier.[1] The ketone bodies produced in the liver can also cross the blood-brain barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into acetyl-CoA and used in the Krebs cycle.

The ketone body acetoacetate will slowly decarboxylate into acetone, a volatile compound that is both metabolized as an energy source and lost in the breath and urine."

Which still leaves me confused, but it looks at though you may only have problems when you are burning fat at an extended rate.

 

[cugila]

Just a point about hypo's for T2's on diet and exercise only.......

There have been several discussions on here over the years, anybody can suffer from a hypo....even a non-Diabetic......it just means low blood sugar levels. There are sites where they tell us that T2's not on medication cannot hypo.......evidence shows they can and do......

A T2 should, if the levels are left untreated 'liver dump' which should elevate Bg levels.

A non-Diabetic has the same process but will usually be able to go to much lower levels before this happens as there normal Bg levels are usually not as high as many Diabetic's.

So....even if you are a T2 on diet and exercise alone......you CAN suffer from a hypo. It's well documented here from Member's own experiences (including Sue) and also on other sites. However, it seems that many HCP's are not aware of this in some cases......I too was told many years ago that unless I am on medication I can't hypo......really ? Well I have. One DSN I spoke to recently conceded that it CAN happen if Bg levels are normally run very low or drop too low, missed meals, too little carbs, intense exercise etc. You don't have to be on medication. It is more likely if on medication but not unknown if you are not.

So.....YES they can hypo.......when levels are below 4 mmol/l. That is the floor..... We frequently see comments that if you are not on medication then you cannot hypo.......presumably those that do are wrong when they see levels of 3.9 mmol/l or lower whilst on NO medication......

 

[Alanej]

It is certainly possible to have a hypo as a T2. I'm on 1 gram of Metformin, aged 64 and T2 for 3 years. I follow a fairly low carb regime, which keeps my HbA1c at 6.2 or so.

Last summer I took a cable car to the top of an Alp and walked down. This was after some eggs and ham for breakfast, but no carbs. I decended some 1000m, and by the time I got to the bottom some 4 hours later (it was very steep!) it was as if I was drunk. I was staggering, and could only walk very short distances at a time with frequent rests. As an ex-cyclist, I recognised what we called "the bonk", which is a depletion of blood sugar and liver reserves. Once I reached a bar and ate something I quickly recovered. This year, following advice on this forum from a marathon runner, I ate some carbs each morning before skiing, and had chilli for lunch (it was in the USA) and had no problems. You need to suit your diet to what you will be doing during the day, and before a lot of exercise, stock up on some carbs at least.

Alan E-J

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Now in Oregon on the coast

Reading the DUK report again, the first part seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the Atkins Diet (which although low carb is not the only low carb diet).

One thing which looks odd, is:

"Nutritional adequacy should be considered ensuring that optimal amounts of vitamins, minerals and fibre are supplied by the diet."

[No sh*t Sherlock!]

Now I wasn't aware that you got most of your vitamins, minerals and fibre from carbs.
If you cut out the processed carbs - white rice, pasta, bread, cakes etc. - and the bulk easily absorbed carbs like mashed potato then you will have massively reduced the amount of carbs in the average Western diet.

From the Wiki on Atkins

"Preferred foods in all categories are whole, unprocessed foods with a low glycemic index, although restrictions for low glycemic carbohydrates (black rice, vegetables, etc.) are the same as those for high glycemic carbohydrates (sugar, white bread)."

This is probably where low carb regimes may diverge from Atkins - and where the risk of constipation may come from.

I think they may not be presenting their views in the best way, as there is a lot of sense hidden in there. There just seems to be an overlay of a negative tone.

Hmmm.....

"Cutting out highly processed carbs and bulk fillers such as mashed potatoes, sugars, rice, pasta, cakes etc. can help to reduce weight and improve blood glucose control.

Care must be taken, however, to ensure that adequate vitamins, minerals and fibre are included in the diet from sources such as beans, pulses, and raw and cooked vegetables."

To me, that seems to say much the same thing but in a positive way.

It is possible that their concerns are based around people who do not follow a healthy balanced diet anyway, and who may get their only fibre from bread and potatoes.

Oh, and

"Moderate-carbohydrate diet: 130–225g per day (26–45%) of a 2000kcal diet"

followed by

"For the purpose of this position statement, the term “low-carbohydrate” is used as a collective term to describe any amount of carbohydrate restriction which is less than the dietary reference value of 45% of total energy."

This seems to invalidate most of the conclusions of the report, unless ketosis, dizziness, constipation etc. are general when your diet consists of 40% carbs.

The information they present seems to be very positive, but presented in a negative way.

To summarise (enough quoting) a low carb diet can significantly reduce weight and improve blood glucose control over the short term (6 months) and even after the rebound weight and blood glucose are generally still better than at the start of the diet.

The report then states that weight loss over the period of a year can be achieved just as effectively by other means but neglects to mention blood glucose control in this context.

[To turn that around, over the period of a year a low carb diet is at least as effective as other approaches to achieve weight loss and blood glucose control.]

Not enough studies are available to show benefits beyond one year; so obviously there are not enough studies to show any negative aspects beyond a year.

Potential thumbs up for low (or was that moderate?) carb diets for 6 months+ with the caution that more studies are needed to asses the long term (1 year+) pros and cons.

There - same data, slightly different tone.

They also seem to miss the point that carbs seem to be an appetite stimulant - that alone is a good reason to reduce them.

The big positive message seems to be that the view of DUK seems to be moving towards approval of low (or at least moderate) carb diets but there is still a negative overlay, possibly due to the historical advice about keeping to a high carb diet.

Cheers

LGC

[P.s. apologies if this repeats earler posts - I am still wading through the previous pages.]

 

[AlcalaBob]

I'm type 2 and I confess to having been a little skeptical six months ago when I started the low carb, largely because of the scare stories about gut and kidney problems. But I thought I'd give it a go. There was an immediate improvement in my BG levels including waking levels. It's been going down steadily ever since, as has my weight.

I don't eat any potatoes, bread, pasta or rice but pretty much anything else as long as it doesn't contain sugar. I never feel hungry and always have plenty of energy and as far as I know I've never had a hypo. The first three weeks or so my gut complained but then it also did when I started Metformin years ago. After a few weeks, no problem.

From my point of view, I can't see why the low carb isn't the first recommendation given by health professionals to type 2 diabetics as the risks are minimal compared with the risks of continued elevated BG levels.

One thing I noticed is that although DUK make the point that there is very little reliable evidence, they don't list any current research in their directory concerned with type 2 and low carb diets. If I was feeling cynical, I might suspect that drug companies which have more interest in maintaining chronic illnesses with drugs than curing them, are exerting a conscious or unconscious effect on the research agenda... surely not.

 

[IanD]

According to this page from DUK, there is a 2yr. study going on.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Arc ... c_control/

Royal Devon and Exeter Trust. Reducing carb intake for achieving weight loss and risk factor control in Type 2 Diabetes.

This study will aim to see if a LCD can work for up to two years, both in losing weight and keeping it off.

According to this link DRN 026 (Diet and weight loss) the study was completed in 2005 & published. That study is NOT included in the D UK "Position Statement." Can anyone locate it?

I have clicked on your link, & looked at the D UK "Research project directory." That Exeter study would not appear to be current.

The Research Dept have given me the link, though I cannot get beyond the Abstract as I am not a health professional. I could pay for it, but seeing the abstract, I don't think I'll bother.

Abstract

Objective
This study sought to examine the effects of a 3-month programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese subjects with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes.

Research design and methods
One hundred and two patients with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure were assessed at baseline and 3 months. Dietary quality was assessed at the end of study.

Results
Weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate (LC) group (−3.55 ± 0.63, mean ± sem) vs. −0.92 ± 0.40 kg, P = 0.001) and cholesterol : high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio improved (−0.48 ± 0.11 vs. −0.10 ± 0.10, P = 0.01). However, relative saturated fat intake was greater (13.9 ± 0.71 vs. 11.0 ± 0.47% of dietary intake, P < 0.001), although absolute intakes were moderate.

Conclusions
Carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake.

That Exeter study has been referred to on the forum for years as something significant & worth waiting for. It's been published for 5 years & tells us little.

 

[AliB]

I don't post on here very often but couldn't resist chipping in on this one.

One thing that has been driven home to me over the last three years since I started all my research, is that the Western Diet is VERY devoid of nutrition.

Oh yes, much is touted about calories and fibre and this and that, but what the body needs above anything is nutrition. That means Amino Acids, Fatty Acids, Vitamins, Minerals and Trace Elements. These are the ingredients that make up the body. These are the elements that are being used all the time, and these are the elements that need to be replaced.

The body needs proteins for building and repair, fatty acids (including the ones in those 'evil' saturated fats) for many of its processes including the construction of many hormones and the vitamins, minerals and trace elements for a huge array of healing and support.

Any food that has been denatured - in other words stripped of all or any part of it's nutritional composition, is rendered toxic to the body. Despite our assumption that we can throw whatever we like down our throat and the body will gaily deal with it, that doesn't happen. The body needs ALL the nutrition that is present in a natural food to enable it to be metabolised properly.

Sadly, many people are oblivious to the fact that much of their food has been denatured. They throw the sugar and the bread and the cakes etc., down their throats without a backward glance, unaware that these foods have been stripped of a lot of the nutrients that would help the body digest them. The body is not an infinite resource. We were designed to eat live nutritional food - not 'dead' or 'empty' calories. If we continue to eat food that takes away more than it gives, eventually the body ends up in nutritional deficit and things start to break down.

Sugar is a 'dead' food - it is 'empty' calories. Wheat products have often been stripped of nutrition - the wheatgerm, the bit that contains much of the nutrition is often removed because it makes the flour go rancid - and that ain't good for profit. If you see on a packet the words 'with added vitamins' you can be jolly sure they have just put back a fraction of what they have removed. Whilst natural food is nutritionally balanced, processed food isn't. As Michael Pollan rightly says, as soon as you apply 'reductionist science' to food and try to break it down into it's component parts you are losing the 'plot'. Whole food is far greater than the sum of its parts. It is symbiotic. All the elements in a whole food work together to give the greatest benefit - like all the workers on a production line keep it running smoothly. Take a couple out and it all falls apart.

Just because the body doesn't wave a red flag and shout at us when we have eaten something it doesn't recognise, doesn't mean that it isn't doing some kind of damage to us. Of course, it does wave a red flag - and often several, but we pay no attention, ruling out the joint pains, or the neuropathy, or the headaches, as part of life and getting old - because 'everyone else' gets them (but then they are all eating the nutrient devoid diet too). The Govermental pathetic advice to eat 'five a day' is pointless if the other 55 you are eating are robbing the body blind of the bit of nutrition you do get.

But virtually everyone I know who has dumped these denatured foods - namely the sugars and processed carbs, has benefitted. Their BG levels have improved, their neuropathy has gone, their cholesterol has lowered, their eyesight has often improved, and many other health problems have either gone or radically improved. What is also important in the scheme of things is that they are now far less of a drain on the Medical system.

What they have replaced the denatured foods with, is higher nutrition. With REAL food - complete food - full of vitamins, minerals, trace elements, protein and fatty acids.

How anyone - including DUK can say that those adopting a low-carb regime are at risk of nutritional deficiency beats me........... :?: They should be actively encouraging it, not suggesting it as an 'option'. As someone logically pointed out recently, they say that low-carb hasn't been trialled over a long period so they can't recommend it long-term - but the fact that a good percentage of the human race has been eating this way for thousands of years - and most are and have been generally a lot healthier than we are as a result - isn't that a long enough trial?? If it was that bad, surely they would have died out long ago. The human body is capable of adapting to all sorts of food - even high carb, as long as it is natural and nutritionally complete. As soon as you introduce denatured food the body - and society suffers.

PS. Not only are lots of thing healing in my body as a result of all-natural low-carb, but my dentist is very impressed. From going from someone who had to have at least one filling nearly every visit, I haven't needed any work for over 4 years and my teeth are healthier than they have been for a long time - so are my nails, and my skin, and....and....and.....

 

[AlcalaBob]

Although I can go along with the general tenor of the previous post, it's based on some very unusual and incorrect notions of nutrition and human biology.

"Any food that has been denatured - in other words stripped of all or any part of it's nutritional composition, is rendered toxic to the body." - this is utterly incorrect and misleading. The body itself has to denature "natural" foods so that the important nutritional elements can be extracted. It's what your digestive enzymes do.

These foods certainly don't become toxic just because they've been processed. There is an enormous amount of hype about so-called toxins. They don't accumulate in the body, and you don't produce toxins just by processing food. It's simply incorrect and this might scare people who don't realise. Processed foods almost certainly don't have the same composition as the unprocessed food and typically have lots of additional sugar and salt, neither of which incidentally is toxic, even if harmful in high quantities.

"Sugar is a 'dead' food - it is 'empty' calories." This doesn't mean anything. Sugar is a carbohydrate which really does have a measurable calorific value - a number which measures the chemical potential energy content. There is no such thing as an empty calorie any more than there is such a thing as an empty centimeter.

"Whole food is far greater than the sum of its parts. It is symbiotic." Nice thought, but not nutritionally true, and "symbiotic" is definitely not the right word. The body doesn't know whether it has received its protein and fats from a processed or unprocessed source and cannot tell. It treats them all the same way.

What as diabetics, we need to be aware of is the composition of the food whether processed or "natural", and its potential for generating glucose in the blood. That's what is really, really important. It doesn't matter whether or not we are eating natural or processed food - natural pineapple will still send your BG rocketing. We need to monitor everything we eat and we certainly shouldn't assume that "natural" is in any way safer.

 

[AliB]

Fruit isn't safer for us diabetics simply because our ability to process it is already impaired. Our bodies cannot differentiate between good and bad carbs because that process in us is damaged.

Cultures and communities that don't get diabetes don't get it because they eat an all natural diet. As soon as they are exposed to the Western diet - and the high processed carbs, they get diabetes. Take the Eskimo, Australian Aborigines and the American Indians as a typical illustration. On their indigenous diet they had no diabetes, on the Western diet they are rife with it.

You stated that the body has to denature the food to extract the 'important nutritional elements' - and you are absolutely right - but that is dependent on whether there is any nutrition in the food to start with. When the body is denaturing already denatured food what is there to extract? Or use? Other than calories. Calories are fuel - not nutrition.

I beg to differ about toxins. They most certainly DO accumulate in the body. My body has been detoxing for several months and shows no sign of letting up yet. I won't go into the gory details - but believe me I know there is deep detoxing going on - that wasn't happening anything like this until my body started to get strong enough to deal with it. Some people may have bodies that are more efficient at eliminating toxins than others (and they are likely to be the most healthy in society), but not all do, and the sicker we get the less able the body is to get rid of the toxins. Once it is out of balance, normal process don't function as they should. If the body is short of certain elements it cannot fulfil those processes. It can't detox properly. It cannot work with what it doesn't have!

Osteoporosis is the body's way of trying to keep the major organs going in the face of nutritional deficiency. It draws off the minerals it needs from the bones as they are deemed less important than the heart. Unlike raw milk which is complete with all it's vitamins, minerals, trace elements, enzymes and important microbes, pasteurized milk has lost much of it's nutrition and the enzymes and microbes are destroyed - microbes that would supply a lot of elements in the gut - like valuable B vitamins. Because is is partly denatured, the calcium in milk is not available to the body and generally goes straight through. Is it any wonder that the Countries with the highest dairy consumption also have the highest Osteoporosis??? It may contain calcium, but the body can't use it.

Going back to toxins, drug side-effects are typically things like vomiting, diarrhoea and rashes. Why? Because these are all routes the body uses to get rid of stuff it doesn't want. If you have eaten something 'dodgy' you will vomit or have diarrhoea. If you consume anything the body considers to be toxic it will take steps to eliminate it. We of course do the clever thing and go and get another drug to stop it! Our bodies are very clever - shame we are so dumb....

Of course sugar is dead calories. It is calories with nothing else. Zilch. It doesn't give anything beneficial to the body - except calories and calories alone are worthless. If the body was fed nothing but sugar it would die. Whilst raw cane sugar is rich in nutrients, processed sugar isn't. It is no coincidence that amongst sugar plantation owners who ate a lot of their refined sugar, diabetes was rife. Amongst the plantation workers who only ate the raw molasses, it wasn't.

(Advertising link removed. Google globalhealingcenter)

How can you state categorically that sugar and denatured foods aren't toxic? Ok, people don't drop dead the minute they consume them, but what about the cumulative effects? What is driving the huge increase in diabetes - and a myriad of other modern diseases - if not the food we eat? Start to meddle with the food - the stuff people have happily existed on for thousands of years, and you meddle with the very fabric of the existence of mankind. Of course chemicals have also been added to the mix these days giving us even more toxins to have to deal with. The liver won't cope with having this stuff thrown at it indefinitely. Sooner or later it will start to collapse. When it gets to the point where it can no longer detox certain foods or substances because certain 'pathways' are blocked or clogged, 'allergies' will develop. It is in effect saying 'I can't deal with this stuff any more, so if you don't want problems with it you'll have to avoid it'. Get the body detoxed and 'clean' and the 'allergies' go away.

My body was getting more and more deficient and 'allergic'. Everything was starting to fall apart. I had a huge list of ailments. Now I am eating much higher nutrition and don't eat the processed carbs and sugars any more it is healing. The degeneration is starting to reverse. Some things have already healed and are no longer an issue. I may not be getting any younger, but I am getting healthier. The body is designed to heal. Cut yourself and it will heal. Give it the right tools and it will heal. The tools are the type of food we eat and the quantity - and quality of nutrition in them.

The body may not be able to tell what source the nutrition has come from, but it sure can tell whether it is complete or not - with all the factors present that are needed for its digestion. Symbiotic means that two or more factors work in a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course the elements in food are symbiotic. They all work with each other in a mutually beneficial way for the benefit of the body, just as all the elements in the body work in a symbiotic way to keep the body running. Different elements need other elements to enable them to be absorbed and processed by the body. Just as the body needs all its 'bits' in order to function properly, it needs all the rich array of elements in the natural food. Weston Price showed this clearly when he compared the glowing health of indigenous people on all-natural food with the poor degenerative health of those on the Western diet - and that was way back in the 1930s. If it was bad then, no wonder our health is in rapid decline now.

My notions may be unusual, but it is only your opinion that they are incorrect. I used to think the same as you, but not any more. I no longer blindly accept 'received wisdom' as gospel but question it. For too long we have been told that this is right or that is right and this advice is good or that advice is good. Do we no longer have the ability to think for ourselves? Do we no longer use our own common sense? Does not logic count for anything? I know that every time I have listened to or followed 'expert' advice I have always suffered as a result. No more.

 

[AlcalaBob]

I won't go on too much about this sort of Woo theory about toxins and the incorrect reports of how human digestion work. Anyone interested in finding out can look it up on Wikipedia easily enough.

But there are so many incorrect statements in the last post that we would be foolish to believe it. When people talk about toxins accumulating, they are always very reluctant to specify what those toxins actually are and where they accumulate - because if that information was stated, it could be checked and demonstrated to be untrue. The liver removes metabolic biproducts very efficiently, mostly by oxidation and excretion through the kidneys. The mechanism is very well-understood and documented.

But the way this Woo theory works is as follows:

- make an unsubstantiated claim about toxins
- relate it to some other pet theory about "natural" food
- make up a theory about how human digestion works
- present the pre-formulated conclusions and recommendations

Of course you need to eat a balanced diet to provide nutrition but that has nothing to do with the nonsense about toxins and that mystical word "natural". When that other mystical reference to blocked and clogged "pathways" appears, we know there is little real understanding here. Human biochemistry is already very well-understood and although not everything is known, a vast amount is.

We should remember that scientific knowledge isn't simply an opinion - it is independent of the opinion of any scientists because it has to rest on verifiable evidence. If you want to challenge the knowledge of biochemistry you have to take it on evidentiary terms and present your verifiable evidence yourself. You can start with which toxins are accumulating and how that is verified.

 

[catherinecherub]

Here is a good understanding of functions of the liver,
http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk/hom ... tions.aspx
This includes destroying drugs and toxins.

The link AliB provided is a site selling supplements. They have included 11, yes 11 for pregnant mums. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[viviennem]

Hi AlcalaBob

You are obviously approaching this from a science-based viewpoint (is there any other?) and I must assume you were/are a professional in this field?

I have no problems with your approach, and I too become wary when 'mysticism' creeps in to the argument, though I'm not sure it has done so far. Maybe some misunderstandings about definition of terms and use of language?

Like AliB, I have come to approach my diet on a 'natural' basis - by which I mean I try not to have too much in my diet that is the product of large-scale processing, I try to limit my consumption of additives, and I try on the whole to eat fresh local produce. I use some supplements - garlic, fish oil, magnesium and Vitamin D3.

I have never heard of 'Woo', I don't know the site AliB has linked to, and I do not claim to be 'de-toxing'. All I do know is that since going back to this way of eating I feel well, heal well, don't get spots, my hair and skin are in better condition, and my BGs fall within a tight range. My weight is also coming down, and I very seldom get infections.

So something is working for me, and I assume something is working for AliB too. This is, of course, purely anecdotal and has no scientific basis. I am quite happy for you to point this out to me, and so I am sure is Ali. I do not doubt science or the scientific method. But I do know that scientific opinion is always changing, and that we are always discovering new things about known systems.

I may have my own opinions, which I will share if I think it might be of some use. People can accept or dismiss them as they wish, and if they add to my knowledge by responding I am grateful.

Viv 8)