• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Hi I have a question about Dr Greger author of, How not to die. And exponent of the plant-based diet, he says fat causes diabetes not carbs.

The only ancestors that I'm interested in regarding diet etc. are much more immediate ones. Just enough back that although heart disease, cancer, T2 diabetes, obesity were being diagnosed, they weren't anything like as common as today. Then ask what has changed (both positive and negative).
For example the relatively recent decrease in smoking can be expected to have reduced the incidence of both Lung Cancer and Heart disease.
Also the dietary advice from the 1980's has continued unabated and so should, if it was correct, have by now have reduced Obesity and T2 Diabetes.

To me it seems obvious. Prompted my own experience of really seriously trying to follow that advice for a significant length of time (around 15yrs) and then for 4 and a half yrs really seriously following Low Carb (with a fat intake more like what I ate before 1980 in both quantity and types of fat). I have been checking my health with results of Blood Lipid tests, HbA1C, BG meter, tape measure and scales.
The result is that with the possible exception of Cardio Vascular risk (that is slightly uncertain until Dave Feldman's medical trials on the LMHR hypothesis complete in less than 1yrs time) I am much more healthy on my Low Carb Higher Protein Higher (traditional) Fats way of eating.

Whether that would apply to the majority of others I don't know!
 
We really need to look back about 60 to 100 years, cut out the sugary things, and embrace the fatty things. Back then eggs were a luxury food that only the stinking rich could afford. Chemists had nothing to do with food. Most people ate only what was indigenous to their area, nothing flown in from all around the world, basically what their ancestors ate.
 
ajbod said:
We really need to look back about 60 to 100 years, cut out the sugary things, and embrace the fatty things. Back then eggs were a luxury food that only the stinking rich could afford. Chemists had nothing to do with food. Most people ate only what was indigenous to their area, nothing flown in from all around the world, basically what their ancestors ate.
Click to expand...
You raise a very good point there. I don't think carbs specifically are the enemy, I've just gained a greater appreciation for how bad the majority of Western diet processed/convenience foods are for us. Packed with preservatives, enhancers, flavourings and general additives. Foods that used to last a day or two, now last a week or more (bread being a good example). Hydrogenated and trans fats are added, which the body can't process effectively. High fructose corn syrup. Animals pumped full of antibiotics, then the cheap meat from them pumped full of preservatives, nitrates or whatever else. Ready meals that are high carb, high fat, high protein, high salt, and packed with additives. Then you've got takeaway and fast food, which combines all of what I've said before into one meal, totalling 2000+ calories per serving, which gets consumed after a day sitting at a desk not moving.

It's little wonder we're struggling as a species. Although it should be blindingly obvious, it's taken a diabetes diagnosis and cutting 99% of this out of my diet to realise just how bad an effect it was having on me.
 
I believe our ancestors ate when they had a kill, or when they found a fruit or nut bush, they were never told about the concept of three meals a day. They filled their bellies when they could, the rest of their time they fasted which could have lasted days. While regularly fasting their bodies would go into the state of autophagy where toxins, tired cells, viruses, surplus fat etc were expelled, used or renewed - we don't give our bodies the chance to go into autophagy these days. As a species we've definitely lost our way.
 
ajbod said:
We really need to look back about 60 to 100 years, cut out the sugary things, and embrace the fatty things. Back then eggs were a luxury food that only the stinking rich could afford. Chemists had nothing to do with food. Most people ate only what was indigenous to their area, nothing flown in from all around the world, basically what their ancestors ate.
Click to expand...
[My emphasis.]

I'm not sure how old you are, but 60 years ago was 1963.
That was the time of Rock and Roll apart from anything else.
Do you seriously believe that only the "stinking rich" could afford eggs?
That there was no organised agriculture and people just effectively scavenged off the land????

I imagine all the country people who kept a few hens didn't realise how stinking rich they were.

It is true that eggs amongst many other things were rationed during the wars.
British Wartime Food
It is also true that the very restricted diets for most of the population lead to generally better health.
If you read through the link you should realise that people eating what was local is not correct.

"
In the 1930s, before the outbreak of the Second World War, the population of the United Kingdom was somewhere between 46 million and 52 million.

Britain imported 70% of its food; this required 20 million tons of shipping a year. 50% of meat was imported, 70% of cheese and sugar, 80% of fruits, 70% of cereals and fats, 91% of butter. Of this, ⅙th of meat imports, ¼ of butter imports and ½ of cheese imports came from New Zealand alone, a long way away by vulnerable shipping lanes.
"

$Deity bless those hard working Kiwis!
[Loved a bit of NZ Cheddar and a leg of NZ lamb.]

Food wasn't flown in.
It came by sea.
Even today bulk foods aren't generally flown in but still come by sea.

How far back in time are you considering the diet of "ancestors"?
Technically your Mum and Dad are you ancestors, as are all generations before them.
I think you should try and pin down which dates you are considering.
Before the Roman Empire I assume, at least.
 
Paul_ said:
I would describe myself as a low carb convert. I'm definitely an advocate of keto, at least when it comes to the high level principles of it.

However, I must confess I have a bit of an issue with the whole "we need to eat how our ancestors ate" thing. Firstly, all diets try to claim this is their aim and they can do this because no one really knows. Sure, there are educated guesses, but that's all they are. Secondly, and I feel this is quite important, cavemen (and caveladies) weren't exactly renowned for their long life expectancy! It's always been a bit of a tough sell for me where any diet is essentially claiming "eat how cave people did, they lived until the grand old age of 22, or sometimes even 23!" ;)
Click to expand...
With the best will in the world.

I feel it’s worth investigating further back than that? (Putting aside the young mortality rate.) There was probably cannibalism, too?

But I certainly would agree the human race hasn’t evolved fast enough to metabolise what’s currently “available.” Which ironically, is the “brainchild” of “entrepreneurs” after 6 million of years evolution producing what looks now like “Dickensian” adulterated food? (And that’s not counting dietary requirements in the “time before time..” :)
There were also less population back then. No concern over what’s allegedly messing with our methane output….

The real problem has never been addressed. The Masses? I mentioned a Dickensian work house diet. Not gruel now.. I see the sale of Huel.
 
If you have noticed that because of my diagnosis, I have reactive hypoglycaemia.
This means I have an intolerance to carbs and sugars, such as, lactose intolerant or dairy intolerant.
This means, I cannot eat what the healthcare sector would call a healthy diet! Such as the eat well plate!

And that actually means, I am carb intolerant. So don't eat them, I experienced, experimented, tested, recorded a lot of my dietary regime for a few months and kept a food diary, not only to see what happens but to placate my doctors including my endo. That I would be healthy not eating carbs.

So and beause my condition is rare, I had to do a lot of groundwork of what my own dietary balance had to be to be healthy. So individual was it, that it would be not feasible for anyone else.
I cannot except the theory that all T2s should follow a certain diet, probably created by someone who follows the medical books and doesn't understand the dietary causes and other many causes or types related to the T2 diagnosis. It is important to everyone who has T2 to understand the problems of how diet has a huge effect on their health in so many ways. Also how manufactured food has so much rubbish in it to those who have a dysregulation and insulin resistance, from the hormonal response to many foods.
A tailored diet, that which takes the individual circumstances into account, has a better likelihood of a good outcome, then following any diet.

150 years ago, and I have seen photos of many areas, around industrial centres, ports, inner cities, where the number of people were squeezed into slum areas. There was thoroughfares that became A or B roads. Were chocker with shops, you name it, provisions could be found, and a lot of fresh food was needed, apparently, in some higher class department stores, any drug that is now outlawed could be had for a reasonable price.
No modern food white goods, there was pantries, canned goods, and below ground storage. Of course there was seasonal goods, but there was a system that would feed everyone in Victorian times, if they could pay for it. Unless you needed work and the workhouse or poorhouse was there. It was money that was scarce, not food!
Funny that T2, was very rare back then!
Even post war WWII, there was so many shops on high streets and locally that stocked fresh food. Most of the chip shop food was fried in beef dripping.
Funny how T2 increased when fast food outlets used vegetable fats? Not saying that junk food is not part of the problem. But the fact, that modern man has a tendency to not eat fresh food. Can be just as much an issue.

Discover your own individual diet. Stop relying on others.
Eat to your meter.
 
Further on diet and ancestors.

WW1 Recruiting and malnutrition
"Almost 40 percent of the men who volunteered were rejected for medical reasons. Malnutrition was widespread in U.K. society; working class 15‑year‑olds had an average height of only 5 feet 2 inches (157 cm) while the upper class was 5 feet 6 inches (168 cm).[13]"

Given that T2 Diabetes is linked with eating too much of the wrong things (argue amongst yourselves) it isn't surprising that there was less prevalence 100 or more years ago.

We are now looking back about 100 years to the start of WW1 so I don't think that there are many dietary recommendations to be taken from this period.

It could be argued that malnutrition rose after the Industrial Revolution when mass population moved from the countryside to industrial towns remote from freely available food found in the countryside.

To reiterate: our digestive tract and dentition marks us down as omnivores. This kind of major adaptation isn't something that can happen over a few hundred years. There is no (as far as I know) fossil evidence that our immediate (100,000 years?) ancestors were either herbivores or carnivores.
Therefore I remain unconvinced about any dietary claims made about "ancestral" diets apart from the significant lack of ultra processed foods.
Also most European people this century will not experience major famine or even food shortages over winter most years as our recent ancestors (within 1,000 years) will have experienced.

Looking back in time always seems to end up with cherry picking of facts which one might consider significant.
 
James9000 said:
I know it makes no logical sense and goes against almost everyone's experience here on this forum. But is there anything in his hypothesis. Dr Greger, is a big proponent of the plant-based diet. He's always using research to back up his argument however i've noticed that he is very selective about the research that he chooses to analyse. He only explains and talks on research that supports a plant-based diet.

I'm generally quite clued up, my degree was in experimental psychology but I'm genuinely confused. Is it some mixture , Perhaps saturated fat may contribute to developing diabetes but if you have the condition and it is more sensible to follow a low-carb keto diet. Or is it saturated fat and junk food that is the problem?

This question is of particular interest to me because I suffer from ulcerative colitis and I'm in remission because of eating a mostly plant-based diet. But although I try to be careful even after a small meal, of completely healthy food with the carbs quite diluted, my blood sugar hangs around about 8.0.

Very confused, YouTube is a nightmare for this topic, they seem to be two viewpoints, plant-based and keto diet which seem to be at war with each other, each one totally convinced their right. How is a person supposed to make sense of it all?
Click to expand...
That man is so unhealthy... you only have to look at him!
 
LittleGreyCat said:
Further on diet and ancestors.


Looking back in time always seems to end up with cherry picking of facts which one might consider significant.
Click to expand...
This poor Iron Age dude appears to have had some sort of porridge for the last meal…
But evidence of tapeworm suggest raw meat at some point too.

www.ctvnews.ca

Researchers analyze last meal of 'Tollund Man' bog body

Danish researchers have analyzed the last meal of the ‘Tollund Man,’ a bog body from the Early Iron Age in Denmark, and found that he was infected with parasites, according to a new study.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca
 
Loosely talking about Dickensian times, it grieves me to say it that thanks to the invention of margarine, and breakfast cereals it did stop the dreadful disease of rickets. Thanks to those 'Frankenstein foods' where the Ministry of Foods added Vit D and A.

Just wish the Gov would stop fortifying flour with iron, my husband's isn't a diabetic but he does have haemochromatosis.
 
ianf0ster said:
The only ancestors that I'm interested in regarding diet etc. are much more immediate ones. Just enough back that although heart disease, cancer, T2 diabetes, obesity were being diagnosed, they weren't anything like as common as today. Then ask what has changed (both positive and negative).
For example the relatively recent decrease in smoking can be expected to have reduced the incidence of both Lung Cancer and Heart disease.
Also the dietary advice from the 1980's has continued unabated and so should, if it was correct, have by now have reduced Obesity and T2 Diabetes.

To me it seems obvious. Prompted my own experience of really seriously trying to follow that advice for a significant length of time (around 15yrs) and then for 4 and a half yrs really seriously following Low Carb (with a fat intake more like what I ate before 1980 in both quantity and types of fat). I have been checking my health with results of Blood Lipid tests, HbA1C, BG meter, tape measure and scales.
The result is that with the possible exception of Cardio Vascular risk (that is slightly uncertain until Dave Feldman's medical trials on the LMHR hypothesis complete in less than 1yrs time) I am much more healthy on my Low Carb Higher Protein Higher (traditional) Fats way of eating.

Whether that would apply to the majority of others I don't know!
Click to expand...

Heart disease, cancer, T2, etc. are more common in middleaged to old people. We live longer now, life was often short until relatively recently. Men often died young in workplace accidents, women did as well and had the hazard of childbirth. So I think it's a bit rash to say that 'we have more of these than our recent ancestors'. Would also point out that paintings often show obese individuals. The Three Graces by Raphael for example. In a time where famine was common, people who easily put fat on were at an advantage. We are not now.
 
JenniferM55 said:
Think what often gets missed in debates on the causes of diabetes, is processed foods.

To quote from Dr Michael Mosely's book 'The Fast 800 Keto', Chapter 1, Summary:

"Although fats, carbs and sugar have in turn been blamed for the current obesity crisis, there is mounting evidence that the real problem is ultra processed food, which is typically high in poor quality fat, carbs, sugar and salt, making it incredibly calorific and hard to resist. And as Dr Chris van Tulleken discovered, once you start eating these foods they can mess with your brain".

Don't think it's a coincidence that milk chocolate, ice cream, chips, pepperoni pizza, crisps, sponge cake, buttered popcorn, and cheeseburgers all have a ratio 1g of fat to 2g of carbs. That's the ratio that we tend to find is addictive. The reason why this ratio is irresistible is because it resembles the first food we most likely consumed, human milk, which contains around 4g fat and 8g of carbs.

Like Dr Mosely in his book 'The Fast 800', I also think food manufacturers are aware of this vulnerability and of course for the sake of profits, exploit it.
Click to expand...
This fits very well with my current (amateur hour) theory - the composition of a meal, which can trigger the urge to stuff yourself, combined with it being rapidly digestible is like a metabolic hammer. It would explain why there's apparent evidence for either sugar or fat as the culprit as the root cause for the majority of cases of T2. I believe salt content also plays a role as it's something we crave, and there's a reason it appears on the ingredient list of so many processed foods.

Does anyone remember the McChicken Premier? Extremely delicious, addictive even, with a large fries and a coke. Does anyone have any theories on why McDonalds discontinued that despite it selling like hotcakes? Come to think of it, does anyone have any theories on where the expression 'selling like hotcakes' comes from? ;)
 
ianf0ster said:
Also the dietary advice from the 1980's has continued unabated and so should, if it was correct, have by now have reduced Obesity and T2 Diabetes.
Click to expand...
The massive rise in fast food outlets of all types illustrates that people are following 1980s food pyramid dietary advice less, not more, than they used to.

Is there even a fast food chain that adheres to that model?
 
Just yesterday I was talking about chickens in the 1950s - we kept chickens and so did a couple of other people and we were considered posh for having one for Christmas dinner.
Our flock was reduced a lot at Christmas and I was recruited to help to remove the small feathers and my mum did the larger ones and then folded the bare bodies neatly for delivery. My dad was then rushing around delivering them at the last minute on Christmas Eve.
Our birds were out in the orchard during the day and ate whatever they could catch - including mice and wild birds, and there was the equivalent of a riot if an ants nest erupted in the hope of a new colony. The flavour of the chickens was very different from the modern plant fed birds.
 
We kept chooks too. In those days, they didn't lay all year round as the breeds that do that hadn't been invented. And of course they were all free-range.
 
Nice to see this thread still has legs.

Reading through, I can't se much discussion about where our ancestors lived.
I think the current theory is that our ancestors migrated out of Africa following the receding ice from the last ice age.
So perhaps the focus should be on what climate and food was available in Africa before the ice receded?
I don't think major body structure evolution has taken place over the last 5-10,000 years.
More of a refinement.
I am guessing that the major changes (at least in European stock) have been resistance to disease such as smallpox and plague (through massive deaths of those who couldn't resist) and an ability to process alcohol - although the mechanism of this bit of evolution is less clear to me.
Suffice it to say that indigenous peoples in the Americas and the Antipodes suffered massively from imported smallpox and still have major issues with alcohol.
 
Back
Top