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

Insulin resistance is not caused by a high carb diet... Some opinions


I'm not a vegetarian. I wrote, "For the record, I am not a vegan, a vegetarian, or an adherent of any particular diet regimen."
 

Yes, I've read intensively about various traditional diets, diets that aren't necessarily traditional but they don't result in metabolic disaster, and they all have certain things in common: intake moderation, occasional fasting, and absent the massive ingestion of carb/fat combinations.

By the way, do you realize you wrote "insulin existence" in your OP? Was that a Freudian typo? Mr. Rumsfeld wants to know!
 
Sadly not. It was the phone autocorrecting.
 
I'm fascinated by this thread, because since being diagnosed prediabetic I've been following LCHF with good results - ie, good BG readings, weight loss, reduction/disappearance of symptoms and increased energy.

However, I had, prior to diagnosis ((6 months ago) been easing my way into a vegan-ish diet - I had excluded most dairy and intended to continue with that, and to eat only ethically sourced and/or wild caught meat (and fish) - so more of a Megan!

Prior to diagnosis I ate a lot of whole grain/brown carbs - good quality artisan breads, brown rice and pasta, whole oats, lentils and pulses. It seems that didn't work FOR ME - as I was gaining weight and losing health. I also always walk for at least an hour and usually two every day and have for most of my life, as i have dogs that need a fair bit of exercise. Despite regular exercise and a fairly good diet (I also ate **** like biscuits, and many an Indian take away) I was getting fatter and fatter and losing energy...

I'm a bit daunted by all the science, so am going on my experience. LCHF is working for me (in the short term anyway) but it isn't consistent with my values and I will, when I feel my BG numbers are rock solid, experiment with reducing dairy and meat and adding rice and lentils back into my diet...
 
The key message from the initial set of links is that whole foods are the way to consume carbs. Unfortunately, breads and pasta are massively refined, and to a certain extent, so is brown rice.

As a T1, the only rice that really doesn't affect my blood glucose levels immediately are the wild black and red varieties, where I find any bolus insulin causes a hypo. As a result, the non-LCHF approach being propagated here is likely to be effective, but as with LCHF, it has to be followed carefully.
 
+ 3. Zinc

Right, and I bet there's a whole lotta other things that are, well, "unknown unknowns."

The diet dogmatists always leave out what doesn't suit their agenda, don't they?
 

I can relate to what you are saying. Do you have a meter? I recommend getting one highly. And don't be guilty about compromising your beliefs. Your health is what's important and weight gain is bad for blood sugars, period.

At first I balked at the idea of "eating to your meter." I thought it would make me obsessive. But it's been a very enlightening experience. I can tolerate starches (oatmeal, chana dal, black beans,) but grapes send the blood sugars thru the roof. I was surprised at the difference. However, the starches do result in a generally higher blood sugar level than I would like, for a longer time. Not sky high, just a little. And they do seem to interfere with fat loss, no matter what the vegans say.

Avocados, nuts, coconut and meat hardly budge the meter. But they are energy dense, and I wouldn't lose weight eating too much of them. And whatever some people say about fat, I'm not terribly satisfied after eating a meal that consists of only protein/fat. That's me.

You have to figure out what is best for you by (a) trial and error and (b) reading up on the science even if some of it goes over your head.

My personal upshot for the present: limit sugars, moderate amounts of starch, and focus on lean animal proteins during my weight loss phase. When that's over, I'll try to phase out most of the animal proteins. I believe we need some for nutrients that plants don't provide, but not much. Keep tinkering.
 

"It causes an insulin spike, but if no carbs, lowers blood sugar."

Interesting. That would explain why, when I eat meat, my meter registers no change, but I lose no weight. Another reason never to go for simple, one-size fits all* explanations when considering something as complicated as a mammal's metabolism.

*Now changed to "one size fits most." I am not joking. I have seen this on a rain pancho package. They must now take morbidly obese customers into account.
 

Phoenix - have you ever seen the "Bray Overfeeding study"? It's not directly relevant to diabetes but there were findings in it that were revealing about weight gain/fat gain that I do think can be extrapolated to diabetes/metabolic diseases.
 

The discussion wandered on to other trails, so I wanted to return to the actual posts by Dr. Davis.

His language is very inflammatory. He claims you need a "hazmat suit" to handle raw chicken. Please. I should be dead by now if that's true.

He cites a lot of studies. I would like to work my way through all of them but there are rather a lot. This one caught my attention because of Davis' inflammatory language in touting it: "Like the EPIC study, they also found that sugar was not related to the development of diabetes at all." Emphasis added. Case closed, eh? Not so fast. The study is based on self-reported data. I don't trust self-reported data, sorry, it's not very reliable.

I wonder what Davis would make of this large-scale epidemiological study which links sugar to diabetes. Unlike Davis, this study's authors are not so arrogant as to claim direct cause and effect.

It makes me wonder how many of the other studies he cites are flimsy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…