Joseph Kraft and hidden diabetes

RuthW · Sep 11, 2015

Insulin resistance is a normal, though temporary, response to a bout of anaerobic exertion. It serves some purpose or other in the development of muscle. The kind of elongated insulin resistance you see in Type 2s is clearly not beneficial. But that is alleviated by aerobic exercise.

tim2000s · Sep 11, 2015

FatEmperor said:
Guys on this website should watch ALL of Dr. Bernstein's lecture series (he's an engineer, doctor and T1 for life - and he's cracked it all):

That's an interesting one in itself. And a choice that every T1 can make. Do you want to live your life like him? It has up side of limited complications but it's not far from the strict diets of the early 20th century. Likewise, complications seem to stem from hyperglycaemia rather than hyperinsulinemia. If you can live your life with the current tools and still maintain a normal hba1c and glucose level below 7.7mmol/l (which you can) then why would you choose to live like Bernstein?

RuthW · Sep 11, 2015

phoenix said:
@FatEmperor
So what does Unger, the only one of your three who has really done any real scientific research (rather than anecdote) suggest is the route to the metabolic syndrome? Not any one macronutrient but a fifty year experiment in overexposure to too much food (both fat and carbohydrates) an:
" unremitting caloric surplus complicated by failure of adipocytes to maintain protection against lipotoxicity"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223680
Which is I think what I suggested in my first post.

Yes, interesting. And if you look through, there are a lot of interesting papers he has written. This one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397701

Says that Low Carb (but also not High Fat) improves cholesterol but not insulin resistance.

NoCrbs4Me · Sep 11, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
Well, that cheery nod to Darwinism means we're the dead end of the evolutionary tree.
If we can't take the modern diet, evolution will weed us out.

No, we will evolve to do well on factory processed ****. It should only take 100,000 years or so.

tim2000s · Sep 11, 2015

Isn't part of our evolution the determination that we don't do well on factory **** and about face to remove it from the diet? With supposed intelligence comes more than one way to evolve.

SunnyExpat · Sep 11, 2015

NoCrbs4Me said:
No, we will evolve to do well on factory processed ****. It should only take 100,000 years or so.

Nope, our gene will evolve out.
That's how evolution works, those that can eat carbs will replace us.

SunnyExpat · Sep 11, 2015

tim2000s said:
Isn't part of our evolution the determination that we don't do well on factory **** and about face to remove it from the diet? With supposed intelligence comes more than one way to evolve.

We could try, but my evolutionary tree gave up hunting years ago, and drove to Tesco's in the car instead.
You could try hunting, but after the 'Cecil' incident, it doesn't bode well as a future for the human race.

RuthW · Sep 11, 2015

Well, apparently paleo man DID actually eat porridge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...der-suggests-grains-pulverised-make-dish.html

(I know, I know, it's from the Daily Fail, but you know it's a genuine academic paper they're reporting)

SunnyExpat · Sep 11, 2015

RuthW said:
Well, apparently paleo man DID actually eat porridge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...der-suggests-grains-pulverised-make-dish.html

(I know, I know, it's from the Daily Fail, but you know it's a genuine academic paper they're reporting)

Personally, I reckon he ate anything that didn't move, and a tuber is a lot slower than a sabre tooth.
(But why spoil the image of sitting down to a cling film wrapped steak from Tesco you've caught yourself?)

NoCrbs4Me · Sep 11, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
Nope, our gene will evolve out.
That's how evolution works, those that can eat carbs will replace us.

Humans will still exist. Just ones that can eat lots of factory processed **** without a problem.

SunnyExpat · Sep 11, 2015

And if you read the quote, that's exactly what I said.

Go us eh?

NoCrbs4Me · Sep 11, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
And if you read the quote, that's exactly what I said.

Go us eh?

By "we" I meant humans, not diabetics.

SunnyExpat · Sep 11, 2015

NoCrbs4Me said:
By "we" I meant humans, not diabetics.

Us diabetics will be fine, so long as there is a meat counter at Tesco's.

Well, not me, or you, but we both seem to be happy with UK shops.

I admit I used them in the past, I guess you have Canadian equivalents to good old Tesco's?

Brunneria · Sep 11, 2015

@FatEmperor

While Bernstein's work delights me, and Kraft's work is extremely interesting (from what I see so far) your comments are too generalised and glib for this audience. Which is a pity, because i agree with much of what you are saying, just not your presentation.

Many of us are already familiar with Berstein. Some of us live by his dietary guidelines. There have been many discussions on the subject here. The threads have been a lot more detailed than 'he's cracked it' and 'no he hasn't' (although we have had those comments too).

Indy51 · Sep 12, 2015

I guess I've come in late and have a lot of reading to catch up on, but I'm wondering why this has morphed into a discussion about Type 1 when Kraft's work (his book is called 'Diabetes Epidemic & You') is related to the aetiology of Type 2? Seems to me discussing Type 1 in this context is just muddying the waters?

FatEmperor · Sep 12, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
Right on the mark.
Exercise is the best way to overcome insulin resistance.
Regular gym sessions, (or my case today, knocking down an old out building), and my BG is much better than LCHF alone.
For days afterwards as well.
I'm not knocking those that can't do exercise, as obviously then LCHF is the main attack they have.

phoenix said:
@FatEmperor
So what does Unger, the only one of your three who has really done any real scientific research (rather than anecdote) suggest is the route to the metabolic syndrome? Not any one macronutrient but a fifty year experiment in overexposure to too much food (both fat and carbohydrates) an:
" unremitting caloric surplus complicated by failure of adipocytes to maintain protection against lipotoxicity"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223680
Which is I think what I suggested in my first post.

They all have a lifetime of clinical experience and research, and your comment is thus scandalous, but I see many like it sadly. So please don't do the 'appeal to official authority' stuff - research is not limited to the peer-reviewed system which is acknowledged to be severely compromised. These are particularly mild and restrained discussions - some very eminent medical leaders have been far harsher: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

That said the answer to your question is becoming obvious - primary root cause is excessive digestible carbohydrate with the accelerant factor donated by fructose via the liver mechanisms. When you have true root cause it can be easily demonstrated. Removing the mentioned factors massively reduces Met Syn, T2D, Obesity and all associated inflammatory markers. Without heavy calorific reduction. Without major exercise. QED. Thank you for listening

FatEmperor · Sep 12, 2015

tim2000s said:
That's an interesting one in itself. And a choice that every T1 can make. Do you want to live your life like him? It has up side of limited complications but it's not far from the strict diets of the early 20th century. Likewise, complications seem to stem from hyperglycaemia rather than hyperinsulinemia. If you can live your life with the current tools and still maintain a normal hba1c and glucose level below 7.7mmol/l (which you can) then why would you choose to live like Bernstein?

Just a play for optimum health, productivity and longevity - I guess it's a personal choice. Hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia are both problems - there is an over-focus on the glucose, and an under-appreciation of insulin toxicity (for example see ACCORD study - higher treatment, much lower blood glucose metrics achieved....and higher mortality - this confuses them, though it shouldn't). Besides its sub-optimum nature, modern treatment disposes towards wide fluctuations in blood glucose (due to using exogenous insulin which is not nearly as effective as pancreatic release - shotgun rather than sniper rifle). So you have all the sinusoidal fluctuations in toxicity and indeed wellness. Anyway, I'm kinda busy so moving on - it's been good to connect.

FatEmperor · Sep 12, 2015

Brunneria said:
@FatEmperor

While Bernstein's work delights me, and Kraft's work is extremely interesting (from what I see so far) your comments are too generalised and glib for this audience. Which is a pity, because i agree with much of what you are saying, just not your presentation.

Many of us are already familiar with Berstein. Some of us live by his dietary guidelines. There have been many discussions on the subject here. The threads have been a lot more detailed than 'he's cracked it' and 'no he hasn't' (although we have had those comments too).

Thanks Brunneria - I can't really change my nature, though I've tried - sorry !

FatEmperor · Sep 12, 2015

Indy51 said:
I guess I've come in late and have a lot of reading to catch up on, but I'm wondering why this has morphed into a discussion about Type 1 when Kraft's work (his book is called 'Diabetes Epidemic & You') is related to the aetiology of Type 2? Seems to me discussing Type 1 in this context is just muddying the waters?

True they always muddy each other because they are joined at the Hip. Type 1's become type 2 via years of exogenous insulin making them insulin resistant. Type 2's become type 1's eventually when they've burnt out their pancreatic beta cells. Type 3 (Alzheimer's) is a variant caused by a form of brain insulin resistance. Either way they are all carbohydrate intolerance maladies, even if Type 1 is triggered by an autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic cells initially. Thus they all benefit from removing the offending factor (dietary carb/glucose), and thus minimizing the insulin required to manage them (reducing insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and the associated vascular damage that afflicts millions)....

FatEmperor · Sep 12, 2015

RuthW said:
Yes, interesting. And if you look through, there are a lot of interesting papers he has written. This one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397701

Says that Low Carb (but also not High Fat) improves cholesterol but not insulin resistance.

I didn't say Unger was perfect - no-one is unfortunately; that's why I would start by triangulating between Kraft, Bernstein and Unger. Kraft is correct across the board I believe. Bernstein is a little too focused on the blood glucose perhaps. Unger is missing some of the dietary subtleties. This paper shows high carb (60%) bad (no surprise), but the low carb is 35%, which is not low carb at all - NIDDM people will not switch to required fat metabolism status with this amount of carb provoking their insulin.

Also, he used euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp which measures peripheral insulin sensitivity. Wrong measure (in fairness it was back in 1992). He ought to have used Hyperglycemic clamp procedure at least. But he really should have used Kraft's 5-hr glucose tolerance with Insulin assay sadly. It is a tragedy that these two men never met - they would have unified so much. Oh well....

Joseph Kraft and hidden diabetes

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Guru

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency