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

Low Carb Diets Dangerous

I used to have a similar problem with T1D;s telling me I must start using insulin immediately or else when I reported my bgl as being 20 mmol.l or so. In actual fact I was at a stage where I was daily exceeding 32 which is the upper limit that my meter could report.

My HbA1c came in at 99, and my GP referred me for insulin treatment, but then I discovered this wonderful site, and changed my lifestyle 3 years ago. As others have made clear I do low carb diets, and my daily avergae is today showing at 6.2 mmol/l and my weight is 65 kg (10 stone in old money) so I have proven that it is possible to turn a bad situation good by cutting the carbs. Now I am more carb tolerant and can sneak in the occasional treats without worrying. I can eat bread daily now, so I am not doing keto, but if I need to do that then I am trained and experienced enough to quickly switch as necessary. I no longer worry about the occasional slip up since I know I am generally in control.

So yes, if I had ignored the advice given here, then I ran the risk of complications, which were real for me having had 2 strokes and a heart attack in quick succession, in the words of that TV advert I really shouldn't be here. But I am! and happy to share my experience for those who may be seeking solutions. I have gained life through Low Carb, not lost it.
 
I do not have a high level of knowledge when discussing endocrinology or the gut microbiome or even metabolism, so I am not an expert, This is my take on it.
 
I believe it was posts 123 and 124 that you are referring to, and in post 124 the responder was quite clear that if a certain choice of action was followed then there was a risk of complications as a result. They did not say YOU WILL but Up to you, so although you make a good point that such a statement would be wrong, it does not seem to be what was said.
 
I quote #123 and #124 below, so that people don't need to wade back pages to know what was said.



Tannith has since retracted her statement that she will be returning to a carby diet (see post #180) on page 9, so I will just point out that the key word in @Indy51 's post is RISK.

There is plenty of evidence that RISK of complications rises as blood glucose levels rise, and that the longer they are high, the higher the RISK.

This is not scaremongering. This is verified by study after study, and Indy has provided a link to some of that information in #179, quoted below.
Indy51 said:
Thinking that this is probably a good place to point people to the newly-vamped Blood Sugar 101 page on Complications of various types:

https://www.bloodsugar101.com/complications
Click to expand...

Scaremongering would be stating 'carbs will kill you early.'
Advising people that their RISK of complications and early death will increase if they eat enough carbs to raise their blood glucose to dangerous levels is helpful common sense.
 
I found this an interesting read.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/54/6/1615.full

The Pathobiology of Diabetic Complications

Below a short abstract from the full text.

"Over 13,000 articles published since 1966 seemed to show that all of these pieces of the puzzle were important in the pathogenesis of diabetic complications, yet two things suggested that something major was missing. First, there was no apparent common element linking these mechanisms to each other. Second, clinical trials of inhibitors of these pathways in patients were all disappointing. Trying to make sense of all this, we hypothesized that all of these mechanisms were in fact linked to a common upstream event and that the failure to block all of the downstream pathways could explain the disappointing clinical trials with single-pathway inhibitors. What we discovered is that all of these different pathogenic mechanisms do reflect a single hyperglycemia-induced process and that this single unifying process is the overproduction of superoxide by the mitochondrial electron transport chain.

We began by asking the following question: What processes are increased by intracellular hyperglycemia in cells whose glucose transport rate is not downregulated by hyperglycemia but not increased in cells whose glucose transport rate is downregulated by hyperglycemia?

We discovered that a consistent differentiating feature common to all cell types that are damaged by hyperglycemia is an increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (36,39). Although hyperglycemia had been associated with oxidative stress in the early 1960s (40), neither the underlying mechanism that produced it nor its consequences for pathways of hyperglycemic damage were known."

It seems to me that all indications show that if you keep your blood sugars low by what ever means, that you will significantly reduce your risk of developing complications.

And eating lower amounts of carbohydrates is one method of achieving this goal.
 
Last edited:
Tannith said:
I would not necessarily reject all the findings of a study simply because the leader is WFPB.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear this. Especially as none of us who have posted in this thread have rejected the finding of the study due to the leader being WFPB either.

we have rejected the study because it is wrong, flawed, inaccurate and uses incorrect terminology and comparisons and is unscientific..
 
I would add cross referencing outside of the forum is also vital. I listen to accounts of persons who for example have gone from Keto to Vegan and vice versa, I listen to the WFPB gurus. I am determined to never let confirmation bias be the basis of the pillar of mine and my families health. I hate dogmatism. I currently believe that starting from a Keto standpoint is great and then optimising either slightly up or down on protein or fat, depending on goals e g weight loss, muscle building etc.
 

Conformation bias is seemingly inherent in the report being discussed. This is why (finally) Keys' studies are held up as an example of how not to conduct research.
 
Guzzler said:
Conformation bias is seemingly inherent in the report being discussed. This is why (finally) Keys' studies are held up as an example of how not to conduct research.
Click to expand...
Just a shame that Harvard seem to have missed that particular lesson...and then bought some publication space in "Not the Lancet".
 
bulkbiker said:
Just a shame that Harvard seem to have missed that particular lesson...and then bought some publication space in "Not the Lancet".
Click to expand...
Your pal Jason does the same thing in Media which is an online journal that I no longer trust as a proper source of info.
 
Oldvatr said:
Your pal Jason does the same thing in Media which is an online journal that I no longer trust as a proper source of info.
Click to expand...
I think they just re-publish his blog entries from his IDM website? Unless I am thinking of something else...
 
bulkbiker said:
I think they just re-publish his blog entries from his IDM website? Unless I am thinking of something else...
Click to expand...
Possible. There is no indication of this in the publication and presumably they have his permission to reprint.
 
How science based data can be taken from irregular considerably time spaced snapshots of diets, is bewildering to me. I wouldn't like to think such honest scientists filtered the evidence to suite their preconcieved theories!

We all know how a multination study became a seven nation study just to help us not get confused by too much evidence.

I put more rubbish out in my dustbins each week.
D.
 
There is such a thing as edotirial bias. We have all seen the way a journalist can hack at a study until it is unrecognisable and have it passed by the editor for publication. Most of us can detect spin when we look closely.
 
Sue192 said:
I rather like this study https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...f-milk-every-day-at-breakfast-time/ar-BBM8eRU Especially the second-to-last paragraph.
Click to expand...
Not a low carb diet for sure, There is a better reference to this from DUK
https://diabetestimes.co.uk/whey-protein-could-help-control-type-2-diabetes/
and from a paper in the BMJ
https://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000420

However a warning. Whey seems to amplify the Insulin response and in T2 who are Insulin Resistant then this may be bad news and may be making that condition worse, Whey used to be contra indicated for diabetics not so long ago, and that well known emporium H&B were advised not to sell it to diabetics, I had the manager of said shop block a sale to me once just after I was starting Low Carb, and I was looking for a LC snack to use. All his protein bars were whey, so I left empty handed, First time I have known H&B turn down a sale.......

See also this report as to the power behind the move to promote whey
https://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/the-core/whey-protein-diabetes-increasing-insulin-response/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…