Mastering Diabetes by Cyrus Khambatta and Robby Barbaro

[HSSS]

I think that the argument for the high carb diets is that they have to be ultra low fat, and this is what provides the protections, certainly it was the argument used to justify the WFPB diets. However, large sacle studies and some meta analyses have established that the association between all cause mortality and dietary fat intake is that the ultra low fat diet has a higher risk of adverse outcome than even the high fat intake diets.

I am reminded of a study performed on post mortem records of patients who succumbed to cardio events, which showed tht those with a low level cholesterol were more prevalent for this outcome. Other studies have also recently shown that having cholesterol levels too low also increases all cause mortality risks.

The links to these studies have been posted and discussed many times in this forum

Yes, I’ve seen the low fat/cholesterol claims more than once and that’s why I’m baffled the high carb/low fat argument is still out there. (Essentially the same thing as the eatwell but vegan in this instance)

 

[Deleted member 532959]

What people have refered to as the vegan propaganda is the implication that veganism (i.e., zero meat etc.) is whats improving insulin sensitivity whereas it may actually just be a healthier diet in general (i.e., containing some amount of healthy meats).

My main issue with the MD program and Barnard et al is maintaining a 100% dogmatic position on their programs needing to be 100% bereft of animal products. As a vegan, for ethical/moral considerations, I of course love that examples of healthy outcomes are increasingly being brought to light, and that people are being educated on how to be healthier vegans. However, from a health standpoint (to include diabetes and other metabolic dysfunction), and to be more effectively inclusive of the wider population, 100% exclusion of these foods is not necessary.

Unfortunately, they completely miss the opportunity to help those who aren't willing to accept the also-flawed dogma of the low-carb position, but for whom the idea of quitting eating animals just doesn't interest them.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

On "sensitivity" question, I was trying to say that the authors were claiming that eating more healthy foods that were high in carbs would lead to you having a higher carb/insulin ratio

Whatever their claims and whatever the theory they posit is behind the results, they are actually showing (not only Robby and Cyrus themselves) but amongst T1D sufferers who follow the program, that insulin sensitivity is able to increase to a very large extent, despite eating hundreds of grams of carbs.

 

[zand]

Unfortunately, they completely miss the opportunity to help those who aren't willing to accept the also-flawed dogma of the low-carb position

Flawed dogma of low carb? Forget the dogma - it works, that's all I need to know.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

Flawed dogma of low carb? Forget the dogma - it works, that's all I need to know.

Which is kinda my point. There are many people who are shining examples of how a high-carb, low-fat diet can effectively be used to control or beat diabetes. This is wholly independent of the existence of the o% animal-product propaganda

 

[zand]

Which is kinda my point. There are many people who are shining examples of how a high-carb, low-fat diet can effectively be used to control or beat diabetes. This is wholly independent of the existence of the o% animal-product propaganda

We haven't seen many of them here in this forum. The problem with low fat is that too low will cause other health problems. So how little is too little? We just don't know until disaster strikes, which is what happened to me when I did low fat for 7 weeks. With low carb though it's not a problem as carbs aren't necessary to health. Zero fat is too low. Zero carbs is fine.

 

[HSSS]

Unfortunately, they completely miss the opportunity to help those who aren't willing to accept the also-flawed dogma of the low-carb position, but for whom the idea of quitting eating animals just doesn't interest them.

can you elaborate on a this statement of why, and with what evidence low carb is flawed? Considering the success of so many in here alongside ever increasing scientific peer reviewed study I’m failing to see the flaw you claim.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

We haven't seen many of them here in this forum. The problem with low fat is that too low will cause other health problems. So how little is too little? We just don't know until disaster strikes, which is what happened to me when I did low fat for 7 weeks. With low carb though it's not a problem as carbs aren't necessary to health. Zero fat is too low. Zero carbs is fine.

It's literally impossible to eat a zero-fat, plant-based diet as all plants contain carbs, fat and protein (not by accident, I'm guessing). And nobody is advocating a diet lower-in-fat than is capable of offering sustainable health benefits.

As far as not needing carbs for health? That would depend. One can certainly get by without it for sustained periods, in terms of energy, and the variables with which we can currently measure. But in terms of health, I'd be cautious to make any health claims that weren't backed up by multi-generational data.

In the world of nutrition reductionism, in which the majority of both high and low-carb gurus/doctors operate, these waters are eternally being muddied. The best we can do for people os to be clear that there is much we do not know about nutrition, and therefore to a certain extent each of us who is skirting the borders of extremes (me eschewing all animal products; you getting as close to zero carbs/plants as you can manage) should be made aware that we are taking various gambles.

 

[HSSS]

Whatever their claims and whatever the theory they posit is behind the results, they are actually showing (not only Robby and Cyrus themselves) but amongst T1D sufferers who follow the program, that insulin sensitivity is able to increase to a very large extent, despite eating hundreds of grams of carbs.

Is IR such a big issue in type 1 (I know it’s possible) that sensitivity needs restoring? It certainly is in type 2, so much as to say a huge part of the entire condition.

Is there any supporting evidence of your theory it’s IR improving and does this match their theory?

 

[Alexandra100]

There are many people who are shining examples of how a high-carb, low-fat diet can effectively be used to control or beat diabetes.

I would love to be able to eat a more vegan, less carnivore diet. However I have seen very few / almost no actual figures quoted to support the claims for a high carb diet in controlling diabetes. In contrast, I see info. on reduced HbA1c numbers achieved through various levels of low carb eating posted all over this Forum.

 

[zand]

It's literally impossible to eat a zero-fat, plant-based diet as all plants contain carbs, fat and protein (not by accident, I'm guessing). And nobody is advocating a diet lower-in-fat than is capable of offering sustainable health benefits.

As far as not needing carbs for health? That would depend. One can certainly get by without it for sustained periods, in terms of energy, and the variables with which we can currently measure. But in terms of health, I'd be cautious to make any health claims that weren't backed up by multi-generational data.

In the world of nutrition reductionism, in which the majority of both high and low-carb gurus/doctors operate, these waters are eternally being muddied. The best we can do for people os to be clear that there is much we do not know about nutrition, and therefore to a certain extent each of us who is skirting the borders of extremes (me eschewing all animal products; you getting as close to zero carbs/plants as you can manage) should be made aware that we are taking various gambles.

But I managed to cause myself harm by eating just veggies for 7 weeks, therefore the fat in the veggies was not enough for me. How much more would I have needed to add to stay healthy yet be low enough in fats to control my BGs? I don't know, and I was unwilling to go through even more pain to find out. Low carb is so much easier to negotiate.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

We haven't seen many of them here in this forum.

One dya I might be motivated enough to give you a glimpse of why that might be

 

[zand]

@Beating-My-Betes Low carb is normally defined as less than 130g carbs daily. Is there a recognised limit for low fat? Allowing for the difference in cals in fats and carbs ...is the low fat limit less than 60g? I have never ever seen anyone quantify the low fat limit, so I guess it's much more complicated than a simple rule.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

can you elaborate on a this statement of why, and with what evidence low carb is flawed?

Perhaps read my post again. i didn't say that low-carb was flawed. I pointed to the dogma surrounding/supporting it to be flawed

Considering the success of so many in here alongside ever increasing scientific peer reviewed study I’m failing to see the flaw you claim.

I think it's increasingly important that people learn to detach the results of a program from the problematic explanations used to support/instruct the diet(s) I indicated that as a plural, as it applies just as much to the plant-based side of the equation.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

I would love to be able to eat a more vegan, less carnivore diet. However I have seen very few / almost no actual figures quoted to support the claims for a high carb diet in controlling diabetes. In contrast, I see info. on reduced HbA1c numbers achieved through various levels of low carb eating posted all over this Forum.

Like I alluded to in another reply, there are many reasons you won't see many people succeeding on a high-carb diet...on this forum. But I can assure you, they exist

 

[Deleted member 532959]

But I managed to cause myself harm by eating just veggies for 7 weeks, therefore the fat in the veggies was not enough for me. How much more would I have needed to add to stay healthy yet be low enough in fats to control my BGs? I don't know, and I was unwilling to go through even more pain to find out. Low carb is so much easier to negotiate.

Eating nothing but veggies for seven weeks sounds like a surefire way of causing health issues. From the past couple of decades being in and around these communities, I reckon getting between 10 and 20% of calories from fat is likely a good area to target (Incidentally, I don't think it's coincidental that that represents the almost-diametric opposite of the low-carb/keto macro position). Certainly, those studies (also, the low-fat government recommendations) 'setting' low-fat at around 35% were too high, within the context of a high-carb diet; at least for most of the population (Athletes seem to generally be able to get away with much more flexible macros).

Low-carb can be easier to negotiate for many, but not all. The same goes for those who minimise fats, in favour of carbs.

 

[Oldvatr]

It's literally impossible to eat a zero-fat, plant-based diet as all plants contain carbs, fat and protein (not by accident, I'm guessing). And nobody is advocating a diet lower-in-fat than is capable of offering sustainable health benefits.

As far as not needing carbs for health? That would depend. One can certainly get by without it for sustained periods, in terms of energy, and the variables with which we can currently measure. But in terms of health, I'd be cautious to make any health claims that weren't backed up by multi-generational data.

In the world of nutrition reductionism, in which the majority of both high and low-carb gurus/doctors operate, these waters are eternally being muddied. The best we can do for people os to be clear that there is much we do not know about nutrition, and therefore to a certain extent each of us who is skirting the borders of extremes (me eschewing all animal products; you getting as close to zero carbs/plants as you can manage) should be made aware that we are taking various gambles.

Plants contain carbs, fats, and protein. Yes, and so do animal products. As to the health benefits of phytochemicals and flavinoids as touted by the nutritionists, there is absolutely no formal evidence to support those claims. In fact, many phytochemicals are poisonous to humans since they are the plants defence systems.

By the way, the Low Carb Diet was introduced into medical practice in 1862, and has been in use as a treatment since. How many generations do you need? When was the vegan diet recognised? Nov 1944 I believe.

 

[Deleted member 532959]

@Beating-My-Betes Low carb is normally defined as less than 130g carbs daily. Is there a recognised limit for low fat? Allowing for the difference in cals in fats and catbs ...is the low fat limit less than 60g? I have never ever seen anyone quantify the low fat limit, so I guess it's much more complicated than a simple rule.

Sorry! Read this post, but ended up answering it in another reply.

For those who favour a carb-predominant lifestyle, 10-20% of calories from fat seems to provide optimum results. People can dip into much lower-levels for shorter periods or for specific reasons and still do well e.g those who favour ultra-endurance disciplines.

There's not a simple rule. I do know that the Mastering Diabetes plan sets a rough target of not more (at least not regularly) than circa 30g, per-day. This, of course, within the context of a very-high carb diet and trying to account for the majority who try their program.

 

[lucylocket61]

I think there are several types of type 2 diabetics.

Some only need to lose weight, by whatever means, and their blood sugar levels normalise.

Some are very sensitive to carbs and need to have as few carbs as possible to keep their blood sugar levels down.

Some are affected by protein. Some are not.

Over the years I have read countless posts on the One True Way to deal with type 2 diabetes. I don't think there is One Way For All

I suggest people try different things, using a blood sugar meter to monitor their individual responses, and see what works for them, both daily and long term.

 

[zand]

Sorry! Read this post, but ended up answering it in another reply.

For those who favour a carb-predominant lifestyle, 10-20% of calories from fat seems to provide optimum results. People can dip into much lower-levels for shorter periods or for specific reasons and still do well e.g those who favour ultra-endurance disciplines.

There's not a simple rule. I do know that the Mastering Diabetes plan sets a rough target of not more (at least not regularly) than circa 30g, per-day. This, of course, within the context of a very-high carb diet and trying to account for the majority who try their program.

Thank you. Now I have something to work with if in the future I decide to try high carb low fat again.