Mastering diabetes

[Deleted member 388305]

Well done on getting into the remission range and posting some results. This makes the contrast so far almost perfectly between the low caliorie high carb method for others. What were your results on low carb.

Thanks for your response Mbaker!

Over the years, I maintained an A1c between 6.0 and 7.0 most of the time, but could never get below 6.0 no matter how few carbs I ate. That said, I found it increasingly difficult to do. I wasn't getting the results I used to get, which in turn made it more difficult to stay on the eating plan. This is over a 20 year span of time. During COVID, the wheels came off so I was looking for something to motivate me to do better. A doctor recommended I consider this and sent me a link to a video by the Mastering Diabetes guys. I spent three days reading their book and decided it made sense enough to give it a shot. If it is true that abdominal and dietary fat cause insulin resistance, then it makes sense that the harder I worked at low carb (meaning essentially that the fat percentage of my diet became higher over time), then the more insulin resistant I was making myself.

Not a criticism as we are all using hypothesis, but your trigs are "better" than average (according to modern ways of reviewing lipids), howver they are 33% more in absolute terms more than mine - more fat in the blood on a low fat diet than someone eating lots of fat. The HDL of 0.85 is below both US and UK standards and compares to my latest a couple of weeks ago of 2.9, whilst your LDL is over 2 times lower than mine (so on modern metrics better). So on lipids a traditional Doctor would say LDL trumps everything making yours better. The low carb Doctors would favour mine as being more protective.

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn? He treats heart patients with this diet. He says that if you are eating this way and achieve a Total Cholesterol of <150 and an LDL of <80, then any heart disease you have will not progress and in very many cases will reverse. So he doesn't view HDL as being so important in that case. I have read elsewhere that not all HDL is "good." Here is a link to a Caldwell TED Talk.
Making Heart Attacks History.

Here are my Medichecks tests a few months ago, which show a similar A1c to yours and a very low HS-CRP of 0.3:

I got my HS-CRP lab report a few minutes ago and mine was 2.0.
apolipoprotein B 74

View attachment 57193

To round this out can you post typical meals on your protocol and if you do exercise, what is it, here are some of my meals this week:

Mostly I walk, pretty much every day - usually between 1.5 and 3 miles. I ordered some dumbbells which should arrive today and hope to add some muscle to further improve my glucose uptake. I also do Tai Chi. The Tai Chi and walking sort of take up the same time spectrum; if I do more of one then I do less of the other.

View attachment 57190

View attachment 57191 View attachment 57192

I am hoping you send your exercise (if any), hs-crp, typical meals and indication of your post-prandial readings (mine 1.7 mmol/mol); people can make an assessment as to which protocol suits them more, essentially do they believe in the high LDL kills you hypothesis or low HDL and higher Trigs does and plant or animal based food preferences. Whilst this is an oversimplification some of the big ticket items are addressed.

I don't have any food pictures, but I can give you an idea of what I eat.
For breakfast I typically eat steel-cut oatmeal with 1/2 a banana, blueberries, cinnamon and flax seed with black coffee.
At some time during the day I will eat a large sald - either at lunch or dinner, but most often at lunch: In addition to whatever greens I use, I will add half a cup or more of beans, some tomatoes, peppers, cumin, vinaigrette. This is usually followed by a large plate of vegetables which can include green beans, sweet potatoes, squash, carrots, etc., etc. and an apple. I may also have a serving of brown rice or quinoa or more beans topped with another half a banana and blueberries.
Mid-afternoon I have a smoothie which includes frozen fruit, kale, broccoli, flax seed and plant protein powder. I have a slice of Ezekiel Bread with it.
If I have eaten all the above, then at dinner I will probably just eat a serving of raw unsalted nuts (almonds, cashews or walnuts) a square of 85% dark chocolate and perhaps another apple.
We have just now started exploring recipes so have added a couple of good ones - one for a soup containing potatoes, lima beans, asparagus and leeks as well as one for ratatouille.

Hope this helps. Anyone who has any interest in this really needs to carefully read the book and check out the references to the relevant studies. Also, remember this is a process and I am only into it 6 months. These results are better than they were 3 months ago and I expect more changes in the days ahead.

 

[HSSS]

@Cedartop rather than pay for and read the entire book right now can you summarise a couple of points for me.

(1) Doesn’t this whole theory hinge on the fact that our body and visceral fat (which is apparently causing the resistance) is derived from dietary fat alone rather than any or much of it being from protein or carbs? With what evidence? I’ve never found anything that explains this other than the words being the same and it is the single biggest barrier for me to even consider it. The Newcastle very low calorie diet is also based on the same principle of reducing visceral fat but doesn’t exclude animal produce and is incidentally low fat and low carb due to the limited calories. Low carb and keto also diminishes fat in this area. I’m failing to see the difference in this aspect why this method is superior. I understand the low carb explanation as it inherently makes sense to me carbs=glucose= insulin=fat storage/burning hindered and increased resistance.

(2)Is the reason all animal produce is excluded based on reducing fats, something else or is it more morality/ethically based?

(3) How long before you saw empirical evidence it was working - for you - rather than making things worse? Eg blood glucose, weight, cholesterol, and IR testing done? Any scary short term effects on blood glucose and how long before they diminished?

 

[Antje77]

Hi @Cedartop , apologies for going off topic here. Would you mind not writing large parts of your post in red? We have quite a few members with vision issues and alternative colours can be very hard to read.

All the best, Antje

 

[Deleted member 388305]

Hi @Cedartop , apologies for going off topic here. Would you mind not writing large parts of your post in red? We have quite a few members with vision issues and alternative colours can be very hard to read.

All the best, Antje

No Problem - sorry

 

[Deleted member 388305]

@Cedartop rather than pay for and read the entire book right now can you summarise a couple of points for me.

(1) Doesn’t this whole theory hinge on the fact that our body and visceral fat (which is apparently causing the resistance) is derived from dietary fat alone rather than any or much of it being from protein or carbs? With what evidence? I’ve never found anything that explains this other than the words being the same and it is the single biggest barrier for me to even consider it. The Newcastle very low calorie diet is also based on the same principle of reducing visceral fat but doesn’t exclude animal produce and is incidentally low fat and low carb due to the limited calories. Low carb and keto also diminishes fat in this area. I’m failing to see the difference in this aspect why this method is superior. I understand the low carb explanation as it inherently makes sense to me carbs=glucose= insulin=fat storage/burning hindered and increased resistance.

(2)Is the reason all animal produce is excluded based on reducing fats, something else or is it more morality/ethically based?

(3) How long before you saw empirical evidence it was working - for you - rather than making things worse? Eg blood glucose, weight, cholesterol, and IR testing done? Any scary short term effects on blood glucose and how long before they diminished?

The reason I recommend reading the book is partially because of the way I process information. I don't want to give you wrong or incomplete information. If I read a big book and something makes sense to me, I choose a course of action based on it, but I make no effort to remember the exact reasons why I initially made that decision afterwards. So my answers your questions are going to be much less complete than is advisable and may even be remembered incorrectly. I am not a scientist nor an expert, just relating my experiences. The people who wrote the book are the experts. Keep that in mind when you read anything I write on this subject. Another good free source of information on this way of eating are the videos on Dr. Greger's site - NutritionFacts.org. Hundreds of short videos analyzing studies on the relevant subjects
I'm going to lump 1. and 2. together and just make some statements from what I remember (and I may not remember correctly). They took an entire book to answer these questions.

-Virtually all animal products are high in fat compared to virtually all vegetable products. Those vegetable products which are high in fat, like nuts and avocados are "yellow-light" foods on this diet - to be eaten sparingly because of the fat content. Since animal products are the main source of saturated fat, there is almost no saturated fat on this diet - saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol.

-A high fat meal will increase insulin resistance within about 3 hours and that increased resistance will continue well past the time for your next meal, which on low-carb, will be a relatively high fat meal. Controlled studies dating back as far as the 1920s demonstrate that fat induces insulin resistance.

-Animal protein affects the body differently than animal protein.

-The decision is not ethically based - purely science. Everything is backed up by studies.

(3) How long before you saw empirical evidence it was working - for you - rather than making things worse? Eg blood glucose, weight, cholesterol, and IR testing done? Any scary short term effects on blood glucose and how long before they diminished?

I had my first labs three months after starting this plan and all of my lab results had improved, but experiencing it is very different than on low-carb. On low-carb, you can stick your finger any time and know the effect of the diet. Since you are not trying to control carb intake (to avoid a need for insulin), but are trying to increase you sensitivity to insulin, it is harder to measure (because it takes time to remove fat from your pancreas, liver, muscles, etc). However, not having the dietary fat interfering with your meal processing shows up pretty quickly. I was on Metformin when I started this. Within 5 days, I had to get off of it. My insulin sensitivity had improved enough that my blood sugar would go too low after a high carb meal and, since Metformin terns off your body's ability to manufacture sugar, there was not mechanism in place to prevent those lows. I initially had large spikes after a high carb meal, but recovered pretty quickly and the amplitude of the spikes came down more rapidly than, say, my fasting blood sugar and was the first sign that something good was happening. Cholesterol and weight quickly came down. You are eating a diet very high in nutritional content and very low in calories, so basically, no matter how much of the allowed foods you eat, you are not going to over eat. And, as I say, ALL labs were improved after 3 months and the ones I posted above at 6 months are improved again (A1c from 6.0 to 5.6 - LDL from 96 to 78).

Because you need a span of time to see what is going on, I started using a CGM so I could check my glucose hourly (not goin to stick my fingers that often). Over time, that didn't seem to work so well - it would be reading a value that I knew could not be possible and I would check and it could be 30 points off either way. So after a couple of months I quit using it. I find that at the moment, I really have no idea what my A1c is going to be based on my finger sticks. I would have thought my most recent one would have been in the neighborhood of 6.0 or 6.1 (US scale) based on my finger sticks, so I was very pleasantly surprised to get the 5.6. I assume that there is a lot better control going on in general than I can find out from the number of finger sticks I am willing to do.

 

[HSSS]

Thanks for the time taken to answer. it great that for now you have found a way that is working for you. Unfortunately I see much of the first part of the answer as simply restating the position dietary fat (especially saturated/animal fat) is the problem without any explanation why. And I’ve certainly seen evidence that disputes saturated fat being the “cause” of high ldl.

I’ll try and dig out some studies showing IR being increased within hours for hours by fat as I’m curious. So yo7 ah e at least given me a jumping off point there. And also about how the proteins are different. As far as I’m aware animal proteins are more complete. I’m also very aware of the deficiencies such as iron and b12 etc that follow a vegan diet and as I struggle with these anyway I cannot afford to reduce the little I do absorb despite eating a meat heavy diet.

 

[Deleted member 388305]

Thanks for the time taken to answer. it great that for now you have found a way that is working for you. Unfortunately I see much of the first part of the answer as simply restating the position dietary fat (especially saturated/animal fat) is the problem without any explanation why. And I’ve certainly seen evidence that disputes saturated fat being the “cause” of high ldl.

I’ll try and dig out some studies showing IR being increased within hours for hours by fat as I’m curious. So yo7 ah e at least given me a jumping off point there. And also about how the proteins are different. As far as I’m aware animal proteins are more complete. I’m also very aware of the deficiencies such as iron and b12 etc that follow a vegan diet and as I struggle with these anyway I cannot afford to reduce the little I do absorb despite eating a meat heavy diet.

I still think that if you have any interest in this, you need to read the book. You have virtually no information about it from what I have said. It is a big book. If you don't have any interest, that is perfectly fine. I was just reporting my results from doing this for 6 months.

One eats a very wide array of vegetables and fruits on this diet, doing away with the need to get a "complete" source of protein in a single food item.

This diet is not lacking in iron, it is just "non-heme" iron, which is actually better for you than "heme-iron" from animal products. Here is a link to a short video explaining the difference and the studies done: The Safety of Heme vs. Non-hemi Iron.

Yes, you need to supplement with B12. That is recommended for people my age regardless of their diet.

 

[HSSS]

I am interested in options. I am struggling right now for a variety of reasons so as a matter of good practice, especially important in my current situation, I do like to dig into things I’m not doing. I might not choose to do them, or not right now. I’m also reluctant in my current financial situation to buy an expensive book that may or may not become a doorstop. But rest assured I don’t hold you personally responsible for anything other than ideas.

I struggle to take anything by Geiger seriously as he seems seriously biased and quite questionable what he selects as evidence. So I am going to dig a little deeper elsewhere. I’ve also done a whole heap of iron research and am struggling to accept that non heme is better. That too is in conflict with everything reputable I’ve found elsewhere. No one of any age should need to supplement b12 unless diet is deficient or there is an absorption issue. Not looking convincing so far but it’s good to challenge my confirmation bias if nothing else.

 

[Deleted member 388305]

I am interested in options. I am struggling right now for a variety of reasons so as a matter of good practice, especially important in my current situation, I do like to dig into things I’m not doing. I might not choose to do them, or not right now. I’m also reluctant in my current financial situation to buy an expensive book that may or may not become a doorstop. But rest assured I don’t hold you personally responsible for anything other than ideas.

I struggle to take anything by Geiger seriously as he seems seriously biased and quite questionable what he selects as evidence. So I am going to dig a little deeper elsewhere. I’ve also done a whole heap of iron research and am struggling to accept that non heme is better. That too is in conflict with everything reputable I’ve found elsewhere. No one of any age should need to supplement b12 unless diet is deficient or there is an absorption issue. Not looking convincing so far but it’s good to challenge my confirmation bias if nothing else.

I understand about finances being a consideration. I looked into this because I was frustrated. Over the years, very low-carb had worked less and less well for me. I guess compared to many diabetics I was doing well - my A1c was usually under 7% and for periods of time would be at 6.0 or a bit higher. Except for the year immediately previous to this I had been off medication for 3 years. But I always wanted to achieve a non-diabetic level and believed it possible with diet alone. A doctor told me that fat caused insulin resistance. This made some sense to me. If eating very low carb (high fat) increases insulin resistance then, although it works to control blood sugars, it also makes you increasingly more insulin resistant over time. That idea resonated with my experience. And although I don't have a means of proving cause and effect, the lower carb I got, the higher my LDL became. This did not happen quickly - we are talking years on end. I read up on this and, because it made sense with what I had experienced, I decided to try it. So for me, 6 months in, I have a non-diabetic A1c for the first time, my LDL, which had hit 200 before statins is now in the 70s without medication, and I was just taken off testosterone replacement therapy yesterday. The only medicine I have left is for high blood pressure, which I have also been on for 40 years. It is improving as well and I hope within a couple of years to have restored arterial function to the point where I no longer need that either. We will see. It was doubtful that I could achieve my A1c goals given my years of diabetes, but thankfully that worked out. The hypertension may or may not. Nonetheless, this is just a testimonial, not scientific proof and I understand you needing more. I am not the guy to provide that. The OP wanted to hear from people who were following this method and I am, so there you are.

BTW, my iron and protein levels were fine with my endocrinologist, so 6 months of this has not caused a problem there. My doctor says that elderly people DO often have a problem making use of b12 which is why she recommends supplementation for me.

Best wishes to you!

 

[bulkbiker]

A doctor told me that fat caused insulin resistance.

Did they happen to say which "fat" though.
Dietary fat and body fat are very different things.
Body fat is usually down to excess carbohydrate consumption and insulin disregulation.
Dietary fat (depending somewhat on the source) is usually beneficial.

 

[Deleted member 388305]

Did they happen to say which "fat" though.
Dietary fat and body fat are very different things.
Body fat is usually down to excess carbohydrate consumption and insulin disregulation.
Dietary fat (depending somewhat on the source) is usually beneficial.

Actually it's both dietary and body. Dietary impairs insulin resistance within a couple hours of eating and lasts for several hours. Body fat affects insulin resistance all the time. Some things that I held to be true, and was told were true when doing low-carb, don't seem to be valid in light of my recent experiences. In the past, whenever my triglycerides were too high, I was told that I must be eating too many carbohydrates. And the number did go down if I worked at lowering carbohydrate consumption more heavily. However, I am now eating between 200 and 300 gr of carbohydrates most days and my current level of triglycerides is only 86 (on the US scale, which recommends under 150). So it appears to be the fat that often accompanies carbohydrates that interferes with the regulation of triglycerides. You do eat fat on this diet, but you don't add any. It's just the fat that naturally occurs in whole foods. Likewise, the carbohydrates I eat come with a good bit of fiber and many other nutrients and anti-oxidants because the are contained in whole foods. So on this diet you are trying to get rid of the excess fat in your liver, pancreas and muscles as well as limit the interference from dietary fat at the time of ingestion. And I have lost a good bit of weight, really without any effort. You are eating a diet that is very high in nutritional benefits and low in calories, so the weight just comes off. The same has happened to my wife, who is not a diabetic, but eats the way I should .
Again, not a scientist (I'm a musician), this is just my experience.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

BTW, my iron and protein levels were fine with my endocrinologist, so 6 months of this has not caused a problem there. My doctor says that elderly people DO often have a problem making use of b12 which is why she recommends supplementation for me.

Over the last couple of decades, I've lost count of the number of vegan and raw-vegan blood-tests I've seen being shown, where these oft-cited apparent pitfalls (of plant-based diets) are not in evidence. I've also seen many cases where people have managed to spontaneously correct iron issue, having adopted a vegan diet.

That's not to say that is always the case. Nor am I suggesting that vegans aren't more prone to iron issues. What is certainly evident is that in the case of iron, and indeed other nutrients, issues cannot be reduced down to simple factors. Certainly, if adequate iron stores were simply a result of eating meat, then ONLY vegans would have iron issues. Clearly this is not the case.

Here is (I think) a pretty balanced look into the topic of iron, from a vegan RD's perspective:

Iron

The latest blog post from VeganHealth.org

veganhealth.org

Of course, there is also the consideration that those who adopt a vegan diet need not eschew medications or supplementation. Furthermore, it is (I believe) possible to do the MD program, while consuming animal-products, within the given fat recommendations. This is not conjecture on my part, as I recently heard Cyrus clarify the same, during a recent interview (Will have to try to remember where I heard it)

As for b12? This also isn't a vegan-only issue. The availability of hundreds (thousands?) of companies producing many variants of b12 products certainly aren't chasing the (not even) 1% of vegans.

The issue seems to be two-fold, though they fall under the same umbrella i.e environmental. Many will claim, though there are some vegans who heavily contest it, that our lives have become sanitised to the point where we no longer come into contact with sufficient amounts of the necessary bacteria to provide us with adequate b12. That Is possible. The other issue is that the gradual ongoing depletion of soils, worldwide, has meant that there is insufficient cobalt (I believe) for grazing animals to be able to synthesise it.

The upshot is that many of the animals are themselves being supplemented with b12. In such cases, omnivores are being supplemented by proxy.

It might be a big conceptual leap for certain people to take, but popping a pill for b12 is a pretty simple precaution to take. Of course, if regular testing shows everything is fine in that regard, that's all good.

There's no shortage of vegans who believe supplementation on a vegan diet is unnecessary. I'm not sure actually where MD stand on diabetes supplementation. It's something that I should look up

Here's an example of someone having not eaten meat for 7 years (at the time of the video). I think it's a good example, because it speaks to the issue of iron and b12. Matt's case, from an overall nutrition point-of-view, is perhaps more interesting because as a raw-vegan he doesn't eat any of the commonly fortified foods that 'cooked' vegans eat. While he isn't affiliated with the MD plan, nor would he label himself as being on that specific diet, he is absolutely eating an MD approved diet, and very similarly to how Robby eats.

On the subject of protein @HSSS. To look at plant-protein being incomplete as a negative thing is unfortunately due to a tendency towards reductionism in certain nutrition spaces. In this case, the presumption is that people eat foods in a completely isolated fashion. But that tends not to be the case. By eating meals in common combinations e.g rice and beans, and various different foods throughout the day, a complete amino acid profile can easily be reached. That's why there exists an ever-growing amount of vegan athletes, bodybuilders etc. As long as one pays a certain amount of mindfulness in the planning of the diet (The MD plan already has recipes), there should be no issues.

Thanks to the internet and places like Twitter etc. the acceleration of the crossover of knowledge is extremely apparent. There is more and more evidence of vary little difference (With a few caveats) between plant-based and animal sources of protein, when it comes to down to actual human outcomes. And while it might be tempting for some to suggest vegan biases, this information is more and more being shared by specialists in their respective fields, who are neither vegan, nor seem to show any intention of ever becoming vegan.

The info and science is out there. I'm glad you seem open-minded enough to seek it out.

 

[Deleted member 388305]

Thanks for all of that info Beating-My-Betes! I'm using a couple of other sources in addition to the Mastering Diabetes book and I AM using supplements. I don't remember much about them in the MD book.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Thanks for all of that info Beating-My-Betes! I'm using a couple of other sources in addition to the Mastering Diabetes book and I AM using supplements. I don't remember much about them in the MD book.

I've had the book for ages. Got it on a free weekend Amazon promotion. However, I've yet to read it. While I'm very onboard with the theory, such as I understand it, and the results that parallel decades of the effectiveness of similar plans, I am somewhat wary of certain aspects of both them and their program. Nothing deal-breaking, and Ive certainly read enough from their site and watched many videos.

Anyway, that's perhaps why I've missed their stance on b12 supplementation. Don't want to make a definitive claim until then.

As far as resources go, I everything opens up if you consider that the MD plan is extremely similar to many of the low-fat, plant-based approaches. That's not to say that MD is redundant. Far from it. They're necessarily much more honed in on diabetes, in its various forms.

 

[HSSS]

I’m not, and never was, suggesting that iron and b12 deficiency is only ever the result of not eating animal products. There are definitely other causes too irrespective of diet, but a diet lacking in these is far more likely to result in the human eating as such having a deficiency. Much the same argument about protein. I‘m sure with careful planning a broad spectrum of amino acids will be covered. It’s just that is much easier to get it all eating meat. And the ease of having a nutritionally complete diet is important to me as I simply don’t have the spare capacity time or resources to be spending any extra time over feeding than I do now.

@Cedartop ldl seems a major driver and focus for you. I’m seriously not worried about mine. It’s not as low as the drs would,like but it’s come down since I started low carb And my trigl are excellent, also a big improvement. Hdl is good but not excessive. So I guess for me it is about reducing IR and bgl rather than cholesterol.

Still to look into the dietary fat (agreed on visceral fat being problematic) causing a near immediate rise in IR. Not had a chance yet This I think is the key point of interest to me. Any links would be gratefully received, if it’s not Geiger. Over the last few years I’ve already eased away from fats and into higher proteins so whilst I’m highly unlikely to be anything like as low fat as this approach requires it’s not actually that high either.

 

[bulkbiker]

Dietary impairs insulin resistance within a couple hours of eating and lasts for several hours.

I remain to be convinced that this is in fact true. Do you have any links apart from "Mastering Diabetes" or Greger neither of which I consider to be unbiased sources?

 

[Deleted member 388305]

I remain to be convinced that this is in fact true. Do you have any links apart from "Mastering Diabetes" or Greger neither of which I consider to be unbiased sources?

I got that from one of the sources you don't trust (don't remember which). I did a quick search of studies and found this one in which, if I read the abstract correctly (remember - I'm a musician), after ingesting for a glucose tolerance test, higher levels of saturated fat increased insulin resistance. Again, I could be completely wrong. Lots out there on how diets high in saturated fat increase insulin resistance in general.

AJCN Study

 

[Mbaker]

Thanks for your response Mbaker!

Over the years, I maintained an A1c between 6.0 and 7.0 most of the time, but could never get below 6.0 no matter how few carbs I ate. That said, I found it increasingly difficult to do. I wasn't getting the results I used to get, which in turn made it more difficult to stay on the eating plan. This is over a 20 year span of time. During COVID, the wheels came off so I was looking for something to motivate me to do better. A doctor recommended I consider this and sent me a link to a video by the Mastering Diabetes guys. I spent three days reading their book and decided it made sense enough to give it a shot. If it is true that abdominal and dietary fat cause insulin resistance, then it makes sense that the harder I worked at low carb (meaning essentially that the fat percentage of my diet became higher over time), then the more insulin resistant I was making myself.


Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn? He treats heart patients with this diet. He says that if you are eating this way and achieve a Total Cholesterol of <150 and an LDL of <80, then any heart disease you have will not progress and in very many cases will reverse. So he doesn't view HDL as being so important in that case. I have read elsewhere that not all HDL is "good." Here is a link to a Caldwell TED Talk.
Making Heart Attacks History.



I got my HS-CRP lab report a few minutes ago and mine was 2.0.
apolipoprotein B 74

Mostly I walk, pretty much every day - usually between 1.5 and 3 miles. I ordered some dumbbells which should arrive today and hope to add some muscle to further improve my glucose uptake. I also do Tai Chi. The Tai Chi and walking sort of take up the same time spectrum; if I do more of one then I do less of the other.


I don't have any food pictures, but I can give you an idea of what I eat.
For breakfast I typically eat steel-cut oatmeal with 1/2 a banana, blueberries, cinnamon and flax seed with black coffee.
At some time during the day I will eat a large sald - either at lunch or dinner, but most often at lunch: In addition to whatever greens I use, I will add half a cup or more of beans, some tomatoes, peppers, cumin, vinaigrette. This is usually followed by a large plate of vegetables which can include green beans, sweet potatoes, squash, carrots, etc., etc. and an apple. I may also have a serving of brown rice or quinoa or more beans topped with another half a banana and blueberries.
Mid-afternoon I have a smoothie which includes frozen fruit, kale, broccoli, flax seed and plant protein powder. I have a slice of Ezekiel Bread with it.
If I have eaten all the above, then at dinner I will probably just eat a serving of raw unsalted nuts (almonds, cashews or walnuts) a square of 85% dark chocolate and perhaps another apple.
We have just now started exploring recipes so have added a couple of good ones - one for a soup containing potatoes, lima beans, asparagus and leeks as well as one for ratatouille.

Hope this helps. Anyone who has any interest in this really needs to carefully read the book and check out the references to the relevant studies. Also, remember this is a process and I am only into it 6 months. These results are better than they were 3 months ago and I expect more changes in the days ahead.

Sorry for my delayed response, these IT clients of mine for some reason want me to work for the money they pay me.

I do have a few observations on your response. I understand the rationale on reducing fat. I believe for you a more protein focused low carb approach would have got you below 6 for your A1c, as protein is indicated independently to improvement fat loss - personally I have never bought into "just eat more fat", I think you overate fat, both Dr David Unwin and Dr. Eric Westman state to proritise protein and many others... the high fat part of LCHF has been diminished in the last couple of years to just the fat that comes with the protein.

I think the motivation point is key here, as I know the MD protocol is strict; again I believe if you were on strict animal based P.E. type equivalent you would have probably the same or better A1c and for me an enhanced set of biomarkers.

I am familiar Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn. When I got diagnosed, it was the Vegan doctors I believed first. The problem with his recommended cholestorol numbers are that even the epidemology "evidence" does not support. I know Dave Feldman has shown that somewhere in the 200's is indicated (Nhanes dataset), and here is one other reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38461-y:

I would further point to the risk calculators (none include LDL, which "proves" Trigs and HDL" have a higher importance). All of this evidence is not from the low carb community, so the mainstream is contradicted and disproves the diet heart hypothesis itself. Of interest is that what the direction of travel suggests is that really low LDL and really high LDL are associated with more death.

Your HS-CRP of 2 indicates moderate risk, as the desired is below 1, mine has been 0.3 for approaching 4 years (this should put to bed, meat is inflammatory):

I am familiar with Tai Chi, I practice Karate moves every day and do Kick Boxing once a week.

Had my vegetarian / almost vegan experiment "worked" for me, I would most likely have a diet menu similar to yours, with some ethnic variations such as yams, green bananas plantains, bread fruit etc. I thought I would point out some cross over items we have in common, blueberries, cinnamon, flax seed, tomatoes, peppers, cumin, green beans, squash, carrots, salad, almonds, walnuts, asparagus

Thanks for being so open with your results.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Well done on getting into the remission range [Rest of post redacted to aim to fit within 10k character-limit]

I'm not sure how there's any real comparison to be made here.

You seem to be placing a dividing line between the MD protocol and your protocol, with the inference that your protocol and that of the wider forum are one and the same. Of course, its true that the majority here (You included) defer to a low-carb protocol. But the way you manage your particular condition, via your lifestyle, is very different than the majority of members here are going to be able to achieve, assuming they'd even want to. Moreover, your personal interpretation of metrics (Yours and of the broader community) is something that I don't believe most will be interested to entertain.

I don't think there's anything wrong with you deciding your personal thresholds for acceptability when it comes to the data that you measure. If you personally find it unacceptable to wake up with a BG over 4.0, then good for you (With caveats, imo). If you don't like the idea of ever going above 6.0 BG, then good for you (Again...caveats). You wanna walk after every meal? Excellent idea.

Your results come to you with an effort that most aren't going to be able to sustain.

There are other things that I think are being missed in this broad-brush comparison:

I might be wrong, but I think Cedar is older than you (The gap might not be huge, but it could be a consideration). We also don't know (And he's under no obligation to share) his current weight, or his current 'trend' (up; down; stable) in weight. Certainly, any increase and definitely decrease is going to affect his numbers.

At the time of posting this post we had no idea of Cedar's meals, exercise and carb-intake. Now we know he averages 2 miles-a-day walking, and eats up to 300grams of carbs per-day, seemingly eating 3 meals plus snacks, containing many foods on the T2D 'no-no' list. So there's really no like-for-like comparison that can be made between his numbers and that of someone who eats low-carb, exercises at a high-level (In terms of both time and exertion). Objectively and empirically your numbers are better. But while I don't think it's your deliberate intention to do so, this imo is just distraction from the actual conversation that Cedar's results should prompt.

If it Is true, as many seem to post here, that T2D is a condition characterised by an inability to deal with carbs, how do we reconcile that position with Cedar's results? And in such a case, does the term "Remission" apply?

I've seen David Unwin qualify remission on the grounds of an unmedicated HbA1C and (I can't remember, but assume) a non-diabetic FBG. However, he was quick to caution that a return to 'normal' eating will quickly undo the good results. Though I assume he is cautioning against returning to eating carbs, in the video I watched he strangely (though not untypical in the context of the wider movement) gives the example of ice-cream. Of course, as any ice-cream lover knows, any tub worth a scoop is gonna be high in fat

I find it to be a great source of ongoing frustration that carbs get the blame for food concoctions of which they're only one part (Often, calorically-speaking, not even the major part). To flip a low-carb meme on it's head: "Don't blame rice and potatoes for what the processed food containing high amounts of carbs, often even higher amounts of fat and salt did".

[And before someone says "All carbs turn to sugar" - which is a statement of fact - the real human outcomes, in the context of high-carb, low-fat, whole foods, plant-based diet, show that it doesn't seem to be a hinderance in either weight-management, diabetes remission or any of the other disease for which carbs are blamed and subsequently demonised.]

I know that Robby and Cyrus (MD program) roll remission and reversal into one, ostensibly because their criteria for success encompasses more checkpoints: They site an ongoing (Year, minimum) non-medicated HBA1C and FBG, along with the ability to pass an OGTT. So whereas the low-carb idea of remission seems to suggest that everything will remain fine-and-dandy, as long as one doesn't go back to eating carbs, the MD program ONLY determines success within a ongoing (highly) carb-challenged state.

As far as your assessment of Cedar's other markers:

[I'm going to avoid a wider discussion of cholesterol, because a) it's outside of the purview of this thread, b) my intention to disappear for a month or so means I don't want to wade into such a deep topic.]

With the exception of HDL (which is low, and seemingly trending in the wrong direction), Cedar's numbers seem to be well within range. And I think this idea of ranges is important. Trigs are given a very generous range (<150). Whether lower is better is somewhat irrelevant. Unless there Is a surfeit of robust evidence to suggest that very undesirable health effects start occurring above 60, and that the range is dangerously generous, then Cedar seems to be doing fine.

As I've addressed earlier, if you personally aren't satisfied with numbers higher than a certain level, that's ok for you. However, pointing out that you are 33% better in absolute terms is kinda meaningless unless you can reliably demonstrate that Cedar's numbers are not good, and that very real, observable positive outcomes would result from him reducing his numbers by 33% or higher.

And you seem to have inferred that what makes your numbers perhaps more special is that you manage such a result while eating lots of fat. This, of course works both ways i.e in the case of Cedar's HbA1C being similar to yours despite age difference, exponentially higher carb grammage and exponentially less body muscle-mass and weekly energy expenditure.

Would it not be fair to say that not only are Cedar's trigs perfectly fine, but (and I think this is more important) that they are much lower than would be expected (from a LC'ers perspective) given his current lifestyle?

Going back to the comparison aspect of this post, one of the biggest confounders here is time-on-program. You've been at this for some years now, I believe) whereas Cedar has only been on MD for 6 months. And though it's perhaps not relevant to this comparison, it is worth remembering that he has experience of 20 years of low-carb not working out for him. The oft-claimed "We're all different" may be all that's needed to explain his personal negative experience. Regardless, his numbers seem to be improving now.


We know (certainly at least since Dave Feldman got hold of a personal cholesterol testing kit) how variable cholesterol readings can be. Judging Cedar's numbers at the 6 month mark, without any idea of his weight trends is a little early, no?

Anyway, I hope it's clear that this is not an attack on you. If anything, I believe your results are exceptional. I also admire your ability, much in contrast to my own lack, to seemingly be able to decide something and then just unwaveringly hammering at it until you get it done. I just think that getting lost in the trees (especially with the demanding of ever-increasing tests and statistics and quibbling over minor percentages) is stopping this conversation widening to encompass the entire forest, and the implications for how diabetes treatment is viewed and offered.

Ultimately, I don't think comparison is totally without merit. However, you're 'fighting' in very different 'weight' classes.

Cedar's is just another example, in an ever-growing pile of examples, demonstrating that within the context of a lowered-fat, higher-carb, whole foods lifestyle (e.g MD program et al), that (at least in terms of commonly-used markers), it's possible to not only see the progression of diabetes T2D halt, but also start to reverse.

Watch this space, as I think this is just the tip of the iceberg


à tout à l'heure

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

mine has been 0.3 for approaching 4 years (this should put to bed, meat is inflammatory):

I'm curious: Did you ever see the month-long vegan/keto (carnivore, perhaps?) swap, hosted on Drew Morgans channel, and subsequently analysed by Dave Feldman?

Edited: To add and to clarify.

Firstly, I realise that perhaps there're very few people who'd be motivated to sit through the (from memory) over 3-hour final analysis, so it might seem strange why I particularly quoted that part of MBaker's answer.

The cliff-notes again from memory, are that a vegan went carnivore for 30-days (at least, meat-based keto) and his opposite swapped his meat-based diet for 30 days of whole food vegan. The results seemed to demonstrate that going carnivore increased inflammation for the vegan, and the carni's inflammation decreased going vegan.

Is this definitive? Of course not. It was an N=2, over a short, and uncontrolled duration. However, my intention is not to offer definitive proof, but to urge caution that perhaps we're not quite at the stage of putting anything to bed.

At a personal level, perhaps that's enough to be satisfied. However, that dynamic changes when the notion that definitive proof exists is spread on forums such as this. Not every member here will be able to regularly test for inflammation. That goes even moreso as concerns all the non-members who read here.

The other side of this, and what this particular experiment also shows, is that it's not clear-cut definitive truth to say that carbs cause inflammation either. Also. since my first posting, Cedar has amended his test results, adding another data point for the whole food, plant-based diet (a la MD, Furhman, Esselstyn etc.) is not definitively implicated in the causing of inflammation.

For clarity, my own position given the available data is that meat doesn't necessarily cause inflammation either. Of course "Meat" is a broad topic, but I've seen enough examples to believe that it doesn't do so in all people. Does that apply to everyone? I very much doubt it. And I believe that it should stop being taken as a given until much more, and better long-term data is available.

An edit to my edit: Now that I am rewatching the analysis of the diet swap I need to correct something I misremembered. The vegan guy's inflammation did indeed reduce on the meat-based diet. Not that his marker was very high on his 10-year vegan diet, though. But it's an important detail.

Also they ran the trial for 28 days, rather than 30.

It also seems like there are a lot of issues with confounding going on, and evidently both of the participants should've been coached as to how to best apply their respective new diets.

Still, as far as it goes, it's a fascinating watch. Not sure I'll complete the video till tomorrow.