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

New study questions Type 2 diabetes treatment

yea thats scary, other scientist think that high blood glucose is just a sideeffect to an underlying decease in the tissue all over in our body... like fightng feber in an illness instead of figthing the real cause
 
Having read the report, I am of the opinion that his research has even wider holes in his theory than the ones he is getting at.

Managing your blood glucose levels is so important in not only T2 but other hormonal and metabolic conditions.
High and low, with fluctuations in high or low, can be very detrimental to your health. The more time you spend in normal blood glucose levels range, the healthier you are.
Your whole endocrine system works better and is more in balance and has restorative benefits when in normal levels.

If his approach was about how reducing carbs and sugars in our food should be a primary care protocol rather than drugs, then you know it's not about what his agenda is!
 

if this is true that controlling blood glucose does not change the outcome that diabetics do get far more Heart attacks and cardiovascular deceases no matter if their blood glucose is controlled.... then maybe the lchf do not make any dfference at all.....and other diets that lowers blood glucose..

it is anyway about time there is made a scientific trial to see if lchf actually lowers premature death in diabetics or if it only lowers blood glucose and that´s it
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered if a fetus was cultured in high glucose blood mother, then continued to be exposed to higher blood glucose when a baby, child and adolescent, if that is 'normal' glucose level for that individual. Once again the blood glucose levels set out by NICE come from where? Based on what research and proof?
Once again 'one size fits all'?
Or is this article just scaremongering?
 
This one has been reported and commented on here already. It would seem that high blood sugar is a symptom not the underlying problem. So as we know treating a symptom without addressing the underlying problem is pointless. Thats why we do LCHF to address the problem with insulin resistance not high blood sugar. Yes LCHF has an effect on blood sugars because it is addressing the real problem. And that's why fasting is so effective. Many have said that treating high blood sugar with drugs while not addressing diet will likely be far less effective and may well lead to diabetes worsening and stronger drugs being required. This is a founding principal of Dr Fung's treatment of Type 2.
 
It is high insulin levels that are produced when one is intolerant to carbs that cause the damage to the cardio vascular system , surely this is where the problem resides. High insulin inflames the body systems. Dr Krafts discussion is well worth listening to on YouTube. D.
 
ickihun said:
I've always wondered if a fetus was cultured in high glucose blood mother, then continued to be exposed to higher blood glucose when a baby, child and adolescent, if that is 'normal' glucose level for that individual.
Click to expand...
Prof Tim Noakes talks about this specific issue on his talk for the Keto Summit - apparently the child is exposed to the same high blood glucose as the mother, but the foetus has to produce its own insulin to cope with it. Glucose crosses the placenta, but the mother's insulin doesn't. In essence the child's pancreas is being trained for hyperinsulinemia even before birth
 
Last edited:
I think they would need a very large group of diabetics to study who have been doing LCHF for at least 15 years or more to determine whether it does lower premature death or even lowers the risk of complications. Those diabetics who do LCHF are a very small minority in the world they would probably struggle to find enough to do a trial on it
 
yes a very big Group would be fine, .... but so many diabetics are eating lchf so there would be plenty of volunters to take from
 
So I thought I would throw a couple of references into the boil and stir...

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

I might say I am to trade a scientist, sometime since I did active research and I can say I don't remember actually trying to repeat any of my published data..... which seems to be possibly wise....
 
Last edited:
Bloody hell that's frightening...thanks for posting.. very telling.
 
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.…