According to this list there are 170 countries with a higher percentage incidence of Diabetes than the UK. I am sure they don't all use the Chorleywood process and I am pretty sure some of them don't have a wheat based diet.They can't go back to the diet of the 30's unless we also revert back to the old grains we ate for centuries. The new grains damage us. I hope someone can find the information on the new grains, from the 50's (which made the Chorley wood process possible) and insulin regulation damage. I can't find it now.
I think you can read it without being a member?I am not on twitter or Facebook. But thanks anyway.
It's the grains, not just wheat, and not just in the UK. Read what I wrote above again. Nearly every country uses wheat and grains in their diet.According to this list there are 170 countries with a higher percentage incidence of Diabetes than the UK. I am sure they don't all use the Chorleywood process and I am pretty sure some of them don't have a wheat based diet.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings
I don't understand your point.
There is apparently a big increase in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes in recent decades.
If, instead of eating the modern diet, people ate the diet typical in the 1930's (which had quite a lot of carbs) then the theory is that they wouldn't have developed diabetes due to the lack of processed food, seed oils or whatever.
My assertion was, that there must be some irreversible change, like beta cell decay, that occurs, or we should be able to successfully revert to the 1930's diet that wouldn't have given us the diabetes in the first place. This was in response to @Jim Lahey 's three steps:
1. Overconsumption of excessive glucose leads to furious fat generation.
2. Fat cells run out of capacity to cope (in some this may be obese, in others it may not).
3. Diabetes.
And my comment that in addition to this there must be also be a permanent change if we are still susceptible to diabetes even if we now adopt a 1930's diet.
Agreed. I didn't become diabetic until I was 68 so I think my pancreas just doesn't work as well as it used to, after all my eyesight isn't what it was and I can't run as fast. Hopefully with a low carb diet my beta cells will work well enough until something else kills me. As you say there may be different routes for reversal but in my case I am unlikely to get younger.On the subject of reversal. I think you are right for some people. We all arrived at the same destination but via differing routes. Personally I believe that the whole understanding has not bottomed out yet. We are only part way there. Who knows, in the future we might be looking at several different sub categories of T2 diabetes. In which case differing potentials for reversal might well be the case.
My underlaying condition may not be reversible at all. But for others it might be. But the commonality might be that LCHF staves it off in the short term in both cases. Jim Lahey’s condition may be truly reversed, who knows, but for another person that might not be the case where their condition is merely managed.Agreed. I didn't become diabetic until I was 68 so I think my pancreas just doesn't work as well as it used to, after all my eyesight isn't what it was and I can't run as fast. Hopefully with a low carb diet my beta cells will work well enough until something else kills me. As you say there may be different routes for reversal but in my case I am unlikely to get younger.
????The important thing to remember is that glucose intolerance is not diabetes.
????
I don't think I was born with glucose intolerance as I ate carbs for 68 years without any problems.The diagnostic criteria for diabetes (type 2) is a failure to maintain glucose homeostasis. Elevated blood glucose. It should actually be elevated glucose and/or insulin dysfunction, but that's a topic for another day. If you do not have elevated glucose, and your insulin profiling is normal, then you do not have diabetes. You cannot have a diagnosable condition if it cannot be pathologically diagnosed. However, that doesn't mean that you can't get it, or that it won't come back if you've already had it. In today's food environment, vigilance is key for all.
If glucose intolerance is diabetes, then every single type 2 on these boards was born diabetic. We know this isn't true. Glucose intolerance only becomes diabetes, or returns to diabetes, if it is inappropriately managed. Using myself as an example, I know for a fact that no doctor on Earth could currently diagnose me as diabetic. At the moment.
Again, this is just my view. Others are free to disagree.
Yeah but if they sat you down to steak pie, beans and chips for a month then they might.Using myself as an example, I know for a fact that no doctor on Earth could currently diagnose me as diabetic. At the moment.
Again, this is just my view. Others are free to disagree.
I don't think I was born with glucose intolerance as I ate carbs for 68 years without any problems.
Yeah but if they sat you down to steak pie, beans and chips for a month then they might.
Well, no, it surely meets the Eatwell target.Maybe. Maybe not. Hence "At the moment." Luckily, eating pie and chips for a month is not prescribed by doctors prior to blood tests
I've said enough in this topic now. My position is clear. When all's said and done, we all think differently and see life through a different lens. All that matters is that we are happy and healthy. Live long and prosper
Drinking low carb beer make me happy...All that matters is that we are happy and healthy. Live long and prosper
Drinking any kind of beer makes me happy!Drinking low carb beer make me happy...
I've been getting the impression recently, from podcasts etc, that diabetes is preceded by insulin resistance and that that may be the fundamental issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?