Reversing Type 2 Diabetes

[noblehead]

The same thing applies o many other classes of people. The government should be loooking at lifestyles.
Overweight does NOT mean lazy. Sometimes it means exacly the opposite.
Even when people do not gain noticeable weight I am sure lack of physical activity affects them.

That's very true, I work with people who exercise very little and eat like a horse but don't gain weight but to say they are healthy would be misleading.. If you look at professional footballers their diet is predominately carbohydrates based and they consume up to 4000 calories a day, the reason they don't put on weight is due to their physical fitness.

Our lifestyles have become less active due to are number of factors and this in itself has led to weight gain and more health issues, when my children were little their football clubs were always looking for players, when I was their age you couldn't get in any clubs and the waiting list was a mile long........says it all!!!

 

[xyzzy]

I wouldn't be at all surprised. Some of the studies I have read touching on the social class issue cite the difficulty of access to fresh produce for people in certain areas --often inner city as one of the reasons why diabetes bears some correlaion o social lass.
i always feel that although this point is very valid it is , as always more complicated han that.

Innner city areas often have very mixed population. I don't necessarily mean racially although that is another point but there are sudents, those who wish to live nearer to their work or others who may only live in the city during the week to name just a few .

There are no longer small fresh food outlets available in many places and apart from those who cannot afford ransport there may be many others whose busy lifesyle forces hem to tale he line of least resistance in their food choices.

Some areas are also unsafe at certain times and for certain people so this will force some into a sedentay lifesle as well as a poor diret.

I understand that in some areas special efforts are being made o make fresh fruit and veg available to people in this situaion.

I read a few days ago of a scheme o do this in an area outside a nearby city which is a vas estate of mixed social and private housing but where residents for differing reasons are particularly badly placed o access fresh food.

I agree lifesyle changes are not ust related to physical activity .It is a question of balance and allowing people the time and space to
choose a healthier lifestyle/ Plus the necessary information of course.
There ,as always is he rub. There are ALWAYS vested interests and hose who stand to lose by social change in any direction.

Yes unbeliever those are exactly the kind of things that I believe show a wider validity about "lifestyle" than just blindly tying it to activity and exercise. As the graph showed there is little difference between calorific intake across social class and I would love to see the evidence that the rich are so much more physically active than the poor that it could account for such an obvious difference.

Blaming poor people for being in inactive and obese is the easy option that just avoids the real issues. Is it a coincidence that obesity has risen during a time when the gap between the rich and poor in our society has also risen rapidly regardless of what government is supposedly in power?

 

[borofergie]

It's not about exercise . Sure it probably helps a bit (and has lots of other health benefits), but the numbers don't add up when it comes to weight loss. I burn 200kcals a mile when I run. That'd mean that I'd have to run 17 miles to burn a single pound of fat (without eating anything extra because of it). You've probably heard all the Taubes stuff, but even the people on the other side of the debate agree. In her new book Marion Nestle says:

The number of calories [expended due to exercise] are likely to add up to a small percentage of those required for basal metabolism. Their number is also small compared to the number of calories that most people expend in a day.

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

I managed to knock a whole 7 mins of my 10k PB this morning. I ran my heart out for an hour, and managed to burn a pathetic 1100kcal, less than 1/3 of a pound of fat. As a consequence of this, I am now starving hungry. I'm now going to sit down to a huge roast dinner and eat everyone of those 1100kcal, plus a few more, before lying on the sofa for the rest of the afternoon.

Exercising makes you hungry and slows down your metabolism. It has very little, if anything, to do with losing weight. The maths just don't work out.

If you're looking for a smoking gun in the obseity epidemic it begins with "r" and ends with "efined carbohydrates". Need any more clues?

 

[Defren]

It's not about exercise . Sure it probably helps a bit (and has lots of other health benefits), but the numbers don't add up when it comes to weight loss. I burn 200kcals a mile when I run. That'd mean that I'd have to run 17 miles to burn a single pound of fat (without eating anything extra because of it). You've probably heard all the Taubes stuff, but even the people on the other side of the debate agree. In her new book Marion Nestle says:

The number of calories [expended due to exercise] are likely to add up to a small percentage of those required for basal metabolism. Their number is also small compared to the number of calories that most people expend in a day.

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

I managed to knock a whole 7 mins of my 10k PB this morning. I ran my heart out for an hour, and managed to burn a pathetic 1100kcal, less than 1/3 of a pound of fat. I'm now going to sit down to a huge roast dinner and take all of those calories back on. Exercising makes you hungry and slows down your metabolism. It has very little, if anything, to do with losing weight. The maths just don't work out.

If you're looking for a smoking gun in the obseity epidemic it begins with "r" and ends with "efined carbohydrates". Need any more clues?

Completely agree. I read recently that when we exercise, to get lower BG we only need to up the heart rate by a small amount, if we raise it too far then it's counter productive. I exercise at a pace that will lower my BG but also I am the worst shape to be, an apple, and so store all my fat round my middle. All articles I have read say walking is the only effective way to burn stomach fat, so I will continue to walk.

Exercise does make me feel better. I seem to come home, have a cuppa, then my energy stores are all replenished, and I have so much energy, it's mad. It is a good 'feel good' activity.

I found I am not really hungry when I exercise, but I don't push myself like you Stephen, so maybe that's why. I couldn't sit straight down and eat, I need about an hour before I can. I love to walk pre dinner, as I find that when I do sit down to eat, I enjoy it that bit more. I still only manages about the portion a sparrow eats, but I am ok with that - for now.

My carbs are at such a low level, they are quite often not worth counting, and I am convinced that is the reason for the complete turn around in my levels of fitness and health.

Brilliant result on the PB Stephen, really, really well done!

 

[lucylocket61]

I dont understand this equation:

eat too much = exercise more to burn it off.

wouldnt it be better for everyone if we all just ate the right foods and quantity of our foods for our bodily needs, then had some exercise to keep our bodies healthy?

Where is the good in overeating, then frantically exercising? it seems so wasteful to me, in a world where so many are hungry.

ETA: but is suppose there is no profit in an 'eating less' message, is there?

 

[borofergie]

I dont understand this equation:

eat too much = exercise more to burn it off.

wouldnt it be better for everyone if we all just ate the right foods and quantity of our foods for our bodily needs, then had some exercise to keep our bodies healthy?

Where is the good in overeating, then frantically exercising? it seems so wasteful to me, in a world where so many are hungry.

ETA: but is suppose there is no profit in an 'eating less' message, is there?

+1

Exactly Lucy, I could run 17 miles without food to burn off 3500kcal and burn off a pound of fat, or I could simply restrict my carbohydrate intake for a week, and burn it off while sitting on my bum.

Some Athletes take on extra carbs because they need to fuel themselves to unnatural levels. To eat a huge plate of pasta because "that's what Prermiership Footballers do", is a sure way to pile on the pounds, unless you're prepared to spend all week training like a pro-athlete.

 

[xyzzy]

If you're looking for a smoking gun in the obseity epidemic it begins with "r" and ends with "efined carbohydrates". Need any more clues?

+1 Stephen

 

[Unbeliever]

Yes here is a differnce beeween "acivity" and exercise. We do have more sedentary lifestyles these days-often to an unnatural degree.
Exercise for exercise sake has never appealed to me For weight control I too find it vaguely disgusting - a little like the the Roman "vomitorium" , Gorge yourself at a feas . get rid of it and start again! Yuck!

As I said above nowadays with our busy lives , the way that work is organised and lack of physical labour in the home etc ,to mantain a resonable amount of activity it is necessary for many of us to make an effort to keep up our activity levels.

When I worked I didn't bother during the week. The journey t
o work and the running up and down stairs etc was more thsan enough.
I used o walk for pleasure at weekends in the countryside etc.

I do find that any amount of activity in the way of housework - no matter how strenuous does nothing for my bg levels. I can be busy all day ,cleaning windows moppinf floors painting walls- makes no difference to my levels. A short brisk walk brings them down.
if I overdo it by climbing a nearby hill i my levels go right up. If I walk in cld weaher I hypo. Its all a balance depemnding on your circumstances. I am on meds and even if i cut carbs to a bare minimum i seem to need a walk each day to maintain low levels.

For weight loss anyone I have ever known -inclding my marathon running husband has found their appetite increase cnsiderably as described abobve . I think it can kickstart the metabolism nd maybe heplp maintain weight at a certain level as part of a program of diet and exercise but I agree that exercise alone is not the way to ose weight.

I lost the total amount of weight I had put on after taking a high dose of glimepiride for years all in 2 months as i stopped takig them {in stages} n spite of walking and other exercise every day since then -about 18 months ,as well as reducing my carbs I have not lost another ounce. I have however reduced and sabilised my bg levels and improved my HBA1C.

 

[borofergie]

In 1940 there would have been little food eaten out of the home, from 1980 onwards I suspect this would account for more and more of the calories consumed in some households.
Averages cover a multidude of 'sins' from the elderly couple eating very little to those consuming large amounts
I would like to know why they changed things in 2000 was it just a change of overall administration or something else.

2) the graph posted by XYZZ comes from here which also looks at the calories expended ie exercise over the period: sorry about the title http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 5-0041.pdf

Because they realised the methodology was flawed. The raw data-set is absolutely incredible. The only reason that they publish those graphs in terms of macronutrient percentages, is that if you plot them in terms of grams or kcal, you can see all constant decline in fat, protein and carbohydrates. It's the only known scientific endorsement of "low-carb, low-fat, low-protein".

It takes a special kind of idiot to propose an obesity epidemic in the face of significantly declining calorie intakes. I'm not the biggest fan of "calories count", but I do believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Unless there is a hidden malnutrition crisis, people must be eating more calories - whether they exercise or not.

Even ignoring that calorie consumption has to increase to fuel an obesity epidemic. How do the authors think that these "magically" obese people fuel themselves once they are fat. Are we suddenly pretending the obese don't have higher basal metabolic rate than lean people?

The percentages graph is a numerical artifact, it contains no useful information. You can't just take a bunch of junk data and normalise to plot some trends. It's worrying to see it bandied about, and probably used in policy making. Is it really surprising that we're in such deep trouble? I'm sure the authors were aware of its weakness.

My favourite nugget of wisdom:

With respect to the intake side of the equation, it has been proposed that carbohydrate is central to the regulation of appetite and satiety.'Experiments measuring food intake after covert preloads generally show that fat is less satiating than carbohydrate, particularly in subjects with a tendency to obesity.

:shock:

Well that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem then.

 

[borofergie]

Here you go. This is the same data but plotted as grams of each macronutrient.

Apparently in 2000, we were eating less carbs, less protein, and less fat than we were under rationing. It looks more like a malnutrition epidemic than an obesity epidemic...

The only possible conclusion you can draw from this data is that obesity is caused by eating less food.

 

[lucylocket61]

Possibly stupid idea:

Maybe we are eating less food..................but all this manipulated GM and artificial food is effecting our bodies in a weird way?

I mean the dwarf wheat with mega gluten, the trans fats made in chemical labs, the artificial sweeteners, the fat used now in Walkers crisps (amongst other things) which have the effect of removing fat from our bodies. They work like Orlistat and are pretty weird. The artificial flavourings and preservatives...............the list goes on.

There is very little unadulterated, natural foods left these days. So maybe our bodies know what our minds wont accept. Just as our eyes know when something is CGI rather than real, or music is synthesised rather than with proper instruments, our bodies and metabolism isnt fooled by manufactured foods and do something odd with them, resulting in them being stored rather than used. Or maybe they cant be used, so we have thin people who have loads of inner fat around their organs, and obese people..........and loads of minor illnesses that could be early of low-level malnutrition.

or I could be wrong.

 

[borofergie]

Here's a stupid idea:
Maybe we're eating less fat, and more carbohydrates, just like the NHS has told us to since the 1980s.

Sorry, stupid me, that can't be true, otherwise the supermarket shelves would be stacked full of "low-fat", "high-carb" items, and diabetics like me wouldn't be able to shop without reading every single bloody label. :***:

Am I the only one that struggles to buy any food at the Supermarket? I walk around the edges, because the middle of the shop is stacked full of high-carb goodies. I am absolutely dumbfounded that anyone could suggest that we're eating less carbohydrate than our Grandparents generation. Mine must have been secretly shovelling down pasta every time my back was turned.

 

[Defren]

Here's a stupid idea:
Maybe we're eating less fat, and more carbohydrates, just like the NHS has told us to since the 1980s.

Sorry, stupid me, that can't be true, otherwise the supermarket shelves would be stacked full of "low-fat", "high-carb" items, and diabetics like me wouldn't be able to shop without reading every single bloody label. :***:

Am I the only one that struggles to buy any food at the Supermarket? I walk around the edges, because the middle of the shop is stacked full of high-carb goodies. I am absolutely dumbfounded that anyone could suggest that we're eating less carbohydrate than our Grandparents generation. Mine must have been secretly shovelling down pasta every time my back was turned.

I used to do the meat aisle, fresh fish counter, dairy aisle, frozen aisle, and the fruit and veg. My daughters would go and get what they wanted. Now I skip the meat aisle, it comes from a proper butcher, and I also miss the fruit and veg, that comes from a proper greengrocer. I eat nothing that I don't make myself, completely from scratch. All fresh ingredients, no wheat, nothing processed, as little artificial anything as I can find. The only things I really buy that are not made by me, is mayo, cheese and things like green tea, camomile tea, earl grey tea bags and coffee. Also look at the BOGOF items, almost all high fat, high carb, high sugar, ****!!

[edit to add] I also buy things from the baking aisle, flaxseed, ground almonds etc, for home baking. I use Amazon for other specialty things like peanut and coconut flour.

 

[xyzzy]

Am I the only one that struggles to buy any food at the Supermarket? I walk around the edges, because the middle of the shop is stacked full of high-carb goodies.

No we have the same issue. Supermarket shopping is now mostly constrained to the vegetable aisles, meat aisle and the chilled sections for cheese, yoghurt, ham etc. Most other aisles except for the odd product are now pointless.

Someone posted a while ago that either Aldi or Lidl are better (can't remember which) as they do stock quite a lot of lchf produce.

That chart readjusted to show grams is a shocker. If we can't even collect the data to produce a semi accurate reflection of what people consume what hope is there for any of us getting any sensible advice.

Stephen going back to Paleo where I wish to play devils advocate some more if you don't mind. Lets say I agree with you that a Paleo diet is good for you in terms of not making people obese and not giving them T2. What evidence is there that it isn't lacking elsewhere? So 50000 years ago life expectancy was far less for any number of reasons. Where's the evidence that some of that shortened life expectancy wasn't caused by a Paleo diet being deficient in other ways. I suppose what I'm saying is perhaps there exists an "ideal" diet that sits somewhere between Paleo at one extreme and Modern at the other extreme.

 

[phoenix]

Am I the only one that struggles to buy any food at the Supermarket? I walk around the edges, because the middle of the shop is stacked full of high-carb goodies. I am absolutely dumbfounded that anyone could suggest that we're eating less carbohydrate than our Grandparents generation. Mine must have been secretly shovelling down pasta every time my back was turned

No but they were eating lots of bread and potatoes, things that would fill them up rather than expensive meat. People filled up before a meal with Yorkshire pudding (not just in Yorkshire), stale bread was made into bread pudding and used for snacks. Stews were supplemented with dumplings or the meat was put into pies or puddings. Shepherds pie, cottage pie, fish pie, hotpots; all ways of making a little meat go a long way. Sausages didn't contain the high meat content they do now; indeed that's why beef ones were so cheap they didn't legally have to have so much meat as pork ones did. Breakfasts except as a treat were cornflakes (invented in the 19thC) or porridge.
In my childhood people also ate (and drank in tea) lots of sugar in the form of puddings, cakes and jams, and unfortunately many have lots of dental fillings as a result You'll note how the amount of sugar eaten rose to great heights when it came off ration in (I think) 1953.
And yes I think people were far more active. No cars, no television (we didn't get the a car until the 60s or a TV until 1958), no fridge, no washing machine, no supermarket (walk to shops and carry it home again). We walked to school so that was about 4 miles a day. My mother cycled to the hospital to work and my grandfather cycled with his step ladder, paints brushes etc to his work as a decorator. People didn't exercise, they didn't need to because they moved more.

As someone who eats far more carbs than you do,I'd like to note that I buy almost nothing made in a factory. My diet is also very different to the one I can remember from the fifties.

 

[lucylocket61]

but they were eating lots of bread and potatoes, things that would fill them up rather than expensive meat

I remember that too Phoenix, however, the bread they ate was different. The potatoes were different.

The bread was made from ordinary wheat, not the dwarf mutations we have had since the 80's with the high gluten content.

The Chorley Wood process was in its infancy and flour improvers werent used either.

The potatoes were mainly grown in this country, using the old pesticides, not the new harmful ones. The varieties of potato were ones we had had for centuries, and they were allowed to grow and age naturally. They were not artificially treated to keep them fresh for months either.

I know this is true because I come from 4 generations of farmers who grew wheat, potatoes, sheep and cows. Dont even get me started on the sheep feed and cow treatment changes forced by DEFRA on farmers from the 80's onwards. It seems to me that it is strange that Diabetes etc rocketed since we stopped producing natural foods.

I dont believe exercise, or the lack of it, has any bearing on the rise in Diabetes and heart disease. I think it is a Red Herring to both blame the victim and make us believe we can do something about this slow poisoning from artificial food. My Grandparents, for example, farmed well into their 80's and didnt have any diseases. And one of my uncles is 84 and still milks every morning.

 

[noblehead]

You only have to look at the tin/coal mining to get an idea what diet our grandparents ate, the Cornish tin miners would eat a pasty filled with meat in one end and a sweet in the other, coal miners would lunch on doorstop size bread with jam on top washed down with plain old water.

My grandma on my mams side would bake once a week and make pies and cakes to last the following week, my mam carried this tradition on when we were kids but she always insisted on baking rock-cakes which I detested

 

[phoenix]

The bread was made from ordinary wheat, not the dwarf mutations we have had since the 80's with the high gluten content.

The Chorley Wood process was in its infancy and flour improvers werent used either

Agree about the Chorleywood process, that's something that only appears in the abomination called 'American' bread here. Not so sure about the dwarf wheat, from a blood glucose point of view I do find a difference between artisan made bread here and supermarket bread made in the UK. I have found no real difference between normal local breads and those made with 'heritage' grains.

 

[lucylocket61]

phoenix:

I dont have all the technical thingys but i do know that it is to do with gut absorption . That is why the new dwarf high-gluten wheat used most of the time in the USA and Europe now has caused a huge rise in gluten intolerance and IBS

It may not cause spikes in bs, but the weird absorption causes a weakening of pancreatic function over time, which may be leading to diabetes and affecting overall insulin production. And also we dont know the effect this huge amount of gluten, plus the mutant yeast used to make the bread rise quickly, is having on our guts and ability to absorb nourishment. Our bodies are very delicate things with tiny amounts of chemicals needed to keep balance. If we introduce something not natural, it throws the balance out.

I cannot stress enough that the wheat our parents and grandparent ate - pre 70's at least - is very, very different to the wheat eaten since.

Its like comparing sugar made from sugar beet with saccarine. Similar chemical construction and taste and apparent effect, but very different.

Just a starter on my research into this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/wheat-gluten_b_1274872.html

 

[xyzzy]

I cannot stress enough that the wheat our parents and grandparent ate - pre 70's at least - is very, very different to the wheat eaten since.

That Lucy is very interesting stuff, thank you!

It is a theory that on the surface seems to fit the evidence quite nicely. I do have tendencies towards the Paleo view in the sense that our consumption of highly processed refined carbohydrate is a likely cause of our modern diseases but I am somewhat sceptical of the full on "we never ate grain so can't" viewpoint.

Simply put my objection to that is for the last few thousand years since the concept of agriculture was invented humans have eaten grains in apparent quantity and it would appear to have only been a problem in the last 50 of those many thousands of years. I fully admit that now as T2 most grains are bad for me but only in the same kind of sense as saying most carbohydrate is bad for me. I don't doubt you can quite happily live on a Paleo diet and would not discourage people from doing it but only in the same way as I don't doubt that anyone can quite happily live on a healthy lchf diet or even a ketogenic diet that does contain some grains.

Your "poisonous" grain theory seems to account for the last 50 years and as such deserves serious attention in my view.