The Guardian

[Krystyna23040]

@Ponchu @derry60 @Brunneria @bulkbiker @Jim Lahey @Indy51 @Dillinger @Oldvatr @Guzzler @Flora123
I would just like to say that I absolutely agree with everything you have written on this thread. I only wish I had followed low carb/keto instead of of blindly following the high carb/fibre low fat mantra. Huge amounts of brown carbs didn't prevent my inexorable decline into a severe case of T2D - in fact I believe consuming brown carbs in the mistaken belief that it was healthy actually propelled me faster into ill health.
What I find really funny now is that now I am on keto my fibre level (with the help of inulin and ground flaxseeds) is actually a lot higher than it was when I was eating high brown carbs and is actually higher than 90% of the population.

 

[Member496333]

@Ponchu @derry60 @Brunneria @bulkbiker @Jim Lahey @Indy51 @Dillinger @Oldvatr @Guzzler @Flora123
I would just like to say that I absolutely agree with everything you have written on this thread. I only wish I had followed low carb/keto instead of of blindly following the high carb/fibre low fat mantra. Huge amounts of brown carbs didn't prevent my inexorable decline into a severe case of T2D - in fact I believe consuming brown carbs in the mistaken belief that it was healthy actually propelled me faster into ill health.
What I find really funny now is that now I am on keto my fibre level (with the help of inulin and ground flaxseeds) is actually a lot higher than it was when I was eating high brown carbs and is actually higher than 90% of the population.

Wholeheartedly agree. We are not birds and are not biologically adapted to consume vast quantities of grains. That’s why we’re all getting sick and dying. But according to Boseley’s anti-keto hit squad it’s because we’re not eating enough fibre

 

[Flora123]

All I know is. I ate high carbs for years, what I thought was healthy for me and followed doctors advice after a heart attack nearly 15 years ago now. I ended up with Pre-diabetes. I ate brown bread with all the nuts and seeds in, always brown pasta and rice. Brown couscous, root veg, Low-fat yoghurts low fat cheese and spread and so on. If I had of known then what I know now, before being diagnosed as Prediabetic I would have eaten low carb high fat instead of following the doctor's diet sheet. Midnight..You say that you do not think a person with normal BGL's should be on a LCHF or words to that effect, well then perhaps if many of us were on LCHF years ago, we would not be having BG problems today. I now ask my sons to watch their carb intake.

Me too. I was in a vegetarian whole food plant based diet for a long long time before diagnosis. No processed foods. Made my own bread, lots of “healthy” whole grains and carbs, beans, lentils etc and boom.... the big D.

LFHC and BS at normal levels in 3 months. I also try and watch the carb intake of my family.

 

[Geordie_P]

Striking similarities I'm seeing here.
I had trouble losing weight in my 20's- I wasn't huge but I wanted to get some weight off (male 5'10, 14 stone, quite active). I cut right back on meat and fat, and ate oatmeal, brown rice with peas, bananas, apples. Guess what? Weight kept going up; hunger rising, then a few years later, bad eyesight, neuropathy, diagnosis.

Of course, my weight, blood sugar and cholesterol all *plummeted* once I cut out carbs, to the extent that three months later (after my second Ac), the doctor who diagnosed me said I didn't have T2 after all. There's a lot of ideological white-noise flying around, but to me, I haven't seen anything that even COMES CLOSE to convincing me that eating glucose-rich foods is good for people who can't process glucose; I also have yet to see anything that suggests encouraging a population to eat more glucose-rich foods would do anything to reduce the number of people developing diabetes.

 

[Member496333]

[...]I also have yet to see anything that suggests encouraging a population to eat more glucose-rich foods would do anything to reduce the number of people developing diabetes.

Sadly, there are industries whose very last desire is to see less people develop diabetes. Agriculture, fake food, pharmaceutical.

Not a conspiracy theory. Just common sense. That’s how capitalism works. These industries are in the business of making money, not promoting good health.

 

[derry60]

Me too. I was in a vegetarian whole food plant based diet for a long long time before diagnosis. No processed foods. Made my own bread, lots of “healthy” whole grains and carbs, beans, lentils etc and boom.... the big D.

LFHC and BS at normal levels in 3 months. I also try and watch the carb intake of my family.

It just goes to show, doesn't it? I wouldn't mind I was not that bothered about chocolate or cakes, but I loved my whole wheat bread and healthy (or so I thought) grains Pasta and rice. I would have the very odd small meat pie once in a blue moon. Like you was shocked to learn that I was pre-diabtic. Now everywhere I look, papers, tv are pushing Vegan diets

 

[derry60]

Striking similarities I'm seeing here.
I had trouble losing weight in my 20's- I wasn't huge but I wanted to get some weight off (male 5'10, 14 stone, quite active). I cut right back on meat and fat, and ate oatmeal, brown rice with peas, bananas, apples. Guess what? Weight kept going up; hunger rising, then a few years later, bad eyesight, neuropathy, diagnosis.

Of course, my weight, blood sugar and cholesterol all *plummeted* once I cut out carbs, to the extent that three months later (after my second Ac), the doctor who diagnosed me said I didn't have T2 after all. There's a lot of ideological white-noise flying around, but to me, I haven't seen anything that even COMES CLOSE to convincing me that eating glucose-rich foods is good for people who can't process glucose; I also have yet to see anything that suggests encouraging a population to eat more glucose-rich foods would do anything to reduce the number of people developing diabetes.

Same here. I could not lose weight for love nor money. I became overweight, not obese but not what was right for me. I could not understand why, as quite often even eating what I thought was a healthy diet, I would quite often just have one meal a day..Which would consist of Whole Wheat pasta, sweet corn, broccoli and skinless chicken? Or I would have couscous mixed with kidney beans, roasted peppers, and fresh herbs with a lean pork chop. The Couscous was made by myself so no additives. I would add Olive oil and lemon..So healthy you would think..Well the Olive oil was, peppers, fresh herbs were but not the Couscous lol. If I did eat lunch that would consist of mixed fresh fruit with a small pot of diet yoghurt, yet again thought that I was eating a healthy lunch. I never ate fat from the meat, very rarely ate bacon. Oh and all those root veg I ate, well lol..Actually, when I look back I felt quite smug and virtuous regarding my diet, especially when people were stuffing animal fat into their mouths and eating full-fat cheese and bacon, sausages etc. If I saw somebody eating the English brekky I thought quietly to myself "Oh dear that really is not good for them" What did I know back then? Nothing lol

 

[derry60]

Me too. I was in a vegetarian whole food plant based diet for a long long time before diagnosis. No processed foods. Made my own bread, lots of “healthy” whole grains and carbs, beans, lentils etc and boom.... the big D.

LFHC and BS at normal levels in 3 months. I also try and watch the carb intake of my family.

Meant to say that I loved my Lentils and beans, barley also

 

[lindisfel]

actually Prof J Cummings MD who is a co author of the report in the OP does seem to know his onions, He has co written several WHO studies and reports and sits on several of their comittees.

https://www.dundee.ac.uk/medicine/staff/profile/john-cummings.php#tab-Publications

He seems to enjoy gut fermentation and the outcomes of it, so could be said to know his s**t better than I do. His treatise on carbohydrate classification is an interesting read - not all carbs are equal. But it is published in Nature.......erm

https://www.nature.com/articles/1602936

Dont forget we need to cut down on green house gasses, what is all this fibre going to do for the environment.

 

[Oldvatr]

Dont forget we need to cut down on green house gasses, what is all this fibre going to do for the environment.

Block up the loos?

 

[Khushi Nagpal]

Sadly, there are industries whose very last desire is to see less people develop diabetes. Agriculture, fake food, pharmaceutical.

Not a conspiracy theory. Just common sense. That’s how capitalism works. These industries are in the business of making money, not promoting good health.

So true. If the number of diabetics increased in the world (whatever the type) there will be more customers in the market to purchase the diabetes-related medications and more patients to visit doctors. This could potentially, also be a great reason why it is extremely difficult to hope for a full cure (especially for type I diabetes) as this would shut down big markets and result in great economic losses for big organizations and companies.

It's really sad, how much suffering human greed can cause.

 

[CherryAA]

The fuss over fibre is once again a construct to keep everyone in thrall to the food industry.

One can easily choose to eat a high fibre diet which is also LCHF. However there is no real evidence that you need to. As usual all of these measurements are comparing what happens when you add fibre into a refined carbohydrate heavy SAD diet. it is absolutely true that the fibre will slow down the gut transit of sugars and thus improve blood sugars etc . Don't eat the refined carbs, there's nothing requiring slowing down.

This presentation pretty much kills the entire high fibre hypothesis stone dead and makes perfect sense if you stop to think about it . ( ie if you are constipated why add bulk to getting stuff out of a very small hole).

Even the gut microbiome stuff makes no sense, eat carbs your gut microbiome bcomes full of bacteria designed to break them down, don't eat carbs and they disappear - becuase they are NOT NEEDED.

I'm so bored now with the entire disingeuous edifice designed mainly to stop people just realising processed food kills.

 

[CherryAA]

This may be the best example of conformation bias that I have seen in a while. Research published which disagrees with this forum's collective opinion, therefore it must be rubbish.
How many of the people who have rubbished the work here have actually read it?
It contains compelling statistical evidence that low fibre diets increase the likelihood of poor cardiovascular health from research spanning 50 years. If anyone has evidence that this is not true could you reference it please.
LCHF diets make obtaining fibre more difficult which is probably why the Guardian mentions them (for example it takes 850g of raw kale (44g of carbs) to reach 30g of fibre). How many people eating under 50g of carbs a day are getting 30g of fibre?
If LCHF is the only way possible to control blood sugar, then it is the best (probably the only) diet to have. If it can be controlled some other way (e.g. diet and exercise, or maybe even meds) then LCHF is probably not the healthiest option.
This report is nothing new and agrees with meta analyses done by the Cochrane organisation over many years.

[PLoS which is criticised here is, for any who don't know it, the Public Library of Science, an open access publisher which believes that research should be freely available to the public, It isn't part of a global conspiracy to make us all vegan]

The point to bear in mind is that NONE of this research has ever actually compared what happens on a proper nutrient dense diet with little carbohydrates . ALL research for the last 50 years has begun with the epidemiological evidence of what populations are actually eating - the number of actual low carb eaters in any of those studies is so vanishingly small that there can be no identification of the benefits or otherwise of eating it .

a way to think about this is re smoking, seed oils and starches .
Smoking - it was identified as being dangerous because epi studies could show the difference between those who smoked and those who didn't. If 100% of people had smoked then it would never have shown up.

Seed oils - seed oils got into the food supply in the early 20th century and by the time epi studies took place were already ubiquitous worldwide- so no epi study will ever find seed oils as a cause of disease.

Carbs - also ubiquitous - thus differences in fibre consumption that do show up - are not the difference between a healthy low carb diet and a healthy high carb diet. they are simply teasing out that when one eats more unprocessed foods - then the fibre content of that diet goes up and as such as, we all know a diet high in non refined foods is heathier than one full of refined foods . That has nothing whatsoever to do with " do we need fibres" and it certainly doesn't justify telling the world that as long as you add some artificial fibre to a junk food it will suddenly become healthy.

 

[Member496333]

Put simply - eat real food provided by the planet, and you’ll probably be fine. Eat boxes of fortified garbage purporting to save your life, and you probably won’t. Pretty simple rule that has turned my life around and so far kept me out of an early grave.

I see Boseley is today telling us how to measure our portions. Humans are apparently the only animals on the planet that need to weigh food and count calories in order to survive. Preposterous nonsense. Eat actual food, and nature takes care of the rest. I’d love someone to explain to me how it came to pass that Earth’s dominant species managed to evolve into a position where we drop dead without arbitration from the health editor of a freakin’ newspaper

No one needs the The Guardian to tell them what to eat. We managed just fine for three million years. Period.

 

[CherryAA]

What is your problem with EAT-Lancet?

They are reputable scientists attempting to determine what diet may be sustainable in the future. It is unlikely that 10 billion people worldwide could eat as much meat as we presently do in the west so this is probably not sustainable.
Worldwide, most calories consumed have been from plants for many centuries. With increased wealth in Asia there has been an increased demand for meat, which may cause problems of sustainability, water shortage and maybe climate related issues.

I would never advocate veganism (can't see that life would be worth living) but an overall reduction in meat consumption may be necessary in the future.

IMHO ))
EAT-LANCET is an agglomeration of epidemiologists ( led by Walter Willett) put together by a terminally ill vegan
and determined to prevent the world recognising that animal agriculture is a vital part of the earth's eco-system . Their " scientists" include some of the shoddiest science seen in the last 50 years. The world is NOT suffering from a shortage of food. even on worst forecasts there is enough to feed everyone for the forseeable future - problems of hunger and deprivation are ones of politics, war , transport and corruption not actual calories. In practise our focus should now be on increasing the nutrient dense nature of foods supplied and the regenerative nature of animal agriculture. So far man made foods have proved to be nothing but a disaster for man. To my mind it is inconceivable that the " 4th industrial revolution " leading to man made foods from factories could possibly be a positive addition to the world's food supply given our exeperience to date. This entire Vegan moement has money behind it because it is a processed food construct, nothing whatsoever to do with earth sustainability.

 

[CherryAA]

As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.

My contribution to the subject of schlepidemiology - published in the BMJ.. https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k822/rr-15
epidemilogical research had a place in science. I am doubtful it has much in nutritional science. Much nutritional epidemiological research over the last 50 years has been closer to food marketing surveys. take for example the "low carb kills you three years early by Harvard last year

 

[Member496333]

Hilarious

 

[CherryAA]

when the questions are clearly a food branding survey, I think one can pretty much discount the resulting report !

 

[CherryAA]

Jim

I love vegetables but am open to several possibilities. In spite of great health results there are still issues where I wonder if my vegetables are to blame.

A. Where I was born & live: should I only eat them in season?

B. Our $ competition with genetic modification, poor soil management, pesticides...damaged.

In late summer/early Fall, we only ate local farm produced vegetables. We (my wife & I) both report feeling better than versus now.

C. Simply, I don’t need them

Since embracing natural fat, I rarely snack & have not struggled w hunger.

With veggies flown in, I’ve found that after a salad and veggies w meals, it’s closer to the hunger every 2 hours that we had not experienced before.

I have been a “meat & potatoes & vegetables” eater my entire life...until I learned I was Type 2.

It’s unfamiliar to look at a plate without variety (anyone else?)

Recently we had steak plus sausage. I’ve added some small seafood too. I got some variety w/o adding carbs

I think I’m going to lay off veggies for a month & see if my stomach improves & even a few more lbs drop off.

I’d like to drop 10lbs though BF calculator using sex, age, height, weight, waist & neck circumference has me less than 15%.

Yet w BMI, I am just barely out of overweight category.

I welcome thoughts, criticism & recommendations from all

Personal experiences of others is inspiring.

I personally love vegetables and so I continue to eat them ( mainly tomato onion mushroom and spinach) I do note however that my hunger levels are definitely increased by vegetable intake. with meat only its much easier to not feel any hunger pangs at all between meals, so they definitely affect my own hunger hormones.

 

[Ponchu]

The point to bear in mind is that NONE of this research has ever actually compared what happens on a proper nutrient dense diet with little carbohydrates . ALL research for the last 50 years has begun with the epidemiological evidence of what populations are actually eating - the number of actual low carb eaters in any of those studies is so vanishingly small that there can be no identification of the benefits or otherwise of eating it .

a way to think about this is re smoking, seed oils and starches .
Smoking - it was identified as being dangerous because epi studies could show the difference between those who smoked and those who didn't. If 100% of people had smoked then it would never have shown up.

Seed oils - seed oils got into the food supply in the early 20th century and by the time epi studies took place were already ubiquitous worldwide- so no epi study will ever find seed oils as a cause of disease.

Carbs - also ubiquitous - thus differences in fibre consumption that do show up - are not the difference between a healthy low carb diet and a healthy high carb diet. they are simply teasing out that when one eats more unprocessed foods - then the fibre content of that diet goes up and as such as, we all know a diet high in non refined foods is heathier than one full of refined foods . That has nothing whatsoever to do with " do we need fibres" and it certainly doesn't justify telling the world that as long as you add some artificial fibre to a junk food it will suddenly become healthy.

Wisdom from ancient Scripture:

1. Grass fed meat.

Our response? Hormones, pesticides, corn & soy fed

2. Animal fats

Our response?

Laboratory oils, oxidization, rotted arteries. Low fat destroys physical & mental health.

3. Specific warning on excessive sugar (Solomon)

Our response? 60+ names of sugar added to processed foods, wearing down our systems, giving us what I personally believe is an addiction.

There’s more but three above to consider.

No insult intended towards people of faith: “Ezekiel bread” is not “our daily bread” of Scripture. (today’s sourdough breads like those baked by artisans in France is closer to description in Bible. It’s interesting how many of us Americans have been surprised at how they enjoy fresh artisan bread in Europe only to return to America to find Wheat Belly returns)

Ezekiel bread was designed for a single purpose; survival of a lengthy vicious military siege.