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

The Guardian

@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
 

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.
 
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.
 
Geordie_P said:
[...]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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
 

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
 

Attachments

  • Harvard 1.png
    844.5 KB · Views: 329
when the questions are clearly a food branding survey, I think one can pretty much discount the resulting report !
 

Attachments

  • Harvard 3.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 321
  • Harvard 4.jpg
    31.7 KB · Views: 317
  • Harvard 5.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 325
  • Harvard 6.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 340
  • Harvard 7 .jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 309

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.
 

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.
 
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.…