Why won't the NHS tell you the secret to treating diabetes?

[Hotpepper20000]

in the absence of tests, that is the only way left to tell if you have

You could always test after meals to see how what you eat effects your blood glucose

 

[Resurgam]

This week's FBGs average 4.97. Not brilliant. I have decided that because of the rage that my doing OGT tests provokes in other members I shall stop doing them I shall therefore have to carry on dieting until I have lost 15% of my original weight as, in the absence of tests, that is the only way left to tell if you have (probably) got to your Personal Fat Threshold.

If you test after eating particular meals which you can reproduce regularly then you can see how you are progressing. I saw my after meal levels go down a little week by week as I recovered my ability to cope with the admittedly low carb foods - but I had lost all ability to cope when pushed to eat a 'healthy' high carb diet. Once I saw under 8 mmol/l regularly I stuck to the same meals and saw my levels drift down.

 

[lucylocket61]

In over 9 years of testing and successfully controlling my blood sugar levels by diet only, I always have FBS of around 8. My body is just built like that. I appear to have a dawn rush just as I wake up.

Testing before and after meals has always worked for me.

On this thread I see care and concern, any 'raging' would be stamped on, quite rightly, by the mods straight away.

I am surprised to see how a simple two min blood test is causing such issues and resistance though. I don't understand why.

 

[Tannith]

Why do them at all? Perhaps you don't know about burning out our pancreas response.

Testing before and two hours after eating is easy and safer. Why not give it a go with your main meal for a few days and let us know what happens? You have nothing to lose by trying this.

• Jason Fung disagrees with your theory. see his explanation below:
• "The prevailing concept is the pancreatic beta cells are simply worn out from massively overproducing insulin for so long. Like a decrepit engine that has been revved too many times, irreversible damage is done over many years by the excessive workload. Certainly some evidence exists to support this concept, but only in the very end stages of type 2 diabetes. Autopsy studies occasionally show scarred and fibrotic beta cells in the pancreas of long standing diabetics.
• 
  However, three main problems exist with this paradigm. First, the suggestion that beta cells are irreversibly damaged and function is permanently lost is CLEARLY FALSE in the vast majority of cases. …There is no permanent burnout in most cases.
  
  Secondly, beta cell burn out implies that damage occurs only due to long standing excessive use. With type 2 diabetes now being diagnosed in children as young as three years old, it is inconceivable that any part of their body has already burned out. Disease reversal with dietary intervention in that case emphasizes that type 2 diabetes is not an irreversible process.
  
  … The insulin secreting beta cells of the pancreas were clearly not ‘burnt out’. They were merely clogged with fat! They merely needed a good cleaning out. What is shocking is that it only took the removal of 0.6 grams of pancreatic fat to reverse type 2 diabetes."
  
  The good news is that diet and exercise can help decrease insulin resistance and its associated weight gain, which may help prevent or even reverse diabetes.
  
  https://www.dietdoctor.com/unrecognized-second-phase-developing-type-2-diabetes JASON FUNG
  So there is absolutely NO damage done by consuming 75g carbs, even high GI like glucose.

 

[Hotpepper20000]

• Jason Fung disagrees with your theory. see his explanation below:
• "The prevailing concept is the pancreatic beta cells are simply worn out from massively overproducing insulin for so long. Like a decrepit engine that has been revved too many times, irreversible damage is done over many years by the excessive workload. Certainly some evidence exists to support this concept, but only in the very end stages of type 2 diabetes. Autopsy studies occasionally show scarred and fibrotic beta cells in the pancreas of long standing diabetics.
• 
  However, three main problems exist with this paradigm. First, the suggestion that beta cells are irreversibly damaged and function is permanently lost is clearly false in the vast majority of cases. …There is no permanent burnout in most cases.
  
  Secondly, beta cell burn out implies that damage occurs only due to long standing excessive use. With type 2 diabetes now being diagnosed in children as young as three years old, it is inconceivable that any part of their body has already burned out. Disease reversal with dietary intervention in that case emphasizes that type 2 diabetes is not an irreversible process.
  
  … The insulin secreting beta cells of the pancreas were clearly not ‘burnt out’. They were merely clogged with fat! They merely needed a good cleaning out. What is shocking is that it only took the removal of 0.6 grams of pancreatic fat to reverse type 2 diabetes."
  
  The good news is that diet and exercise can help decrease insulin resistance and its associated weight gain, which may help prevent or even reverse diabetes.
  
  https://www.dietdoctor.com/unrecognized-second-phase-developing-type-2-diabetes JASON FUNG
  

All this could be avoided and managed by testing before and after meal so you could see you reponse to food and adjust accordingly.

 

[Mbaker]

Some on here have been telling me that weight loss is "dangerous" . Almost everyone (apart from those with unusual conditions such as eating disorders) would benefit from weight loss, certainly not suffer from it. For most it could be a lot more "dangerous" not to lose weight. Many on here seem to want to deflect me from my diet and stop me doing it long before it has had the chance to work. Perhaps they want me to fail? There will be plenty of time (the rest of my life) to try metformin, and other BG lowering methods like low carb, if I am unable to reverse my T2 with weight loss.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html

• All-causes of death (mortality)
• High blood pressure (Hypertension)
• High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (Dyslipidemia)
• Type 2 diabetes
• Coronary heart disease
• Stroke
• Gallbladder disease
• Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
• Sleep apnea and breathing problems
• Many types of cancer external icon [higher risk of 13 types of cancer]
• Low quality of life
• Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders4,5
• Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning6

For more information about these and other health problems associated with overweight and obesity, visit Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults pdf icon[PDF-1.25MB]external icon

The methodology you are advocating is based on science and can and does "work". I have seen graphs such as this from several differing sources that show LCK does the same; but also beats the low calorie on the bio markers hands down....apart from LDL (in around 33% of individuals):

https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/its-the-insulin-resistance-stupid-part-3

This video by Paul Mason shows results of LC vs low fat

As do the PHC has comparisons also. Low fat tends to look ok for "weight" when a study is said to be low carb, but isn't by calories or percentage (i.e. really high carb). It concerns me that ND and similar care mainly for weight, not composition, what about lost muscle mass. The nature of this tends to lean towards low protein (a serious concern for sarcopenia and other ailments).

The PURE study has an interesting take on what is best (cued to a conclusion point, but the whole video is worthwhile)

I agree with you that low carb does not have to be high fat (I think this is taken to the extreme by some), as once fat adapted you can burn your own body fat, and you could up the protein.

In my view the ND and similar methods are better than the standard of care and another method (I do not want to trigger anyone so will not say the name) based on the resulting general markers. I find it is not repeatable in say a population of hunter gathers, in the Amazon or Africa. The counter is we don't live like that anymore in general, but this feeds into my perspective that it is not a normal action to make something low fat, but a modern construct devised by industry.

Low calorie means in the context of the ND two thirds of whatever the original eating volume was and advised exercise to maintain; on LCK significant volume without exercise can maintain homeostasis, with exercise being the cherry on the top.

I applaud you for sticking to your method, I couldn't sell this to anyone I know unless it was short term. For me it comes down to "LDL" - is the diet heart hypothesis believed by the selector, if not there is no reason to limit calories / fat.

 

[lucylocket61]

LCK

What does that stand for?

 

[Mbaker]

What does that stand for?

Hi @lucylocket61 this is Low Carb Ketogenic. I am very much into the Eric Westman methods (back by science as well as clinical practice), so as he was one of the original mainstream pioneers I use his terminology.

 

[lucylocket61]

The methodology you are advocating is based on science and can and does "work". I have seen graphs such as this from several differing sources that show LCK does the same; but

Thanks, I got confused because tannith doesn't appear to be advocating anything except low calorie, low fat.

 

[Tannith]

The methodology you are advocating is based on science and can and does "work". I have seen graphs such as this from several differing sources that show LCK does the same; but also beats the low calorie on the bio markers hands down....apart from LDL (in around 33% of individuals):

https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/its-the-insulin-resistance-stupid-part-3
View attachment 47098

This video by Paul Mason shows results of LC vs low fat

View attachment 47099

As do the PHC has comparisons also. Low fat tends to look ok for "weight" when a study is said to be low carb, but isn't by calories or percentage (i.e. really high carb). It concerns me that ND and similar care mainly for weight, not composition, what about lost muscle mass. The nature of this tends to lean towards low protein (a serious concern for sarcopenia and other ailments).

The PURE study has an interesting take on what is best (cued to a conclusion point, but the whole video is worthwhile)

I agree with you that low carb does not have to be high fat (I think this is taken to the extreme by some), as once fat adapted you can burn your own body fat, and you could up the protein.

In my view the ND and similar methods are better than the standard of care and another method (I do not want to trigger anyone so will not say the name) based on the resulting general markers. I find it is not repeatable in say a population of hunter gathers, in the Amazon or Africa. The counter is we don't live like that anymore in general, but this feeds into my perspective that it is not a normal action to make something low fat, but a modern construct devised by industry.

Low calorie means in the context of the ND two thirds of whatever the original eating volume was and advised exercise to maintain; on LCK significant volume without exercise can maintain homeostasis, with exercise being the cherry on the top.

I applaud you for sticking to your method, I couldn't sell this to anyone I know unless it was short term. For me it comes down to "LDL" - is the diet heart hypothesis believed by the selector, if not there is no reason to limit calories / fat.

Thank you very much. Most helpful. What's PHC?
PS I haven't advocated low fat. Some people like to assume that because they personally don't like it and I am the "bad guy" for choosing low calorie, so they claim I have chosen low fat too. I don't however approve of high fat myself, as I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol, which I would want to avoid, though I have no problem with what others choose for themselves.

 

[Hotpepper20000]

I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol,

This is just not true. For many cholesterol ratios have improved.

You can have your opinions on what you do and feel but please check your facts before you post.

 

[zand]

I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol,

Not true. My overall cholesterol level dropped about 2 points and the good cholesterol increased and the bad decreased. Cholesterol is made by the body to combat inflammation in the body. If someone is intolerant of carbs then this can cause inflammation and therefore higher cholesterol levels.

I told my DN that I was following LCHF, She said 'let's check your cholesterol levels'. No comment at all when she saw they had dropped.

 

[lucylocket61]

don't however approve of high fat myself, as I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol, which

Not true. I am not sure of your posting style, but I am not engaging unless it is to refute inaccurate and/or dangerous information.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/its-the-insulin-resistance-stupid-part-3
View attachment 47098

Do you perhaps have any more detail about which types of Low-fat diets these results were being compared to?

Thanks!

 

[Mbaker]

Thank you very much. Most helpful. What's PHC?
PS I haven't advocated low fat. Some people like to assume that because they personally don't like it and I am the "bad guy" for choosing low calorie, so they claim I have chosen low fat too. I don't however approve of high fat myself, as I see many of the low carb "high fatters" have very high cholesterol, which I would want to avoid, though I have no problem with what others choose for themselves.

The PHC is the Public Health Collaboration. They are true heavyweights https://phcuk.org/board/.

 

[Mbaker]

Do you perhaps have any more detail about which types of Low-fat diets these results were being compared to?

Thanks!

This was just one example, Dr Paul Mason says 62 - 0 (in favour of LCK). The PHC have these https://phcuk.org/rcts/. This is in comparison with the standard of care (I believe a proxy for low calorie / low fat) https://www.virtahealth.com/data#type-2-diabetes.

I don't see any Dr's apart from (close enough) Professor Roy Taylor publishing results (there is Dr Neil Barnard with another proxy via the Vegan diet, his results were disappointing in my view).

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

This was just one example, Dr Paul Mason says 62 - 0 (in favour of LCK). The PHC have these https://phcuk.org/rcts/. This is in comparison with the standard of care (I believe a proxy for low calorie / low fat) https://www.virtahealth.com/data#type-2-diabetes.

The first link leads to a reference to less than 35% of fat, which is about the level of fat in the Standard American Diet (Pretty similar to all developing countries, now). Other data I've seen referred to with such claims low-fat as 25% of calories. This is not what would be considered low-fat on the high-carb side of the nutrition-sphere. Moreover, I don't see any references to the types of carbohydrates that made up the extra 75-85%

The Virta link says nothing about what constitutes "Usual Care", and is only referring to diabetes results.

For the moment, I'm interested in the claim from the chart you posted i.e that high-fat diets are better than low-fat in reversing all coronary risk factors.

I don't see any Dr's apart from (close enough) Professor Roy Taylor publishing results (there is Dr Neil Barnard with another proxy via the Vegan diet, his results were disappointing in my view.

There are many anecdotes of people getting control over their sugars on various protocols.

 

[Tannith]

Not true. I am not sure of your posting style, but I am not engaging unless it is to refute inaccurate and/or dangerous information.

What should my cholesterol levels be?

Blood cholesterol is measured in units called millimoles per litre of blood, often shortened to mmol/L.

As a general guide, total cholesterol levels should be:

· 5mmol/L or less for healthy adults

· 4mmol/L or less for those at high risk [ie like those with diabetes]

https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/blood-and-lymph/high-cholesterol

 

[lucylocket61]

What should my cholesterol levels be?

Blood cholesterol is measured in units called millimoles per litre of blood, often shortened to mmol/L.

As a general guide, total cholesterol levels should be:

· 5mmol/L or less for healthy adults

· 4mmol/L or less for those at high risk [ie like those with diabetes]

https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/blood-and-lymph/high-cholesterol

Once again missing the point of my post about you saying that LCHF people have higher cholesterol levels.

By the way, HF refers to higher fat in proportion to carbs. Not to eating vast quantities of fat.

 

[bulkbiker]

What should my cholesterol levels be?

Blood cholesterol is measured in units called millimoles per litre of blood, often shortened to mmol/L.

As a general guide, total cholesterol levels should be:

· 5mmol/L or less for healthy adults

· 4mmol/L or less for those at high risk [ie like those with diabetes]

https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/blood-and-lymph/high-cholesterol

" It's vital for the normal functioning of the body. Cell membranes, hormones and vitamin D are created by your body using cholesterol."

Mess with it at your peril..