This evidence suggests that type 2 diabetes does not have to be a progressive

[madyogi]

I don't spend time on argument on things like religon which is what you have here Johnny ,
I will leave it to anyone reading to draw their own conclusions , I will say to anyone reading that a greatdeal of what you have said is very far from the mainstream scientific position and to do their own research from multi sources .

I would agree that the "mainstream scientific position" is not aligned with the conclusion that a meat-based diet is the most healthy diet. However, everything we have been saying regarding the metabolic science is pretty unassailable. What conclusions you draw from the metabolic science are yours to draw. The problem with the "mainstream scientific position" when it comes to nutrition is that it's based largely on statistical analyses of epidemiological data, which is decent at generating hypotheses, but entirely insufficient for establishing scientific facts or proving causal relationships.

All that said, using a Very Low Carb Diet to treat (an potentially "cure") t2d is not that controversial at this point.

I would like to draw everyones attention to this article which though dense does have a point to make .

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043276024001243

This is behind a paywall, so all I could see were the abstract and some snippets. What I could read was interesting. The part about beta-hydroxybuterate suppressing gluconeogenesis would support the idea that a ketogenic diet is supportive of t2d treatment in multiple ways. The AMPK piece is also interesting, though I'm not sure what conclusions to draw there. Ultimately, the use of Metformin or other pharmaceutical interventions to suppress gluconeogenesis seems more like treating symptoms than trying to get at the root cause (which I believe is mostly related to maladaptive diet and a lack of exercise).

 

[Pegasus]

So I would say that moderate levels of carbs and fat are rarely a problem it is excessive levels of carbs and fat that cause the issue . This of course is excess calories .

In effect the system as it was designed is overcome by excessive input . A mere reduction in input cures the problem if too much damage has not been done .
Of course this is difficult to do in the modern world and people have come up with various strategies . If these strategies are working without much downside then great .

So a common response from the mainstream dieticians etc to blood sugar issues is a reduction in carbs not to keto levels but more modestly . Now it has been shown that large elimination of significant food groups causes significant reduction in calories . But this modest reduction may or may not have any effect on total calories . It also may or may not work . So carbs are reduced but total calories not is very hit or miss . Of course some might just stop drinking soda and end of issue but that can be a large source of calories .

So no I don't think carb reduction in the gastric bypass is what causes the improvement in isolation . Certainly carbs are involved but I certaily don't demonise them.

 

[madyogi]

So I would say that moderate levels of carbs and fat are rarely a problem it is excessive levels of carbs and fat that cause the issue . This of course is excess calories .

In effect the system as it was designed is overcome by excessive input . A mere reduction in input cures the problem if too much damage has not been done .

This is generally true. Energy intake at a rate that is commensurate with energy demand will not create a "backlog" in the cell that leads to "Insulin Resistance." That is generally true.

Of course this is difficult to do in the modern world and people have come up with various strategies . If these strategies are working without much downside then great .

Yes, but we don't fully understand the downsides, particularly those that aren't immediately apparent.

So a common response from the mainstream dieticians etc to blood sugar issues is a reduction in carbs not to keto levels but more modestly . Now it has been shown that large elimination of significant food groups causes significant reduction in calories . But this modest reduction may or may not have any effect on total calories . It also may or may not work . So carbs are reduced but total calories not is very hit or miss . Of course some might just stop drinking soda and end of issue but that can be a large source of calories .

So no I don't think carb reduction in the gastric bypass is what causes the improvement in isolation . Certainly carbs are involved but I certaily don't demonise them.

So, you're the one using religious terminology here. I don't think Johnny or I are "demonizing" carbs. What we're essentially saying is 1) they aren't necessary to include in the diet, and 2) they can be problematic when it comes to managing high blood glucose, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Do you disagree with those two statements? If so, then we aren't seeing the metabolic science the same way.

I am just making a decision based on those two assertions that I will limit my carbohydrate intake to less than 50g daily, which ends up being less than 10% of my overall caloric intake. I feel like this is healthier for my body than maintaining a more "balanced" diet where carbohydrates are more like 30-50% of my caloric intake, with fat being 15-30% and protein being 20-30%.

Finally, reducing caloric intake is fine for a short time, to lose weight or address an acute blood sugar issue, but long term, you run the risk becoming malnourished on a diet that constantly "underfeeds" you. I would personally rather be nutrient replete, while eating to satiety on a mostly meat-based diet, than be constantly concerned with how many calories I've had in a given day and whether or not I'm hitting this or that metric.

 

[Pegasus]

Well exactly we don't fully understand the downsides this is particularly true once you step away fromn mainstream diets . You really have to use your best judgement . So for instance a diet may lower risk of one thing but increase it for another .

A reduction in calorie uptake even long term does not necessarily lead to underfeeing or malnourish for a western population. People in the west typically overeat and undernourish . So too many calories not enough nutrition . As I said some people get a good result from something like stoping drinking soda
If you have found a way to reduce calorie intake that suits you and you believe you geting enough nutrition then power to you .

 

[Johnny D]

I eat far more on an entirely meat-based diet than I ever did on a standard diet and all measures are better.

I'd say that we do know about upsides and downsides. We know, for example, that homo sapiens evolved on a virtually all-meat diet. We know that on the spectrum of the time of man, metabolic disease and other major health issues are brand new and coincide with the introduction of agrarianism and reduction of meat in the diet. Anecdotal, I know, but the science of metabolism provides clues as to why that would be.
We also know about metabolism now and in the last couple of decades have learned a ton about how nutrients are metabolized and how energy is produced. We know what happens to a consumed protein vs what happens to a consumed carbohydrate, so we know exactly what the upsides and downsides are. It's no longer guess-work and speculating. The exact mechanisms are precisely understood.

This is generally true. Energy intake at a rate that is commensurate with energy demand will not create a "backlog" in the cell that leads to "Insulin Resistance." That is generally true.

I previously said this in response: Even if one is in "deficit" the continuous metabolism of carbohydrates still causes a continuous release of insulin, which leads to pancreas beta cells being overworked, still leads to de novo lipogenesis, and still leads to oxidative stress and insulin resistance. There are multiple pathways, in addition to the Randle Cycle and metabolism can't be reduced to CICO. It's hormonal. I don't believe the science supports the notion that BG will be fine simply due to an "energy balance".

 

[Pegasus]

Yeah here is a funny thing people on various restricted diets consistently report eating more and yet the studies consistently show they take in fewer calories .

So it is a great head trick from that perspective .

In regard to your last paragraph Johnny no .

 

[Johnny D]

Yeah here is a funny thing people on various restricted diets consistently report eating more and yet the studies consistently show they take in fewer calories .

So it is a great head trick from that perspective .

That's fine, except that I actually know how much I used to eat and how much I currently eat. I know exactly how much and it's indisputable.

In regard to your last paragraph Johnny no .

How about some facts instead of just disagreeing. So far all you've done in this discussion is claimed that I'm wrong without providing any of your own facts to show where I am. So far, your side of the argument is simply, "Because the mainstream consensus says..." while I'm trying to have a discussion around the actual metabolic science.

 

[Pegasus]

Johnny facts are not going to have any impact because you are in a tribal position . I said from the start I don't want to play this game .

I have set out how I see it working . Your argument against it seems to be you don't believe it . See what I mean .

Your central idea seems to be that the human body is unable to handle carbs . Sorry no . You can certainly get to a point where most anything in excess is an issue eg water that doesn't mean you shouldn't drink water .

Your position is set out. I can read what you have said and take what value I can from it . Have a bit more of a think about what I have said while leaving the its only hormonal mantra behind for a moment . I do think hormones and macro composition have a role just making it into the whole is blinding you to the big picture .

 

[Johnny D]

Again, the difference between our arguments is that I've actually presented one. I've provided detailed explanations describing metabolic processes. That's not a tribal position - it's providing the science behind my conclusions. You haven't done anything of the sort. Not even once. You tell me I'm wrong about things without showing me where or how I'm wrong. Who's approach is tribal?

I enjoy a productive debate to get to the truth, but you're not engaging in one with me. Simply saying "sorry no" is not productive. You're not interested in a discussion about it - your heels are dug in because this challenges what you've always believed and said about nutrition and metabolic health. You refuse to take the time to present some science to support your position. It's hilarious to hear you say that facts won't have an impact, when I'm the one begging you for them. It's hilarious that you say my argument is simply that I don't. believe it, when I'm the only one offering up descriptions of the science.

 

[Pegasus]

I have told you repeatedly I am not interested in argument with you on this , it would not be productive at this time .
I will let rederders draw their own conclusions . My beliefs on meabolism are still developing btw
I am old enough to have been in positions like this before people from entrenched positions . On this site watching it endlessly on politics particularly ughhh.

Now you are wating both our time .

I will draw everyones attention to how I am thinking on metabolism and how it works in previous posts and why I am thinking that way .

 

[Johnny D]

My position isn’t entrenched - it’s informed by science and open to change when new discoveries are made. Clearly yours is the entrenched one, since you’ve provided literally not one single science-backed counterpoint. Something I’ve dealt with plenty of times as well in my 58 years.

 

[not2big]

Based on 30 years of experience of being a T2D, I would say that high carb diets (rice and pasta) significantly cause elevated BGs while high protein diets (meat and poultry) maintain BGs at a manageable level..

 

[Pegasus]

My beliefs about metabolism are still forming .

I intend to post further at a future time .

 

[Pegasus]

Anyone have experience with continuous glucose monitor .

 

[Johnny D]

I've used 3 over the past few years, each one for 2 weeks..

 

[Pegasus]

I used one but unfortunately I only had it on a few days when I had to have an MRI and remove it . Do you have any comments on usefullness
D ?