 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / March 2006Dr. Bernstein on Charlie Rose 3/16/06
3/16/2006 http://charlierose.com/ A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DIABETES EPIDEMIC WITH: MARC SANTORA, The New York Times DR. MITCHELL LAZAR, Director, The Institute for Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, The University of Pennsylvania DR. RICHARD BERNSTEIN Author, "Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars" MARTIN SILINK President-Elect, International Diabetes Federation ANA MARIE COX Author, "Dog Days" --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control Guess what...If you wait a day... Google Video now features select Charlie Rose interviews that you can purchase for $.99 Video of purchased programs can even be viewed on the iPod or PlayStation Portable. >>>> Yesterday's show is streamed for free.>>>>> Anil I wanted to throw a brick through my TV screen and hit Martin Silink in the head when he criticized Bernstein's approach as too simplistic. Silink wants to completely reorganize our cities and nations. OK. But in the meantime, what do we do about kidneys, eyes and limbs? Silink's solutions are decades away if that. Bernstein has answers today. Yet, Silink looks like a professor and his white hair and accent are impeccable so I guess we should listen to him, right? I got the feeling that Rose liked the white hair and accent better than the notion of fast carb addiction. Silink got most of the air time. > 3/16/2006 > http://charlierose.com/ [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood > Sugar Under Control Uncle Enrico, While I am fully aware that this group in general has big support for Bernstein Diet, I would urge you to do your own research for suitability of such diet on long term basis. Here is a link that seems to at least present, dare I say, independent evaluation of many diets. http://www.acu-cell.com/diet.html And I have not watched the program. I may try doing it today. Anil T2 A1C 5.2 Full disclosure: I prefer PBWF (Plant Based Whole Food) diet :: Uncle Enrico, :: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: seems to at least present, dare I say, independent evaluation of :: many diets. http://www.acu-cell.com/diet.html Interestingly, I found this: "I have patients, who as a result of following a strict vegetarian lifestyle enjoy optimal health, and I have patients who, as a result of eating mostly meat, enjoy optimal health as well. The secret is not the type of diet itself, but frequently the avoidance of what is generally conceived as being junk food - which can be part of an omnivorous and vegetarian lifestyle. At the same time, someone's diet should be based on genetic requirements -- to complement one's individual chemical make-up, but should not be based on dogmas or agendas." I was about to blast this site until I read this. :) :: And I have not watched the program. I may try doing it today. :: :: Anil :: T2 A1C 5.2 :: Full disclosure: I prefer PBWF (Plant Based Whole Food) diet You can watch it free today!!! >>> http://tinyurl.com/mz3ve Sorry I missed the link http://tinyurl.com/mz3ve Anil :: Sorry I missed the link :: :: http://tinyurl.com/mz3ve :: :: Anil I can't them it to work :( I understand your point, Anil, and it's a valid one. Bernstein's value to me are in these areas: fast carb addiction and its role in food craving and overeating; early insulin therapy; carb restriction and low dose insulin in multiple daily injections to achieve normal blood sugar. I especially appreciate his flow chart on page 39 of the 1977 edition of Diabetes Solution that explains the vicious cycle of Type II. Personally, my diet is more like that of the South Beach Diet minus the sweet potatoes and sour dough bread, or the diet "Greens, Beans and Leans" by the cardiologist Dr. Gottlieb, a regular contributor to DLife. My diet is not protein heavy by choice but I'm a Type II who still makes some of my own insulin so I can handle lots of green vegetables with no added insulin. > Uncle Enrico, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > T2 A1C 5.2 > Full disclosure: I prefer PBWF (Plant Based Whole Food) diet >> Personally, my diet is more like that of the South Beach Diet minus the >> sweet potatoes and sour dough bread, or the diet "Greens, Beans and Leans" >> by the cardiologist Dr. Gottlieb, a regular contributor to DLife. My diet >> is not protein heavy by choice but I'm a Type II who still makes some of my >> own insulin so I can handle lots of green vegetables with no added insulin. Dear Uncle Enrico, As we all know by now, the damn subject is full of so many pot holes. What we all agree on is that the pot belly has no room in diabetes body and has to come out one way or the other. Exercise is by far our best friend and we all agree on vehemently. What I do find interesting is that once I got rid of wheat, Milk based foods and rice from my diet, I automatically started eating less. The Metformin too some how helps in curbing the crazy cravings. All in all loosing weight FOR EVER is the key for all of us. Every one in my family who is diabetic has been overweight. Every one who is overweight is diabetic. Everyone who is skinny has either gotten full control over the diabetes by becoming skinny or never had a problem to begin with because they have always been skinny. I had three of my great grand mothers alive till I was 25. They all lived past 90. All were between 60 and 70 lbs in last 20 yrs of their life. They all had minimal food at dinner time. So is this a life style issue, is it a diet issue? I wish I can have a definitive answer. What I do know is that every one in my family were vegetarian eating plenty of carbs! In general the women worked lot harder than the men. So I am surely inclined to believe that eating in moderation or even less than moderation and doing plenty of physical activity may very well be the key. Easy to understand not so easy to commit to it for rest of our life! Take a good care of yourself and your family! Anil > I had three of my great grand > mothers alive till I was 25. They all lived past 90. All were between > 60 and 70 lbs in last 20 yrs of their life. They all had minimal food > at dinner time. So is this a life style issue, is it a diet issue? 60-70 lbs??? That's *tiny*! Even the barely-pubescent girl gymnasts (the ones in "women's gymnastics" competitions) have been "bigger" than that. How tall were your ggm's? And had they "shrunk" in their older years? bj Bj, They were all exceptionally short. Father's grandma was barely 4.5' (lost her husband at age 60 most likely heart attack) Father's other grandma was 5' (Lost her hubby at age 25 Don't know the reason) Mother's grandma was 4'8" (lost her hubby at age 18 to Plague) I am 5'11" ! Anil > Bj, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I am 5'11" ! Oh my. My father was about 5'8", but that's not much taller (if any) than his forebears. I know his father wasn't tall, though his mother was, I suppose, tall for her generation. My mother's about 5'7" (at least she was, but she's shorter now, whether from "biker's hump" or something worse, I don't know -- but she certainly isn't "delicate"), but I've never topped 5'4-1/2" (a DEXA tech once measured me at 5'5", so I told him to do it over -- I don't need a too-high number of my record so they think I've shrunk 1/2" or more next time!). Her father was the stringbean in the family (6'+) but I didn't inherit either his height or his "skinny" genes -- I got grandma's more buxom figger. bj I don't think we have any disagreement. Reducing or eliminating the fast carbs, the corn the wheat and the rice reduced my cravings and normalized my appetite. The leaner I got, the better my blood sugar profile and the more exercise I wanted to do. What the "It's calories not carbs" people fail to account for are those people gobbling fries, chips and cookies because they are constantly hungry. out of control, don't know why and don't want to know why. Telling those people to eat less is like telling heroin addicts to give up drugs and go jogging. Most can't get there from where they are. Lean, muscled, active people can eat carbs and not develop the big belly and insulin resistance. Once the fat and insulin resistance develops, that high carb diet becomes a sedative putting the carbaholic to sleep on the couch with high blood sugar that results in hyperinsulinemia, beta cell death, hunger, more carb craving, more insulin resistance, and so on. Once I learned the process from Bernstein's little flow chart on page 39, it was a relatively smooth road out of the mess. >>> Personally, my diet is more like that of the South Beach Diet minus the >>> sweet potatoes and sour dough bread, or the diet "Greens, Beans and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Anil > What the "It's calories not carbs" people fail to account for are those > people gobbling fries, chips and cookies because they are constantly hungry. > out of control, don't know why and don't want to know why. Telling those > people to eat less is like telling heroin addicts to give up drugs and go > jogging. Most can't get there from where they are. Brilliant analogy!!!!!! > Lean, muscled, active people can eat carbs and not develop the big belly and > insulin resistance. Once the fat and insulin resistance develops, that high > carb diet becomes a sedative putting the carbaholic to sleep on the couch > with high blood sugar that results in hyperinsulinemia, beta cell death, And those type 2 diabetics whose blood sugar dysfunction is caused primarily by weight-caused Insulin Resistance can get back to eating near normal levels of starches if they lose weight and exercise, while others whose IR is modest but whose beta cells are busted can diet and exercise all they want and still find it impossible to eat those starches with out dreadful spikes. It's bad enough we have all diabetics (Type 1 and 2) lumped together. But my own situation has made it clear that lumping Insulin Resistance diabetes with Beta Dysfunction diabetes means another group of diabetics are left doing everything they're told and scratching their heads when it doesn't work. I'll never forget my utter disgust after losing 30 lbs, going to the gym four or five times a week for a year and seeing my blood sugar deteriorate, not improve! It really wasn't until then that I realized that no matter what the docs told me, I did not have "garden variety Type 2." --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control :: Uncle Enrico wrote: ::: What the "It's calories not carbs" people fail to account for are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: primarily by weight-caused Insulin Resistance can get back to eating :: near normal levels of starches if they lose weight and exercise, Sounds as if I fit into this group, more or less. :: while others whose IR is modest but whose beta cells are busted can :: diet and exercise all they want and still find it impossible to eat :: those starches with out dreadful spikes. Can this and the above one be combined if the person in the first level kills of beta cells while overweight and not exercising? :: It's bad enough we have all diabetics (Type 1 and 2) lumped together. :: But my own situation has made it clear that lumping Insulin :: Resistance diabetes with Beta Dysfunction diabetes means another :: group of diabetics are left doing everything they're told and :: scratching their heads when it doesn't work. I agree. There really ought to be some greater level of differentiation since it seems people respond SO differently. :: I'll never forget my utter disgust after losing 30 lbs, going to the :: gym four or five times a week for a year and seeing my blood sugar [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood :: Sugar Under Control > :: And those type 2 diabetics whose blood sugar dysfunction is caused > :: primarily by weight-caused Insulin Resistance can get back to eating > :: near normal levels of starches if they lose weight and exercise, > > Sounds as if I fit into this group, more or less. Most definitely! > :: while others whose IR is modest but whose beta cells are busted can > :: diet and exercise all they want and still find it impossible to eat > :: those starches with out dreadful spikes. > > Can this and the above one be combined if the person in the first level > kills of beta cells while overweight and not exercising? This seems to be an area where it greatly depends on exactly what is going on, genetically, in the person. One of my favorite studies (the Pancreas Autopsy study linked from my web site's "More research" page) autopsied obese people who were diabetic and those of a similar size who were not, and found that the latter group had the ability to grow more beta cells in response to the increasing demand for insulin caused by obesity-caused IR. The same study found that both obese and normal weight people with diabetes had dead beta cells that were unable to reproduce, and in fact appeared to have died right after mitosis. So that would suggest that some very obese people with diabetes may be growing new beta cells but their obesity overwhelms their ability to control their blood sugar. Hence if they lose the weight they'll get their beta function back because the cells didn't die, they just couldn't keep up. This seems to be what happens to some of the greatly obese who have the weight loss surgery. Other people with a less forgiving genome, whose beta cells died trying to keep up aren't going to get them back. If you're obese you won't know which category you fall into until you reduce IR and get the weight off and see what happens to your blood sugar. This variability explains why all too often here people with diabetes who have regained control with one or the other strategies assume that anyone who tries their successful strategy and doesn't succeed at it is lazy, lying, cheating, etc. --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control This post not CC'd by email >Uncle Enrico, > >While I am fully aware that this group in general has big support for >Bernstein Diet, G'day G'day Anil, Most people here find Bernstein too extreme. > I would urge you to do your own research for >suitability of such diet on long term basis. Here is a link that seems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >T2 A1C 5.2 >Full disclosure: I prefer PBWF (Plant Based Whole Food) diet  SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Good day indeed Quentin! >> Most people here find Bernstein too extreme. Hmm. I am delighted to hear that. Perhaps I should be more careful with off the cuff remarks like that. But since I said what I said allow me to explain my impressions. There simply is not enough discussion and emphasis on eating whole foods. Lot of emphasis on low carb diet. People would readily agree to eating high Animal protein diet but are quite uncomfortable in thinking if the same source of proteins are provided by plant based diet as they feel associated carbs will create big swings. When plant based diet is mentioned one is reminded of lack of B12 or Omega-3 in such a diet but we never much give heath warnings when animal protein based diet is talked about. May be it comes from my own colored glasses. What I think what out to happen is to recognize some equally valid ways to come up with a diet that will not spike a diabetes while providing some great nutrients. You can stay 100% based or you can mix and match. Its a personal choice and not medical one. As a person who has been reading this group only recently I did not get that message. Perhaps wrongly, I did associate that message with Dr. Bernstein's diet. And yes that was the first book I read when I discovered I had diabetes. I have always been a great admirer of several interesting dimensions you have added to this group over number of years. So please don't even think that my comments are directed at any single individuals. I am expressing what I felt as an semi-outsider. I think such comments can always be used more in a reflective fashion than as any criticism. On more serious subject: How are you feeling? Please do take adequate rest and don't let silly comments from folks like me make you feel the least bit uncomfortable. If it helps I would not mind taking a sabbatical! I know I would help myself more by listening than doing the talking! Do take care Quentin..You are always in my thought. Anil >>Uncle Enrico, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Most people here find Bernstein too extreme. I agree. I do not follow his detailed plans, partly because I don't use insulin and partly because they are too strict. However, that does not negate his value. I don't follow his full recommendations - but I found a lot of value in reading his book. He argues his case logically and practises what he preaches. His story is inspirational to me; particularly his decision to go back to school at 45 to become a Doctor to add credibility to his work. The recent "History of Meters" by David Mendosa, which mentions Bernstein's involvement in that history, added to my respect. I agree with his basic logic, particularly his "law of small numbers" (p105) and found that there is no contradiction between the underlying premises of his theories and "test, test, test". However, I vary the application. Comparing "extremes", I would consider his full advice a lot less dangerous than some of the high-carb low-fat extremes from other sources, but then I choose neither extreme. I chose to read many sources in my search for information on this personal journey. None of them were perfect, none knew it all, but I've never regretted spending the money to buy Becker and Bernstein and would still recommend both to any newby; like all sources you must select what is suitable to your own situation. It's time that I re-read him. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. >Uncle Enrico, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >T2 A1C 5.2 >Full disclosure: I prefer PBWF (Plant Based Whole Food) diet Independant, yes. Valid? Maybe. Some of the logic is interesting, but the source of the assertions is difficult to trace. So is valid support for the bases for those assertions. There are many "medical" sites which are tainted by an author's bias towards, or away from, specific treatments, techniques or beliefs. Mercola, Pauling and similar come to mind. Some of their logic seems good too, until you delve into the details. Who is "Dr. Ronald Roth D.Acu." What exactly is a "D.Acu"? Which college awards a D. Acu? Do any other recognised medical sources recognise Acu-Cell Analysis? I could find nothing to describe who he is or what supports his theories. He has published nothing in the mainstream journals that I could find via Highwire or Scholar; the only cite I could find was an article in US Pharmacist http://www.uspharmacist.com/index.asp?show=article&page=8_1210.htm Quackwatch has it listed in the "to be posted" section http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/tests.html - so that is neither negative or positive, but wary. More support please, if you want Roth to be seriously considered. The tinyurl links posted so far don't work. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Alan, Good day! As you correctly said, I never said that every thing on that site is supported by ton of original work. I did find that the author has listed pros and cons of many popular diet philosophies and did not sense a bias. If any thing he did say just about any diet will work as long as you take a "common sense" approach and cover large selection of food groups. At least that is what I got from it. I personally did not see the need to see lot of research to back that finding. I have no interest in finding Roth's credentials as long as he is not making claims that conflict with my understandings. You may of course easily argue that that is not saying much! No qualms. I am motivated in finding simple lifestyle guidelines I can follow for rest of my life without allowing the diabetes to win the game. Complexity of the bio-chemistry behind what is going in my body does fascinate me but not enough to make it a source of joy by itself. Happy researching! Anil p.s. Looks like I did messup the URL sorry: http://tinyurl.com/hjk6q It points to online broadcast available free today Good day Alan, >> Quackwatch has it listed in the "to be posted" section >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/tests.html >> - so that is neither negative or positive, but wary. Check this out... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15162131&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum ": there is strong evidence to suggest that eating a variety of whole grain foods and legumes is beneficial in the prevention and management of diabetes. This is compatible with advice from around the world that recommends consumption of a wide range of carbohydrate foods from cereals, vegetables, legumes and fruits both for the general population and for people with diabetes." This is the kind of information that at least I am seeking to confirm that Whole Food Plant based diet is a perfectly sound path to take to stay complication free when diagnosed with diabetes. And to be perfectly clear by no means I am suggesting that it's the only path. It is the one I have choosen and seems to be working well so far for me. I do hope that the link provided is sufficiently scientific for your enquiring mind :-). Anil T2, Who wants the whole thing! was "Dr. Bernstein on Charlie Rose 3/16/06" I changed to emphasise the discussion of grains. I'm sure Quentin and others have discussed this paper in the past. I'd be interested to know if someone has the link. >Good day Alan, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I do hope that the link provided is sufficiently scientific for your >enquiring mind :-). Hi Anil It's better:-) Any study of that type is only as good as it's supporting references - which are far too many for me to comment on. Nor have I the qualifications to do so. I can only comment on the logic, and whether they appear to have supported their case and how it applies to me. However, I tend to agree with much of the detailed full discussion; which is why I try to include whole grains in my diet. My only difference would be in priority - my emphasis is on the BGs, with the grains as just part of the complex equation in selecting diet to achieve my goals. So I will not include grains if they spike me; I tested until I found the ones that don't and when I could eat them. One area that they tend to be unclear on, in my mind, is the difference between protecting against future T2DM and the dietary needs of the diagnosed T2DM. The abstract you quoted does not give the same emphasis and additional qualifications that are included in the full discussion in the original paper. You will find it here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/pdf/1601995a.pdf or in html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/full/1601995a.html Of particular interest to me were some qualifications: <snip> "Of greater practical importance is the issue as to whether much additional benefit is likely to be gained from consuming the intact grain or whether most of the benefit can be derived from whole grain products that have been partially processed to facilitate consumption. <snip> Most of the epidemiological studies showing a protective effect of whole grain foods on incident diabetes used the definition of whole grain defined by Jacobs, which does not distinguish whether the grain is intact or simply includes the appropriate constituents. Currently, there is no internationally agreed definition of whole grain food that may include a variety of products including the intact grain, cracked grain, coarsely ground grain, finely milled reconstituted grain or a blend of these constituents mixed with refined flour and other ingredients. <sip> Unfortunately, substantial barriers to achieving an increased consumption of whole grain and legume foods remain (Adams & Engstrom, 2000). These include consumer preference for refined products, lack of availability of whole grains and whole grain products in supermarkets and restaurants, limited choice, price, lack of knowledge of health benefit, product labelling, unfamiliarity with cooking techniques, lack of recipes, familial and cultural eating habits, and reluctance to change." In other words, just as simplistically promoting starches may lead to poor results - so could simplistically promoting "grains" without definition of exactly what we mean when we say "grains". There's much more on this aspect (and other points) in the paper - worth reading in more depth. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. :: was "Dr. Bernstein on Charlie Rose 3/16/06" :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] ::: ::: Check this out... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15162131&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum ::: ": ::: there is strong evidence to suggest that eating a variety of whole [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] :: There's much more on this aspect (and other points) in the :: paper - worth reading in more depth. Well, I minimize consumption of "whole grains" because, mostly, they are processed food stuff, and raise my BG. >:: was "Dr. Bernstein on Charlie Rose 3/16/06" >:: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >Well, I minimize consumption of "whole grains" because, mostly, they are >processed food stuff, and raise my BG. When you say "mostly" I assume you mean in your supermarket or your restaurants. Someone in Greece or Indonesia will have a different supply and probably a different range of whole grains available. Similarly, I try to get minimally-processed muesli but it's still more processed than un-. Actually - that was the point they were making (among others) - there needs to be better definition; the studies imply that processed whole grains are not as beneficial as unprocessed whole grains. But there doesn't appear to be much of an attempt to separate the effects of varying benefits - or hazards - associated with those differences. Did you read the full "discussion" section? Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. :: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:18:31 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :::::: :::::: Check this out... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15162131&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum :::::: ": :::::: there is strong evidence to suggest that eating a variety of [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] :: have a different supply and probably a different range of :: whole grains available. Exactly. :: Similarly, I try to get minimally-processed muesli but it's :: still more processed than un-. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: Did you read the full "discussion" section? Not here. We had a big discussion of this with the "Mr Natural Health" troll over in ASDLC recently. I've been through the topics you mention. :: Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. :: d&e, metformin 2x500mg :: -- :: Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Few clarifications: You can get all the whole grains you want from http://www.sproutpeople.com There may be other places as well. I buy them here and sprout all of them and then mix them with my sprouted legumes when I cook them as a dish. I also use sprouted fenugreek in the mix. The combination dish does not give me BG highs. (PPBG always less than 120-130 after 1 hr. 110 after 2 hrs.) I do eat plenty of greens along with these dishes. I can only handle brown rice in very small quantities. I have given up on rice and wheat totally except when these grains are sprouted. From all the research I have done and one you have pointed out Alan, there is no ambiguity in the definition of whole grains as I consume them. I am equally stong beliver in eating dishes made out of sprouted whole beans (legums). Since I do not consume any processed food based on grains I can not comment on its efficacy as applied to my numbers. What is very clear to me is I am getting good results and hence feel motivated to share with everyone my way of consuming "carbs". As always every one of us have diffrent needs are at diffrent stages of this syndrome. So YMMV. Its also one part of the big picture! If that makes me troll so be it. Anil T2 /A1c 5.2 /Metformin 500mgx2 LDL 115/ HDL 35/ Trig 68 /Total 164 Almost all diet is whole food plant based (WFPB) Still statin free. Dx July 05 5'11" 168 Lb (lost 20) :: Few clarifications: :: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] :: :: If that makes me troll so be it. I hope you don't think I was referring to you as a troll (I was referring to a real, known nutcase who posts in another newgroup)....I have no problems with your approach to controling your BGs. Also, I have no problems with your sharing what works for you, as that might work for others too. I think that there are several approaches that can be made to work, I have chosen low carb, as I like the taste of that food. However, you seem very sensitive. Perhaps it's me, though. :: Anil :: T2 /A1c 5.2 /Metformin 500mgx2 :: LDL 115/ HDL 35/ Trig 68 /Total 164 :: Almost all diet is whole food plant based (WFPB) :: Still statin free. Dx July 05 5'11" 168 Lb (lost 20) Seems like your sig is growing. Do we need to post stats in sigs to convince others of the efficacy of our approach? Seems silly, but okay: RZ T2 / A1c 4.7 / No drugs (diet & exercise) LDL 95 / HDL 100+/ Trig 47 / Total 198 Diet: Low carb with plenty of fibrous veggies No Statins. Dx 24 years ago (47 yo) 6'1" 225 lb (lost 142) First my apologies for the "troll" dusting I created. The Sig I used was created in the spirit of full disclosure and not to force any one do the same. But now that I see your stats I am have to say I am totally delighted to see a person like you who has such great results over 24 yrs! Only other person I know who has such stats is my own uncle (mother's brother) who is 77yrs 150 Lb 5'10" and no meds. He was dxed as T2DM 30 yrs ago. Swims 1 hr every day and walks at least for 1 hr and many times two every day. He eats very little. But he does eat plenty of "carbs"! Its people like you and him and some other long times here that people like me really have to pay attention to with open mind. There is plenty to mimic and take notes of. As you know I am relatively new to the game and still trying to figure out where is the right balance of diet and exercise. Unlike diet, exercise takes a longer time to get use to. Even if I had time I can not walk 2 hrs every day or jog 3 miles every day. I need to train my muscles in a slow steady fashion. At least with diet I can try major changes right away. Either way I do tell myself often...This is forever. There is no negotiating! Anyway hope I have not annoyed you too much. I would feel relay bad if I did! Your sig gives me plenty of reasons to bow my head and a strong hope! Anil T2 :: First my apologies for the "troll" dusting I created. No problem. I wasn't sure if it wasn't my fault, so.... :: The Sig I used was created in the spirit of full disclosure and not :: to force any one do the same. But now that I see your stats I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: at least for 1 hr and many times two every day. He eats very little. :: But he does eat plenty of "carbs"! Well, in the interest of full disclosure (I'm not really interested in that on usenet, but i'm doing it here because you did) I have to say that those are recent stats, as in two or three years or something on that order. It's a journey. I'm just glad I got a clue when I did back in October of 2001. I think had I not, I'd be in serious trouble now, assuming I'd be alive still. BTW, i do believe I could make a plan like your uncle's work (at least in the short term), but it would take more effort for me than what I do now. :: Its people like you and him and some other long times here that :: people like me really have to pay attention to with open mind. There :: is plenty to mimic and take notes of. And, to my thinking, plenty of reason for people to have hope in dealing with this disease. :: As you know I am relatively new to the game and still trying to :: figure out where is the right balance of diet and exercise. Unlike [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: try major changes right away. Either way I do tell myself :: often...This is forever. There is no negotiating! Right. Do try to work into your exercise groove if you are able. I do like your approach, however, because it has the benefit of allowing you to learn that you can, if you need to, gain control without exercise. Since not everyone will be able to exercise, it's important to show what can be achieved via diet alone, IMO. :: Anyway hope I have not annoyed you too much. I would feel relay bad :: if I did! Your sig gives me plenty of reasons to bow my head and a :: strong hope! No, not at all. I enjoy reading your posts, Anil! :) >225 lb (lost 142) Wow! Impressive. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > Few clarifications: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > If that makes me troll so be it. You're not a troll. Just someone with a differing opinion, expresses it well, and has found something that works for you. Who could ask for anything more? I was a strict vegetarian for a few years - actually macrobiotic diet - but as time went by I added fish and dairy. I think most here found some kind of diet, tried it, found that it worked for them, and then made some adaptations to make the glove fit better. A good portion of my diet is organic whole long grain brown rice and it does pretty well by me. I am a Type 1 just for the record. So, although I'm not a vegan anymore, I am closer to your thinking than most here. So I guess that makes me a cousin? Anyway, I enjoy your posts and please don't get discouraged because you have a different approach than many others here. I think that's a good thing. Unfortunately, regardless of what our diets are, we all have one thing in common. Wish we didn't. Best, Kurt Dear Cousin Kurt! Hey Kurt, I think I may still call myself vegetarian! I am not much into labels. In fact lack of proper definition of for words we use could mean entirely different thing to different people. We often say "Oh I am low carbing!" For all I know I may be low carbing myself. I don't eat big. What I eat has carbs that don't seem to show up as BG on my meter. Yet if I tell any one what I eat no one will accept that I am indeed low carbing. Thanks for your encouraging remarks. I am fully aware how little support there is for thinking differently. Hell my doctor did not think I was on right tract until he saw my numbers. At that time he sent me note at home saying please continue what ever you are doing! >> Unfortunately, regardless of what our diets are, we all have one thing in common. You know what we have a lot more common! What we all have inherited is a long history of how our lifestyle was shaped over thousands of years. Our problem is we are completely denying that heritage and asking our body to digest food that it was not optimized to handle. And then we want large study to prove the obvious. Have a lifestyle close to our ancestors and we would be fine. At least that is what I think in my guts and I am betting my life on it! Anil > Well, I minimize consumption of "whole grains" because, mostly, they are > processed food stuff, and raise my BG. I was interpreting "whole" as meaning NOT processed. Although I suppose it's harder to eat that way, ten GRAINS of wheat would raise BG much more slowly than the equivalent amount of flour. SignatureWes Groleau Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it. -- Robert A. Heinlein While doing some other research I came across the following study on nutrition and its connection to T2DM. (http://tinyurl.com/fxbo6) The full study is based on n=~50k! The tile is "Dietary patterns and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. men". At least I can see for myself why I may have fallen for this. I ate ice-cream every day for last 8 yrs! Wow what was I thinking???? Anyway the good news is I am least untangling a lot of the mysteries and the research so far seem to be confirming without any reservation that I am on right tract. Here is the conclusion from that study. "In conclusion, our findings indicate that major dietary patterns identified by factor analysis can predict risk for type 2 diabetes. Obesity is known to be a strong risk factor for type 2 diabetes (33). However, in addition to balancing total energy intake with expenditure to prevent weight gain, avoiding a western dietary pattern (Higher consumption red meat, processed meat, French fries, high-fat dairy products, refined grains, and sweets and desserts) may substantially reduce risk for type 2 diabetes in men." Anil T2 :: While doing some other research I came across the following study on :: nutrition and its connection to T2DM. (http://tinyurl.com/fxbo6) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: Anil :: T2 The researchers paint with too broad a brush. First, they claim that the "prudent" diet contains whole grains, which is very doubtful, as most grain-products are highly processed. Then the lump 'red meat & high-fat dairy products' in with the "western dietary patten" when the fact of the matter is that its the overuse of cheap junk foods "fries, refined grains, sweets & desserts, and soda) that's really driving the western appetite and overconsumption. While balancing energy intake with expenditure becomes the bottom line, the actual source of energy does matter for many. People in this country have long-held, unfounded bias against fat which unfortunately polutes most health-related research that appears. You simply won't find any real-world support for a diet high in "fries, refined grains, sweets & desserts, and soda" whereas you can find such for diets high in "red meat and high fat diary". Roger, >>The researchers paint with too broad a brush. First, they claim that the >> "prudent" diet contains whole grains, which is very doubtful, as most >> grain-products are highly processed. I agree that lack of widely agreed definition of what constitutes whole grain makes it that much harder to consume such research. Article "Cereal grains, legumes and diabetes" By BJ Venn and JI Mann (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/pdf/1601995a.pdf : Thanks Allen S.) has a good definition of whole grain: Begin Quote: The definition developed by the American Association of Cereal Chemists may be the most appropriate interim definition until the issue has been finally resolved: ''Whole grains may be intact, ground, cracked or flaked grains where the components-endosperm, germ and bran-are present in substantially the same proportions as they exist in the intact grain.' In terms of lessening the acute effect of consuming grains on postprandial glucose metabolism, "ground" might best be interpreted as "stone ground", rather than finely milled reconstituted wholemeal flour. End Quote: My wife came up with the simplest definition: "If you can sprout it its whole!" And the way I eat things if you can sprout it, I can make a great dish out of it by cooking it. Now do I destroy any thing in cooking them? I am sure I am but that is where I am drawing the line to make eating enjoyable as against eating to stay alive! Since I don't eat animal based proteins any more I have stopped doing research on its benefit or lack there of to T2DM. So I am not a neutral observer here. If any one makes a claim that without animal based proteins in the diet I am doomed as a T2DM then that would certainly make me jump off my high horse and dig deep to evaluate the validity of those claims. Bernstein diet is on the borderlines of such claim and hence my interest. Anil T2 This post not CC'd by email >While doing some other research I came across the following study on >nutrition and its connection to T2DM. (http://tinyurl.com/fxbo6) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and the research so far seem to be confirming without any reservation >that I am on right tract. ROTFL G'day G'day Anil, It takes only a few moments to notice that you are NOT on the right track as identified by this research. "Using factor analysis based on data from food-frequency questionnaires, we identified and validated two major dietary patterns that we labeled "prudent" (characterized by higher consumption of vegetables, fruit, fish, poultry and whole grains)" Vegans don't eat fish and poultry. Put simply their diet is NOT prudent as defined by this research. >Here is the conclusion from that study. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Anil >T2 Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Good day Guentin, I enclosed the URL of original article just so that any one more interested can read the study itself. The only reason I even went to this study was because it was sited by Harvard Public Health. (Ref: http://tinyurl.com/klvrl). The reason why I did not quote more from the study was because I felt the conclusion section was more than obvious in stating what dietary habits "may" lead to T2DM. No where in the study or for that matter any research I have done I have come across findings that say "not" eating fish and poultry will result in increasing one's chances of getting T2DM. Having said this here is more from the same study that given me personally the comfort that I am on the right path. I don't expect every one to feel so comfortable with that conclusion. Each one of us has to independently arrive at some path we they feel we can handle for rest of the life. Any way here is the some more excerpts from that same study that talks to your objection. "We also examined whether consumption of specific foods with large contributions to the dietary-pattern scores was associated with the risk for type 2 diabetes. Of the foods that characterized the prudent pattern, whole grains had the strongest inverse association with the risk for type 2 diabetes (multivariate relative risk for extreme quintiles, 0.77 [CI, 0.64 to 0.93]; P 0.001 for trend). Consumption of fruit, vegetables, and fish was not appreciably associated with the risk for type 2 diabetes. (Anil Ed: either higher or lower) The foods with major contributions to the western pattern were all positively associated with the risk for type 2 diabetes. (The relative risks for extreme quintiles were: for unprocessed red meat..)" Wishing you the best as always, Anil T2 > "We also examined whether consumption of specific foods > with large contributions to the dietary-pattern scores was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > for type 2 diabetes. (The relative risks for extreme > quintiles were: for unprocessed red meat..)" Anil, one of the things we have to be cautious about is ascribing causation where only correlation exists. For example, in a lot of studies, pretty much all of them, the highest meat consumption occurs in people who eat fries and drink sugary soda with fast food burgers. The highest whole grain consumption is likely a marker for health conscious folks who exercise, eat veggies and more fish or healthier types of meat. Additionally, whole grains mean less grain is digested, so it may be this mere reduction in digestible carbohydrate that improves risk. I suspect all of the above may be correlated, but causation is a completely different matter. Susan Dear Susan >> For example, in a lot of studies, pretty much all of them, the highest >> meat consumption occurs in people who eat fries and drink sugary >> soda with fast food burgers. Unfortunately the studies I have come across do not capture that point the way you are making it. Based on my interest what I do see is that the research confirms that plant based whole food diet is healthy for T2DM. Only junk food we as a family indulged in was nightly treat of ice-cream We otherwise had great diet. I still got membership here. Then again I never did any exercise either. So which was the cause? I suspect both had a role to play! It sure was not red-meat! Anil T2 This post not CC'd by email >Good day Guentin, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have done I have come across findings that say "not" eating fish >and poultry will result in increasing one's chances of getting T2DM. G'day G'day Anil, As one of the most sincere vegans to post here, I have considerable respect for you, especially as a person. That makes it all the more important to question you when you "find evidence" to support your chosen lifestyle. The "prudent" diet as outlined in this particular bit of research as close to what most folks here practice as it is to the vegan diet. Another conclusion you could have drawn is that, folks here have gotten it about right. Eat vegetables, fruit, fish, poultry, whole grains. We could all then have a merry old time arguing about the details but none of us could say that the research supported our diet more than the "prudent" diet. FWIIW, there is evidence that low fat dairy REDUCES the risk of developing T2 diabetes. The path of cause and effect are open to conjecture. Conjecture is conjecture and rather like opinions we all have them. Mine are unlikely to agree with yours. >Having said this here is more from the same study that given me >personally the comfort that I am on the right path. Notice what you are doing. Be aware of it. Some of us are searching for the best objective path to dealing with T2. You are seeking support for a subjective path. The results will be different. >I don't expect every one to feel so comfortable with that conclusion. >Each one of us has to independently arrive at some path we they feel > we can handle for rest of the life. Good point. We are amongst the ultimate consumers of our decisions. Our children and people we live with are also affected. >Any way here is the some more excerpts from that same >study that talks to your objection. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > risk for extreme quintiles, 0.77 [CI, 0.64 to 0.93]; > P 0.001 for trend). Now that is interesting and highly relevant to all readers. It would be interesting to compare the relative risk figures for refined grains. Before getting too excited we need to be sure the favourable results from whole grain aren't simply that refined grain consumption is really bad. > Consumption of fruit, vegetables, and fish was not > appreciably associated with the risk for type 2 diabetes. > (Anil Ed: either higher or lower) Fish is likely to be neutral. It appears to me to be the least likely form of animal protein to cause problems except of course for those who are allergic to the specific proteins or pollute their rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and wonder why they have problems. The fruit and vegetable results might well be pretty meaningless to many folks here. Fruit would include bananas and other tropical fruit. Vegetables would be heavily weighted towards potato. The research tells us nothing meaningful about what happens when people restrict their fruit to berries and temperate climate fruit and their vegetables to high water content relatively low carb vegetables. If they had specifically mentioned broccoli or cauliflower consumption I might even have felt a tinge of excitement over the findings. > The foods with major contributions to the western > pattern were all positively associated with the risk [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Anil >T2 Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Good day Quentin! >> As one of the most sincere vegans to post here, I have considerable >> respect for you, especially as a person. While I am truly flattered with your praise to be at least a bit worthy of it let me say upfront that the label vegan does not quite fit me. I do take milk in my tea and do drink 4/5 cups of tea every day. Yes the milk we use is organic and skim. And yes I am a bit uncomfortable that I still have some milk in my diet. But I am not ready to give it up yet. I have yet to see any research that says that much milk will do any harm. I suspect I consume about a total one cup of milk in a day. RE: Being Vegan In fact there are several things I do differently than what a typical vegan may do, if there is such a typical vegan :-). >> That makes it all the more important to question you when you "find evidence" to >> support your chosen lifestyle. I have restricted myself to whole food, plant based (WFPB) diet with heavy emphasis on greens like broccoli, spinach and sprouted legumes and beans. I eat plenty of nuts including almonds and walnuts. As you know soaked whole peanut is another one of my staple. I am thinking of adding flax seeds to my diet. I have yet to figure out a way to introduce it in my cooking. But given time and enough motivation I am sure I will do so soon. My journey to find appropriate diet started with a read of Dr. Bernstein book followed by the book I quote often "The China Study" by Dr.Campbell. So far all the research I have done does not give me even a hint that I may be headed the wrong way. I am however quite aware of limitations of my ability to grasp nutritional complexities of human diet. This is all the more obvious when many of the research articles pointed out here expose my in-ability to digest the nuances. Off and on I do try to get to the crux of the matter going directly to the conclusion part. Having said that I must say I have read fair amount and have so far walked away feeling good about the dietary changes I have made since I was dxed with T2DM. All my numbers speak for themselves. I do see plenty of room for improvement but I can also see and feel that I have stopped digging deeper. I did not get here in a day. I don't expect to see a full turn around for at least another 8/9 months. I do however expect myself to see meeting intermediate mile stones and take corrective action as I see necessary. >> Another conclusion you could have drawn is that, folks here have gotten it about >> right. Eat vegetables, fruit, fish, poultry, whole grains. We could all then have a >> merry old time arguing about the details but none of us could say that the >> research supported our diet more than the "prudent" diet. As you know the unfortunate choice of words "Prudent" and "Western" is not mine. Each one of us have to figure out what is right and what works for us. For example take Garlic. No one needs to convince me its perfect food for my heart (lipids and all) I know that! But its not part of my diet simply because I was never exposed to it as I grew up and when I found my wonderful wife she too hated it. Fine. Not exactly the end of the world. I can not possibly eat every thing that is right for me vegan or otherwise. What I can make sure is what I do eat has plenty of variety, has wholeness in every bite and covers wide spectrum of my diary needs. I do insist on, I do so in most primitive fashion, that a) I don't spend lot of time cooking b) I can depend on its easy availability. >> Fruit would include bananas and other tropical fruit. I stopped eating bananas the day I was dxed. Using my meter I have figured out that most citrus fruits, grape fruit specifically is perfect. I had a pleasant surprise when I ate pomegranate and gwawa. They actually lowered my BG by about 10 points! I attribute that to the seeds contained in those fruit. I was even more surprised that eating fresh figs did not spike me at all. I could literally eat half a dozen at a time. Again they too have plenty of seeds. I am delighted there are plenty of pleasures like this in I can have in life with no reservations! Having said that I dare not go near Mangos, another of my favorite fruit. This fruit is now part of my past life only to be savored in dreams. >> Notice what you are doing. Be aware of it. I take that very seriously. Some times in fact I wonder if I am too serious! >> Some of us are searching for the best objective path to dealing with T2. >> You are seeking support for a subjective path. If there was a universally agreed upon good diet, we would not be here hashing it out so intensely. To the extent we all have chosen a part of it makes it subjective. And to be very clear I am not seeking any support. I am sharing with every one in this group, in the most transparent way I can, what is working for me and what does not. I hope I am not in- advertently communicating that this is the only way it will work. I am hoping my mistakes as well as my choice of foods become useful markers for every one to learn from. To be honest the changes I have made so far are working for the beta cells I have now. What will work tomorrow will entirely depend on how many of my beta cells I manage to salvage by my corrective actions I do to my lifestyle. >> We are amongst the ultimate consumers of our decisions. >> Our children and people we live with are also affected. Could not have said that better! Both my kids and my wife always had good eating habits but now none of them is eating ice-cream any more than once a month. They are eating even better diet now. I love that. They also see a visible difference in my energy level. Above all they love what I cook and the way I cook! And without support from my lovely wife I would not be here in such a great mood. She does read my postings :-). If you think I am health freak you should meet her! As always it's a pleasure to talk to you Quentin. Take a good care of yourself! Anil T2/ Not Vegan! > In fact there are several things I do differently than what a typical > vegan may do, if there is such a typical vegan :-). > I have restricted myself to whole food, plant based (WFPB) diet with > heavy emphasis on greens like broccoli, spinach and sprouted legumes > and beans. I eat plenty of nuts including almonds and walnuts. As you > know soaked whole peanut is another one of my staple. I am thinking of > adding flax seeds to my diet. I have yet to figure out a way to Here you imply what some people here would call low-carb. Others would call it moderate carb (as opposed to the typical Western diet of way too much carb). But later... > I stopped eating bananas the day I was dxed. Using my meter I have > figured out that most citrus fruits, grape fruit specifically is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are plenty of pleasures like this in I can have in life with no > reservations! Here, many would think "Fruit! No, that's carb!" but you are choosing fruits that are slightly lower in carb than others AND have more fiber and/or acid. In your "almost vegan" diet you are probably actually doing fairly well nutritionally. There are a few nutrients that are more difficult to get without meat, but not many. And if you're willing to put forth the effort, you can get these nutrients from other sources. However, meat does provide calories, which is something I would not get enough of if I ate only low-carb plant products. Also protein, which I am not sure what my needs are. I haven't had to think about that as I am certain that I get MORE than enough. If I were to go vegan, I would definitely have to start analyzing my protein needs and intake. SignatureWes Groleau A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise. Dear Wes, >> There are a few nutrients that are more difficult to get without meat, but not many. Yes B12 and Omega-3 or N-3 as it is known in literature. Bodies need for B12 is very low (some estimates are as low as 1 microgram a day!) The RDA is 2.4 micrograms. Since I do have fortified soy milk in my diet and I take a b12 supplement I see no problem with it. I address the needs of N3 via walnut. I do plan on introducing flax seed flour, which is another rich source of N3 in my cooking. Other than that I feel quite comfortable with vitamin and mineral richness in my diet. I should also add that the ordinary tap water can provide plenty of valuable nutrients. Somewhere I read the following and I am unable to find a good reference for it. When you soak beans and legumes in water for sprouting few interesting transformations take place. The percentage protein content increases by 25%, the carbs get dropped by 10% and the mineral and vitamin content nearly doubles. What was the most interesting thing about this factoid is that they absorb these micronutrients from the water! I wish I can find that source again. But I was obviously happy to read that and would love to get an independent confirmation. >> However, meat does provide calories, which is something I would >> not get enough of if I ate only low-carb plant products. Legumes and beans have plenty of proteins. So I am not worried on this front. Also because my source of proteins is plant based I am not too worried if they are present in excessive quantities in my diet. >> A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise. Love that!!! Anil T2 This post not CC'd by email >Dear Wes, > >>> There are a few nutrients that are more difficult to get without meat, but not many. >Yes B12 and Omega-3 or N-3 as it is known in literature. G'day G'day Anil, Forget about omega-3. If you eat greens and walnuts you will get plenty of the type that reduces the incidence of heart attacks. The omega-3 from fish doesn't appear to be nearly as effective. As for Vit B12, you are taking a food that has been fortified with Vit B12, so I'm not worried about your health from that aspect. I must say though that I find a degree of hypocrisy or naivety in the matter amongst vegans. Some plants eg spirulina make analogues of Vit B12. They block the functioning of genuine Vit B12. Put simply, the foods fortified with B12 trace that B12 back to animal origins or else are useless and potentially harmful analogues of Vit B12. Those T2s who take metformin cannot take a casual approach to Vit B12 as metformin interferes with Vit B12 uptake. For people who don't explore the limits of low Vit B12 intake it most likely doesn't matter. For people who do, then it could in time matter a very great deal. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Quentin wrote: > Forget about omega-3. If you eat greens and walnuts you will get > plenty of the type that reduces the incidence of heart attacks. The > omega-3 from fish doesn't appear to be nearly as effective. Gee, really? Everything I've read seems to say just the reverse - that EPA and DHA (the fish oil omega-3s) are used directly, but that alpha-linolenic acid (ALA, 18:3 n-3) has to go through two desaturations and an elongation to be effective. (And that the first desaturation step may be weak and inadequate, esp in older men.) That is, if by 'effective' we mean a serving as a source for the anti-inflammatory eicosanoids, reducing the deposition of aretrial plaque and making the plaque more stable. I *have* read suggestions that ALA may have some cardioprotective effects beyond serving as a source of EPA. But I haven't seen anything that says it's better than EPA. Tell me more! Thanks Adam Becker This post not CC'd by email On 21 Mar 2006 09:08:26 -0800, "Adam Becker Sr" <adam_becker_sr@yahoo.com> wrote: >Quentin wrote: >> Forget about omega-3. If you eat greens and walnuts you will get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >desaturations and an elongation to be effective. (And that the first >desaturation step may be weak and inadequate, esp in older men.) G'day G'day Adam, Darn. I was reluctant to post this information. I'd like to leave some surprises for the book. On the other hand I like to be up front and share the information out there without bias. Most people who know some chemistry will agree with your analysis. The conversion process through from ALA to EPA and DHA is inefficient. It takes a couple of weeks to establish the right enzymes to do the process. Even then the conversion rate is very low. With diabetics it gets worse. High insulin interceders with the process. Trans fat interferes with the process etc. >That is, if by 'effective' we mean a serving as a source for the >anti-inflammatory eicosanoids, reducing the deposition of aretrial >plaque and making the plaque more stable. I *have* read suggestions >that ALA may have some cardioprotective effects beyond serving as a >source of EPA. But I haven't seen anything that says it's better than >EPA. That is the point, the whole point. Fish eating isn't as strongly associated with decreased deaths by cardiovascular disease as we'd like. Eating greens high in ALA is. There is something else happening that is more important than producing anti-inflammatory eicosanoids. I haven't a clue what it is. Since we all bet our lives on what we eat, I'm choosing to do both. Eat greens for the ALA. Eat fish for a lot of other stuff besides the EPA and DHA, as well as the EPA and DHA. I don't expect the fish eating to reduce my risk of heart attacks but I do expect the greens to roughly halve the risk. >Tell me more! > >Thanks >Adam Becker Hope this helps. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin <snip> >Fish eating isn't as strongly associated with decreased deaths by >cardiovascular disease as we'd like. <snip> The BBC News is carrying a story today saying that a review paper in the current issue of the British Medical Journal of some 90 studies of the effects of omega-3 oils on heart disease and cancer shows that they aren't nearly as beneficial as had previously been suggested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4838086.stm It does make you wonder what to believe about dietary advice! SignatureChris E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net This post not CC'd by email On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:26:21 +0000, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote: ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It does make you wonder what to believe about dietary advice! G'day G'day Chris, I go to bed at nights wondering if my analysis of the literature is correct. It was hard for me to accept that fish, particularly those with high oil content was not the answer. There were all those lovely mechanisms showing the longer chain omega-3 oils, EPA and DHA found in fish being associated with the anti-inflammatory prostaglandins. It was all very persuasive. It just didn't agree with the epidemiology studies I had read if longevity was the desired endpoint. One intriguing study was the one done on MEN which showed that eating a small amount of fish or prawns per week reduced the risk ... then there was a plateau. More wasn't better. With women it appeared to be that the more fish the merrier. Prawns are not a good source of omega-3 oils so something else made them beneficial. The evidence has been there for a while but people have been running away from it. Nutrition is filled with paradoxes and things that ought to be but aren't. That occupies a chapter in my book. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > The BBC News is carrying a story today saying that a review paper in > the current issue of the British Medical Journal of some 90 studies of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It does make you wonder what to believe about dietary advice! When considering studies claiming healing properties for a single nutrient or food: 1. Screen out all studies funded by organizations that benefit from the sale of the product in question. 2. With the pitiful handful of studies left, screen out the number which are poorly designed with lots of uncontrolled variables. For example, in my region, fish is considerably more expensive than meat, so people who eat a lot of fish are often people with more disposable income, better education and lower rates of smoking, jobs that give them more control over their work, and better access to health care. Any study of the cardiac benefits of fish that don't completely control for these factors is worthless. 3. If there are any studies left at all, look at the size of the study and how long it ran. Notice how many are run with groups so small that the results may have been due to chance. Notice how many ran for less than three months. 4. Wonder why it is that supposedly highly educated doctors and scientists who get paid to do this stuff publish such venal and/or poorly constructed studies! After almost a decade of reading this stuff, I've come to the conclusion that magical thinking underlies most nutritional belief. People have always wanted to believe that some foods contains magical substances. The more unpleasant or exotic the food, the more likely it is to have these magical properties. Having diabetes makes us more susceptible to these beliefs because we have one of the very few diseases where some substance in food has massive effects on our health--carbohydrates so it is easy to believe that if one nutrient can kill another can cure. But throughout history humans in temperate climates have eaten what we would consider dreadful diets, made up half the year of nothing but starchy vegetables, pickles, and heavily salted meats and fish. Anyone who gardens knows how infrequently most fruits and vegetables are available in temperate climates and anyone who studies history knows how recently it was that such foods could be preserved. Even so, if you screen out those who died from accidents, childbirth and infectious diseases, people 300 years ago were living lifespans comparable to ours. New England graveyards are full of people who died in their 80s and 90s after eating a diet made up mostly of salt cod, pork, and root crops. Only one thing is certain, and that is that no matter how many studies show how many food substances to be worthless, someone will come up with something new that they claim will cause magical health improvements and millions of people will buy it. --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control >> The BBC News is carrying a story today saying that a review paper in >> the current issue of the British Medical Journal of some 90 studies of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> It does make you wonder what to believe about dietary advice! > When considering studies claiming healing properties for a single > nutrient or food: > 1. Screen out all studies funded by organizations that benefit from the > sale of the product in question. > 2. With the pitiful handful of studies left, screen out the number which > are poorly designed with lots of uncontrolled variables. > For example, in my region, fish is considerably more expensive than > meat, so people who eat a lot of fish are often people with more > disposable income, better education and lower rates of smoking, jobs > that give them more control over their work, and better access to health > care. Any study of the cardiac benefits of fish that don't completely > control for these factors is worthless. > 3. If there are any studies left at all, look at the size of the study > and how long it ran. Notice how many are run with groups so small that > the results may have been due to chance. Notice how many ran for less > than three months. > 4. Wonder why it is that supposedly highly educated doctors and > scientists who get paid to do this stuff publish such venal and/or > poorly constructed studies! > After almost a decade of reading this stuff, I've come to the conclusion > that magical thinking underlies most nutritional belief. People have > always wanted to believe that some foods contains magical substances. > The more unpleasant or exotic the food, the more likely it is to have > these magical properties. > Having diabetes makes us more susceptible to these beliefs because we > have one of the very few diseases where some substance in food has > massive effects on our health--carbohydrates so it is easy to believe > that if one nutrient can kill another can cure. > But throughout history humans in temperate climates have eaten what we > would consider dreadful diets, made up half the year of nothing but > starchy vegetables, pickles, and heavily salted meats and fish. Anyone > who gardens knows how infrequently most fruits and vegetables are > available in temperate climates and anyone who studies history knows how > recently it was that such foods could be preserved. > Even so, if you screen out those who died from accidents, childbirth and > infectious diseases, people 300 years ago were living lifespans > comparable to ours. New England graveyards are full of people who died > in their 80s and 90s after eating a diet made up mostly of salt cod, > pork, and root crops. I tend to the belief that firstly, people vary enough physiologically that some will do very well on diets that are bad for others. We come from a long line of very intelligent opportunistic omnivores, so as well as the adaptatability to new foods our intelligence in finding them gives us, I'd also expect there to be in our population lots of digestive diversity, as a result of many half-completed dietary adaptations of the past. That would lead to a population most of whom will do fairly well on most diets, but some of whom will always do badly on some diets. Genetic diversity makes for rapid adaptability, even though a few will always suffer by being born in the wrong times for them, such as the hunter born among farmers, the warrior born in peacetime. Secondly I don't think you can divorce diet from lifestyle, and one thing that has changed hugely since the invention of the motor car, and in general, the invention of motors (power tools, labour saving devices, etc.), is that in general we now take far less exercise than any previous human population ever. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a diet that was fine for me if I did three hours of heavy physical work every day turned out to be somewhat toxic if I was only doing five minutes of heavy physical work a week. I remember the work my mother and father did every day in the winter just to keep the home fires burning. There's nothing in my life which *requires* that kind of exertion even once a month. Would I personally have become a diabetic if I had become a gardener instead of a computer programmer? It wouldn't surprise me if, like my mother, I would only then have developed my T2 diabetes a decade or so after retiring from hard work and slumping down onto the sofa eating carby snacks in front of the TV. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > I wanted to throw a brick through my TV screen and hit Martin Silink > in the head when he criticized Bernstein's approach as too [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > got the feeling that Rose liked the white hair and accent better than > the notion of fast carb addiction. Silink got most of the air time. OMG, he looks *fabulous* for 72 - what a great advertisement for his own method of control. During the whole interview (and thanks for the link, I missed it on broadcast) I was nodding and saying 'Yes!' whenever Bernstein was talking. But you're right, Silink had an entirely different focus. He was looking at it from a global perspective, and that's just not useful. Diabetes research may be global, but keeping your diabetes from claiming your feet and kidneys and arteries is strictly personal. Chak SignatureI would like at least one political party in this country to be willing to say that sex is fun and an important part of being human. --PZ Myers, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.