Study Ties High Blood Sugar To Dementia 157
A study published last week in the New England Journal suggests that blood sugar levels may be a more important indicator than previously realized for non-diabetics: high blood sugar levels were linked by the study's authors with increased risk of dementia (summary free; full article paywalled). The study followed more than 2,000 elderly participants, and found a positive correlation between blood glucose levels and development of dementia, both for patients with and without diabetes.
Proves Bloomberg correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about that. People stupid enough to drink a 52 oz, 1000+ calorie drink packed with sugar might not have the best brain to begin with and probably have all around terrible health practices as well.
The study was about Glucose; the predominant sugar in soda drinks is Fructose, at least in the U.S., and because it lends itself to plumbing-based manufacturing of junk food rather than requiring auger gears to move powdered sweetener around, it's gaining ground in other countries junk food as well.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
1) High Fructose Corn Syrup, the thing used in just about everything is a mixture of about 55/42% fructose and glucose respectively.
2) Fructose is almost immediately metabolized by the liver into glucose, once it leaves the small intestine.
So, it's basically the same damn thing to the body anyway.
Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. (Score:5, Informative)
Fructose (which is one half of sucrose - basically the same as high fructose corn syrup) is actually much worse than glucose precisely because it is metabolized by the liver. The metabolic process is very similar to that of ethanol, and the chronic effects are also almost identical. Here's a great presentation by Prof. Robert H. Lustig, MD about the link between sugar consumption and obesity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]
How many apples are in a glass of juice? (Score:3)
Just about all the fruit/veg you eat is going to have fructose. Are you trying to say eating apples (high in fructose) are harmful?
Well, if you were to chug them down as a supersized glass of apple juice, probably yes. The composition of that juice isn't too much different from a glass of fructose-sweetened soda. A small 8 oz glass of apple juice takes about 3-4 apples or so to make. If you were to eat those three or four apples whole, you'd feel a bit full; probably take you a while to finish them, too. With the bulk and fiber of the apple removed, the equivalent amount in juice can be consumed in minutes -- without satiating your
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it isn't just in soft drinks. It's in just about every processed food out there. Why? It's dirt cheap compared to real sugar. So, if you eat peanut butter, you are eating HFCS. If you eat a hamburger at a fast food chain, you are eating HFCS if you think you will go the healthy route and have a salad, you better just have oil and vinegar for the dressing or once again you will have HFCS added to your diet. A little HFCS isn't bad for you, but like MSG, it is so prevalent in all of the foods we eat tha
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason HCFS is so cheap is because of corn subsidies. Get rid of those and it's half the battle.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason HCFS is so cheap is because of corn subsidies. Get rid of those and it's half the battle.
That's not true. US places tariffs on imported sugar to protect domestic sugar production. Because of this, actual sugar is overpriced in the US. HFCS is priced on the commodities market, like oil, so while the corn producers do receive a subsidy, the price is really determined by other factors. But, if the US removed the self imposed tariffs, then the price of sucrose would fall to normal like the rest of the world and the demand in the US for HFCS would decline.
Basically, we aren't subsidizing HFCS, we a
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? From what I've found so far, the tariff on Brazil sugar is 1.5 cents (US$) per kg but they are limited to 155,000 tons. That doesn't seem like enough of a hike to make using sugar unaffordable.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the cane sugar tariff. The beet sugar tariff is something like 29.4 cents per kg. We restrict the amount of cane sugar that can be imported and then tax the shit out of beet sugar which competes directly with most US sugar production.
Re: (Score:2)
HFCS is typically 55% fructose and 45% glucose. (Outside of the US it would probably be made from wheat or potatoes rather than maize.) HFCS wouldn't exist without the maize subsidies and sugar tariffs in the U
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people that drink soda during meals.
The problem is social.
no it doesn't? (Score:1)
if they did a scientific study of banning "large sugar drinks" and noticed that somehow the cost and expense to society and freedom of having taxpayer funded policing of drink sizes somehow was worth it, then maybe i would agree. but thats not what they studied.
they studied the effect of blood glucose on dementia.
sugar might be a poison, but so are a lot of other things. regulating it might be fine, but stupid regulations like "drink size" are not necessarily going to accomplish anything other than wasting
Re: (Score:2)
The size of the cup/glass is also utterly meaningless if you can have as many "refills" as you like (especially if that is via a dispenser in the customer area.)
Re: (Score:2)
They should outlaw cans.
Bottles can be resealed and replaced in the fridge, you only need to drink what you want at the time.
This applies to 1.5 and 2 liter bottles as well as 500 ml
Are 2l bottle really illegal in NYC or did some higher court strike that law down?
2L botles is the cheapest way to buy soda/pop
Actually I drink 50% pop (SunDrop, MT Dew or mello yello) and the other 50% is Lemon-lime Gatorade)
Re: (Score:2)
I drink about a can of soda a week. Usually Stevia sweetened cola or root beer. Why would I want a 2L bottle? It would either encourage me to drink more soda (before it goes flat) or go to waste.
A better solution would just be a sugary drink tax and that tax could go directly towards subsidizing fruits and vegetables :)
Re: (Score:2)
I drink about a can of soda a week. Usually Stevia sweetened cola or root beer. Why would I want a 2L bottle? It would either encourage me to drink more soda (before it goes flat) or go to waste.
A better solution would just be a sugary drink tax and that tax could go directly towards subsidizing fruits and vegetables :)
Because if you have kids, buying soday by the can is pretty darn expensive. The best solution is to first find out if there is a direct and strong correlation between surary drinks and obesity. Then, decide what to do about it. Chances are, a viable solution would not require a tax or a subsidy for fruits and vegetables, which are pretty high in sugar, too.
If the culprit really is the sugary drinks, then all one would need to do is look at other western societies where kids drink sugary drinks (Japan is one
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you have kids, buying soday by the can is pretty darn expensive.
If you have kids you should never be giving them soda under any circumstances.
That's fucking child abuse.
There are other beverages besides soda that have a high sugar content like apple juice, orange juice and grape juice. Soda isn't the only sugary drink that kids drink. Besides, at what age would you allow soda, not until they are 21? Kids run the gamut from birth until at least 18.
Re: (Score:1)
The "nations" healthcare costs are none of Bloombergs fucking business. I don't need him babysitting me. Soft-drink companies are losing more and more money every quarter due to people making informed decisions about their diet. We do not need the government deciding for us. We're perfectly capable of doing it on our own. Where we need the government is to enforce transparency so capitalism can do the work for us. Clear, standardized nutrition labels is what the government should be focused on. Once we have
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of most people's dietary glucose isn't from "sugar" however. This typically comes from plant amylopectin (followed by amylose).
Thus it would actually make more sense to outlaw bread, pasta, potatoes, breakfast cereal, etc. before even considering anything which contains glucose, maltose, sucrose or lactose.
Re: (Score:2)
More ammo in the Bloomberg ammo depot to outlaw enormous sugary drinks and help lower the nation's health care costs by cutting down on seriously obese people.
The majority of most people's dietary glucose isn't from "sugar" however. This typically comes from plant amylopectin (followed by amylose).
Thus it would actually make more sense to outlaw bread, pasta, potatoes, breakfast cereal, etc. before even considering anything which contains glucose, maltose, sucrose or lactose.
Shhhhh! Don't cloud the argument with facts.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1920s and '30s they would be called Fat Cats. [wordpress.com] and we still don't like them.
Coranation does not imply causeway (Score:1)
No way Jose! Stoopid believe print.
evils of sugar (Score:2)
Sugar gets more evil every day. I've heard that sugar causes or is linked to:
And, I've heard that sugar is acidic, but how and what that means other than that it's somehow bad I don't know. Acidic foods cause faster aging, maybe? Wish I'd known about the link to acne back in high school.
Re:evils of sugar (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Otto Heinrich Warburg won a nobel prize in the 30's for proving that cancer cells only eat sugar. So you might want to add that to your list as well.
Re: (Score:2)
of course, most the cells in the body run on sugar. try depriving your brain of sugar for a minute and see what happens. call the morgue first and reserve a slab
Re: evils of sugar (Score:2)
Some need glucose. Principally a small subset in the brain.
All others can get by on glucose or ketones (I.e. fat metabolism). If you are in ketosis, the liver is synthesizing glucose to the level needed by the brain while other tissues go into physiological insulin resistance to preserve the glucose for the brain. This is a good thing. You would be dead otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, which is probably not much, it's kinda simple, and it makes my life easier for dealing with all the crap that's making it more difficult. Also, a little balance goes a long way.
Glucose is fuel - what cells burn to do their stuff.
Protein is used to repair and build tissue (which is pretty much everything.)
Cholesterol is used to build cell walls, connective tissues, fingernails, and such.
Fat is for stored energy, it tastes good, and helps regulate appetite (the 'appestat'.)
Excess glucose
Re: (Score:2)
You need to add the endocrine system in there. That's what upends people's misconceptions about CI=CO. The arrow of causation isn't CI-CO => delta M. It is Food => hormone activity => CI-CO. Weight changes and appetite are mostly a function of the type of food you eat, not its caloric properties.
I don't think it is simple. I've been studying the science for a few years now. It's really very, very complicated.
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple - reduce carbohydrates to as close to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the heads up re endocrine. I wasn't trying to minimize the humongous amount of stuff involved in how the body does what it does, rather I was making a simple list, part tongue in cheek, about what I use as a general guide to what I can manage to get, make, and eat on any kind of regular basis, and a bit about why.
In your sense I am indeed wrong-footed; in my sense, it's what I can do from day to day.
"I don't think it is simple...
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
Make up yo
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think it is simple...
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
The why is not simple and I don't think anyone understands it fully, but we do know a lot. The 'what to do' at the moment is low-carb. There is plenty of evidence, both controlled and epidemiological that shows positive outcomes associates with reduce total carbohydrate intake.
Your list is fine, except the liking potatoes and rice thing and the CI-CO thing. Stop that :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sorry, can't shake the cheeky today; what I find encouraging is, particularly in just the past decade or two, the larger amount and...tenacity of research into the erstwhile presumed fundamentals, looking far more closely at what goes on inside the various cells (abetted by some mighty fine newer tools, both observational and those related to vastly increased understanding about the intricacies of folding and fit) against the gross nutritional assumptions - we can now start testing and watching in sit
Re: (Score:2)
but the healthiest groups of people in the world don't follow that high-fat diet. Rather, complex carbs, little simple carbs, some protein, some fat and much fiber. or if you're French, add more sugar and some wine.
Re: (Score:2)
The healthiest people in the world include people on high fat diets, people on high carbs and daily smoking, people on lots-o-fish and others.
The correct response to "Oh no I fucked my metabolism on a western diet and now I'm fat" is not to follow a 'healthy' diet like the Inuit or the Tokalus, because it doesn't work. The correct response is to know what is broken and to work around that defect. That is why low-carb works for the western fatties like me.
If we didn't break our metabolisms with three generat
Re: (Score:2)
wonder if real wheat is a problem, what we call "wheat" in the USA is a sixfold genome bioengineered franken-wheat.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd find an asian diet with brown rice, veggies and fruits, and a little lean meat (6 oz or less a day) would shed the pounds too
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your POMC cells in your ventromedial hypothalamus are messed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheat may be part of the problem. I don't know if the franken-wheat is significant. I've seen no data either way on old wheat vs. franken wheat.
Re: (Score:2)
This.. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/fig_tab/nn.2867_F1.html [nature.com] .. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/full/nn.2867.html [nature.com]
and this.. attach boilerplate rodent metabolism warning though
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard that sugar is acidic.
FWIW, pure sugar is not technically acidic (meaning it has no ionizable excess of H+ in solution). However, the way we metabolize sugar (citric acid cycle, fatty acid storage) creates acids in our bodies. The alkaline diet fad [wikipedia.org] that has been making the rounds has somehow created this misleading impression about sugar.
Re:evils of sugar (Score:5, Informative)
Sugar is the most basic kind of energy source. It's extremely important to your body, but as with everything, there are limits on what intake is healthy. (As Stephen Fry once said [abitoffryandlaurie.co.uk], 'Well of course too much is bad for you, that's what "too much" means you blithering twat. If you had too much water it would be bad for you, wouldn't it?')
Don't worry about the dementia thing too much. While it's a very strong correlation, it only increases the risk of developing dementia to 120% of normal for nondiabetics and 140% of normal for diabetics, which is still only about 1-2% of the people in their study.
As for the other consequences, it may help to understand them a bit better:
Tooth decay is caused by sugar left on your teeth. You can consume a ton of sugar and never have any tooth issues if you brush aggressively. Cavities are caused by bacteria in your mouth breaking down food left on your teeth, which causes them to release acidic byproducts. Starches like potatoes, corn, and bread are actually much more of a problem, however, and are the primary cause of cavities.
Gaining weight happens because the human body isn't prepared, evolutionarily, to regulate its own food intake very well. We have a high inclination toward absorbing and storing extra energy because that gives us the best chance of surviving a famine. Because sugar is the most basic kind of food, the body uses it as a clue to say "it's time to absorb nutrients!", hence sugary foods make you gain weight even faster. This is part of the normal purpose of the hormone insulin.
Diabetes isn't only caused by high sugar intake; it can be inherited too. Technically it's an inability to recognize sugar and absorb it, which (amongst other things) causes gradual starvation if not managed properly. Sugar causes it only if you consume a great deal for a long period of time, which makes your body start to ignore insulin. Diabetes can also be caused by pancreatic damage (type 1) or temporarily by pregnancy.
Acne is a weird issue; it's also caused by bacteria, in this case sitting on the skin. The immediate cause is a spike in testosterone, which can be induced by a number of sources, because it roughens up the surface of the skin. Sugar is one of those sources, but simply having overactive hormones as a teenager is probably a more dominant issue.
And as Slew said, sugar isn't acidic, it's just the breakdown of it that gets to be that way. This doesn't really have much of an effect on your body unless you're already suffering from acidosis (acidic blood), and you'd die very quickly if it stopped entirely, so don't worry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about the dementia thing too much. While it's a very strong correlation, it only increases the risk of developing dementia to 120% of normal for nondiabetics and 140% of normal for diabetics, which is still only about 1-2% of the people in their study.
About a quarter of the participants (524 of 2067) developed dementia over the course of the study. I'm not sure where you got the 1-2% figure. Perhaps you are referring to the p-values, but p indicates how likely it would be to observe the data if the null hypothesis were true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree. Sugary, at least dietary sugar, isn't needed by your body at all. Your body can convert fat to ketones which most cells can use instead of sugar. Your brain and other organs might need some sugar but your body can convert protien into sugar if it really needs to. So in conclusion:
If you do not eat any protien, you die.
If you don't eat any fat then you don't get any fat soluble vitamns or essential omega 3 fatty acids, and you die (its called rabbit starvation.)
If you don't eat any sugar (and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand the human body has a quite limited ability to store glucose and no ability to store fructose or galactose. With none of these being "essential nutrients" either.
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar is the most basic kind of energy source.
I wish I knew where this meme came from.
Glucose is one of many energy sources that cells can use, but it is far from the only one. Fatty acids, ketones and lactic acid can be utilized for energy too.
One thing that makes glucose special is that it can be used anaerobically, which makes it useful to fuel sudden bursts of activity that exceed the availability of oxygen. But it is much less efficient when used this way, and some of the other fuels listed above are just as efficient, if not more so, when use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice summary, thank you.
As I understood it, the mouth bacterium eats sugar and shits acid which eats the enamel at the gum line, creating an even better home for itself -> plaque -> gingivitis, etc. Apparently there is a cousin that'll live in the same 'ecological niche' that doesn't do this and it's possible to replace the nasty with the benign. Have read on this twice, both sourced from dentistry school at Duke, first time in late '70s; I've only met one dentist who'll admit to the bacteria bit, n
Re: (Score:2)
Well, was leery of my memory on this.... so eventually spent some time reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptococcus_mutans [wikipedia.org]
and a few of the included links. Was an eye opener and worth the time. About the only smart thing I've been doing is using baking soda and peroxide for brushing, along with a half-decent mouthwash. Never did find the reference I was looking for but don't want to take the time from other stuff right now to try to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar gets more evil every day. I've heard that sugar causes or is linked to:
And, I've heard that sugar is acidic, but how and what that means other than that it's somehow bad I don't know. Acidic foods cause faster aging, maybe? Wish I'd known about the link to acne back in high school.
Sugar causes none of those things. The consumption of sugar, however, may be a different story. As for high school acne, sex hormones are the most likely cause of that, particularly for males.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory I've heard is that it was eating fruit a ready way for our primitive ancestors to get certain nutrients, like vitamin C which can't be synthesized by humans and is not available in meat.
In fact, we need VitC to absorb iron.
So it tastes good because it was good for us.
Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually you have three groups.
Auto-immune: T1 and T1.5 (LADA).
Insulin resistant: Pre-Diabetes, T2 and Gestational Diabetes.
Mitochondial malfunction: Very misleadingly called Mature Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY). N.B. it is possible for young people, especially women with PCOS, to have insulin resistance diabetes.
Only insulin resistant diabetes can be reversed (cured). Only in some cases, the degree & length of time of the insulin resistance along with injury to beta cells and liver due to glucotoxicity being possible factors here.
Is this due to increased Vascular Dementia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Vascular dementia is caused by the breakdown and rupture of small blood vessels in the brain.
High levels of serum glucose lead to high levels of damage in small blood vessels and the desctuction of 'Highly Vascularized Tissue'.
Chronic kidney disease is a typical outcome of high serum glucose.
Seems like there's a pattern here.
Re: (Score:2)
Brain diabetes (Score:5, Informative)
This is particularly interesting because alzheimer's is now thought, by many researchers, to be a form of "brain diabetes."
There are clinical data which demonstrate that alzheimer's can be reversed to some extent with medium chain triglycerides, which are absorbed by cells directly and provide energy which isn't dependent on glucose uptake.
See: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/alzheimers-diabetes-brain [doctoroz.com] and http://w.numedica.net/literature/Reger%202004.pdf [numedica.net] for more info.
Re: (Score:2)
The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
If the above is
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
If the above is true, then while MCTs may be fine, a proper ketogenic diet would be better, since it improves blood sugar control.
So quit eating vegetables and start eating lots of saturated fats, eggs and fatty meat if you don't want to go doolally in your old age.
Yes, a diet very high in saturated fats will drastically reduce your chances of experience this or any other disease typically associated with old age.
Re: (Score:2)
bugger (Score:1)
Dam looks like im screwed ....anon because i forgot my logon :(
So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so perhaps it is over-simplifying the over-all issue and doesn't recognize the increased understanding of what affects what in what ways. It's important, so I'm not going to discount that value.
But the short of it is always this:
1. The body is a chemical machine. It needs good balance. When people screw with it too much beyond its tollerance, it's bad. We know this already. We hear "balanced diet" all the time. Trouble is, "balanced diets" are mostly a lie and because of human diversity, what is balanced for one person isn't balanced for another.
2. People are constantly trying to cut the head off of the body when it comes to illness. If it's "mental illness" they want to blame something mental. If it's something else, they want to blame the body in some way. It's as if this "blood brain barrier" is a thing that people believe contains the soul and spirit of a person. "Magic" right?
It's just not like that. We're all machines through and through. We know chemicals can affect our mood, our judgement, our response time, out ability to think clearly and some would say even enhance our thinking on some ways (I disagree, but okay...) We know we can affect our minds with chemicals and yet we STILL want to believe the mind is separate from the body.
Everyone needs to stop thinking this. Everyone. Laymen, Medical professionals, Police, Justice, Welfare services, Employers and more. Just Everyone.
I see this as completely obvious. Other people still cling to their ideas which are simply and demonstrably wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. We are a bag of chemical reactions and they all interact. The brain is no exception, particularly when it comes to the metabolism.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an older phrase "one man's meat is another man's poison". Often a "one size fits all" approach appears in government sponsored dietary advice. (Even such obvious daftness as tell
Re: (Score:2)
You reminded me of "The Body has a Head" by Gustav Eckstein. My takeaway is that we're a chemical-mechanical system of stuff wherein (or whereof) resides a mind. It's a great read, and presents among other things a biographical history to the advance of medical knowledge, the nesting and relation of systems, and the body's striving for homeostasis. Written in 1970 and to this day an indispensable book for anyone who wants to know about their body or of medicine. Sorry, this reads like an advert. Well,
Another illness that comes from unhealthy diet (Score:3)
I wonder how many of the 'stress'-related and weird 'genetic' illnesses just come down to decades of bad diet? I suspect that diet is more important than stress or physical exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
> Asians have done pretty well on rice.
Those Asian's haven't fucked up their VMH with bulk sucrose in childhood.
This wouldn't surprise most diabetics (Score:1)
Undiagnosed I would experience bouts of temper or melancholy that came from nowhere in particular, and these have been mostly eliminated since I started to medicate.
When sugars a low it's very hard to think at all, you can't concentrate, and it's hard to coordinate movement. Those that think lows can be cured by simply eating chocolate
Cause or effect? (Score:2)
One of my relatives has a serious mental disorder which manifest in many ways but primarily in total lack of self control. And he has a severe sweet tooth. For example, if there is any ice cream or candy on junk food in the house, he is likely to eat all of it on one sitting. It is not at all uncommon to see a half-gallon of ice cream disappear in moments. Or a day spent in nearly continuous eating. Food that should last a week might last a day or two.
As a result of this, the relative has awful gluco
Re:diabetes is no joke! (Score:5, Interesting)
I was experiencing type II diabetic symptoms with increasing frequency. It was messing up my life.
Solution?
Low carb diet. Meats and saturated fats. I cut out breads entirely. If you keep your sugar intakes to about 70 grams per day or less, you're doing well. This meant cutting out most fruit. Even a potato converts into a lot of sugar.
After a few weeks, all symptoms went away and I feel great today. Been at it for a couple of years now. I used to get super cold fingers in the cold seasons, and I had to cuddle around heaters to stay warm. Not anymore. Also my by body fat has balanced out nicely. I look better than I have in years.
Turns out, cholesterol and saturated fats are GOOD for you. We've been lied to, yet again, in this particular case, by agribusiness and big pharma.
Read, "Life Without Bread" for the basics. It could save your life and reverse your mom's condition. $10 for a book or years of misery? Not a hard choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution?
Low carb diet. Meats and saturated fats. I cut out breads entirely. If you keep your sugar intakes to about 70 grams per day or less, you're doing well. This meant cutting out most fruit. Even a potato converts into a lot of sugar.
The amount of dietary glucose T2 diabetics are able to handle varies greatly. For some 70g/day would be far too much. The only sure method is that of "eat to your meter
Re: (Score:2)
It is good to hear. :-)
There is so much established opinion against low carb / paleo / primal. But if people look they can find various doctors, sportsmen and women, etc. who report good results with their patients and with their own bodies. It is something people can debate to death, but what seem to work for me, being paleo for 3 or 4 years now, I see and feel. My mother in law dismisses it as just something in my head, but when you feel your own body respond, not just for a week or a month, but for years
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same experience here. I cut out all processed carbs, sodas, candy, etc. I eat no potatoes, little pasta, bread and rice. I now realize that my entire life I've felt drained of energy. Now I am sharp and awake all the time.
Re: diabetes is no joke! (Score:4, Insightful)
Quinoa
Millet
Brown rice
Wild rice
Lots of low glycemic grains out there
Re: (Score:2)
A lower sugar spike helps but in the end that sugar is still there. The so called healthy "slow release" carbs still release in the end. If the body has too much sugar available it doesn't get round to burning fat. I mean that's the argument, but you'd have to read up to see if it makes sense.
A simple point about paleo is that before agriculture 12000 years ago you just could not obtain a bowl of grains. And for about 2 million years we were evolving bigger brains as hunter gatherers. So either something ra
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds very logical, however my personal (anecdotal) experience does not corroborate that.
I went slow carbs kind off accidental. I discovered that eating wheat was the cause of gut problems I had. I stopped (replaced mainly by Spelt, which apparently has a much lower effect on insulin production) and within weeks my clothes were too loose. Now two years later I have the same size in my jeans as I had when I was 18.. (lost about 20 kg)
If you look at the total of carbs I get today, it doesn't differ too much
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, a calorie is not a calorie. Also people are different and some of it is whether they have "damaged" their ability to handle carbs. I have always been skinny and by 40 even I was starting to show love handles but then I used to eat buckets of sugar. It never showed until it started showing.
Re: (Score:2)
A lower sugar spike helps but in the end that sugar is still there. The so called healthy "slow release" carbs still release in the end. If the body has too much sugar available it doesn't get round to burning fat. I mean that's the argument, but you'd have to read up to see if it makes sense.
The slow release makes all the difference. The huge insulin spike that triggers the storage of ALL fat only happens when the glucose hits all at once. Slow release insulin means that both glucose and fat can be burned simultaneously as your body continues to digest the food and introduce more glucose in to your bloodstream.
So either something radically changed in our bodies in the last 12000 years, or we are eating an unnatural amount of grains.
Or the grains changed recently. White rice and white flower are much, much more recent inventions. Add to that things like the sugar water (soda, juice, and even beer) that we drink at ne
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on whether you end up reducing your carb load overall. Remember diabetics still get told to eat carbs, and if they have problems with insulin, why eat any carbs?? Slow or not. I think the figure is something like I teaspoon of sugar is your normal blood sugar level. Less than 70 grams of carbs a day. If you're inside that then fine. Basically you'll get that from some veggies. So yes ask yourself why it is better to choose slow release, and then asks why no release isn't better yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably an Atkins like diet. About 15 years ago, I did it when people thought it was a fad and got fantastic results. Back then, everyone including my nutrition-major friends dismissed it as a kookie conspiracy theory (the processed sugars, corn syrup, etc.). Now, it's widely accepted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: diabetes is no joke! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except by the FDA and nutritionists. Their advice is still low fat, lots of grains.
That is because the FDA food pyramid is based on the old USDA food pyramid which has since been found out that it's main purpose was to get people to consume specific agricultural products, not for their health benefit but to bolster a sagging farm economy. Even the new FDA myplate program is not about what is the best nutrion, but is designed to combat obesity. The two are not necessarily the same.
If you want medically based nutrion information, then you should use medical sources. Mayo Clinic, Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic, Harvard Medical and others all have nutrion recommendations, some even with pyramids, that are vastly lower in grains and carbohydrates than what the government food pyramids show. They might not be as extreme as Atkins or the Paleo diets, but they are definitely lower carb than most Americans would be used to (lower red meat, too).
So, if your nutrionist is still pushing out of date nutrion falsehoods, maybe it's time to find a different nutrionist or at least ask the question why their recommendations seem to differ from what the medical community recommends?
Re: diabetes is no joke! (Score:3)
I live on eggs, heavy cream, fatty meat and chocolate(90+%). That's how I keep my weight down, control my blood sugar, keep healthy blood lipids and get a proper supply of fat soluble vitamins. You need zero dietary carbs to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Berries have a little bit of sucrose. But I've not seen any real evidence that they are good for you.
Nutritionists like them because they can't fault them. They don't have many calories, they have 'antioxidants' and they don't have much fructose.
But nutritionists aren't the ones who paid attention in science class. There is no evidence that antioxidants do anything to help you. There is strong evidence that the opposite is true. That didn't get a mention in the press until Watson (of DNA fame) said it, but
Re: (Score:2)
>Berries have a little bit of sucrose.
Argh. I meant fuctose.
There's no significant sucrose in berries.
Re: (Score:2)
>Berries have a little bit of sucrose.
Argh. I meant fuctose.
There's no significant sucrose in berries.
Unless they are chocolate covered or powdered.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing they don't cover meat in sugar power. They don't do they ?!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing they don't cover meat in sugar power. They don't do they ?!
No, but they do inject it with HFCS. If people knew everything they ate with HFCS, they'd be only buying food from the farmer's market and local butcher.
Re: (Score:2)
I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
That would be a smart choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Berries tend to be small fruits, with the exception of some tomatoes, so fairly easy to eat a small portion.
Re: (Score:2)
> It might help me support different (probably better) medical treatment
I think you mean dietary treatment.
Quit with the carbs and sugar. Completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. Why you got voted down for making sense I dunno. Maybe they disliked your grammar. Seriously, paywalled research articles are for shit, and if a penny of tax funds went into doing the research, publish it openly.
Heck, I've crunched for World Community Grid since late '04, and last year they announced that a paper was given on the results of one study. I looked forward to reading it, something towards which I'd contributed in however small a manner, only to be allowed to read one para of a paywalle