Posted on 06/24/2011 12:25:31 AM PDT by Mount Athos
A friend of mine was recently diagnosed with diabetes. He changed his diet to something similar to this, but not as drastic, and cured it. He did take the meds the doc gave him until his blood tests came up good but then he dropped them.
As for the whole, ‘needing to eat carbs for energy thing’ that I hear so much about -
Without glucose, your brain isn't going to function properly nor will you have the glycogen stores necessary for demanding physical activity. So, yes, you need to eat carbs for energy.
our guys would head out to do chores in the morning with nothing more than a cup of coffee
Yes, some guys can go for a time just on a cup of coffee, but there's a reason breakfast is considered the most important meal of the day.
But we didn’t eat a ton of refined carbs on the farm. Sweet should be a *treat*, not a regular way of eating
I'm not sure why you feel the need to differentiate between "refined" carbs and, I guess, "unrefined" carbs. Of course, I don't know of anyone who gets sucrose from gnawing on a stick of sugar cane so this whole "sucrose is refined" thingy doesn't make much sense to me. For the sake of this discussion, however, a carb is a carb. You seem to be suggesting that when it comes to the issue of obesity and diabetes that refined vs. unrefined is material. It isn't.
>Without glucose, your brain isn’t going to function properly nor will you have the glycogen stores necessary for demanding physical activity. So, yes, you need to eat carbs for energy.<
IF your statement were true, why then do neurologists treat epilepsy in children with a ketogenic diet, which almost totally eliminates carbohydrate in the patient’s diet and produces the metabolic state of dietary ketosis?
http://www.dana.org/grants/imaging/detail.aspx?id=6976
Research is being done on restricting the growth of certain brain tumors by inducing the metabolic state of dietary ketosis.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/30
Don’t forget, in the old days sodas were only 6 ounces!
We’ve gone insane with portions.
>Don’t forget, in the old days sodas were only 6 ounces!<
Yep. And they were a dime out of the vending machines back then (chuckle).
My brain functions just fine without carbs of any kind. And I have more energy without carbs than I do with them.
*****
I think that where you and I are having a communication gap is that you don’t get how many people eat *now* and how this is so different from how they used to.
Breakfast: Cold cereal or an energy bar - usually sugary
Lunch: Hamburger, large fries, 32oz soda
Snakc: Candy bar
Dinner: Pizza with beer or more soda
Add to that a steady stream of soda or energy drinks throughout the day and the occasional salad to ‘balance things out’ and you’ve got a recipe for an early death.
Again, I’m saying that a very low carb/calorie diet may be necessary to UNDO the effects of American eating. If we ate like our grandparents did, we wouldn’t get as sick, as often, as we are.
BUT, some people are more carb sensitive than others and would’ve become diabetic on our grandparents’ diet. (I did) Our grandparents’ generation did have diabetics, just not as many.
If you have T2 diabetes, you’ve eaten too many carbs. Period. As a matter of fact, you *cannot* become a T2 diabetic if you’ve never eaten a significant amount of carbs.
I replied to this statement, “Without glucose, your brain isn’t going to function properly”
Would a neurologist treat a child by inducing dietary ketosis, in which the brain switches to ketones for energy if the child’s “brain isn’t going to function properly”?
Why is the nutrient to which you refer necessary then? Are you saying a low carbohydrate diet is somehow going to cause malfunction of the individual’s brain? Come on.
Ok, so ketogenic diets are effective at different lipid ratios. I’ve learned something. That said, the statement to which I replied is off base. The human brain can metabolize ketones for its energy. Glucose isn’t a necessity.
1. Why on earth would they have developed hypokalemia just by being on a low calorie diet? Just be sure to get enough potassium and you're fine. (My intake of potassium is 1200mcg/day - even when I'm on 500 calories a day)
2. Statins aren't necessary or helpful and I don't advocate their use.
3. Periodic caloric restriction is more and more being linked with *longevity* - not death.
I think that the important thing to realize is that this is caloric restriction with protein, vitamin and mineral supplements. All of the needs for micro-nutrients are being met. We can go for quite awhile on our reserves.
Our society is terrified of missing a meal and we forget that G-d designed us to do exactly that (and keep functioning) for long stretches without ill effect.
The authors are stating the obvious. Consume less energy than you burn and you will lose weight. They also make the obvious point that people don't like starving themselves and, for many, their will power eventually fails. Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories a day when he's in training. He's in pretty good shape, don't you think? I don't think he worries about the amount of calories he consumes given his exercise regimen. When I worked out six days a week I could eat anything I wanted and not gain weight.
Why is it energy reduction, or calorie restriction, is such a cornerstone of treatment with a high rate of failure?
People get hungry, especially when they are surrounded by so many great food options. Maintaining the will power to limit your intake to 1,000 calories a day is a tough row to hoe for most people.
Let’s say you go on a 600 calorie diet. You lose a lot of weight. When you hit goal, what then?
If you burn more energy than you consume, you will gain weight. So, the dieter either maintains their low calorie regimen, and ends up chewing water, or they get more exercise and are then able to eat more food. 600 calories a day is pretty crazy. I'd much rather eat more food and make rigorous exercise a regular part of my daily activity.
There are folks who cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat...
Are you one of those folks who thinks they've repealed the first law of thermodynamics? You can't get something from nothing. Sorry.
Those people can and do lose weight when they restrict (THEY DO NOT ELIMINATE) their intake of dietary carbohydrate
And by doing so they also reduce their total caloric intake. Just as I've said, this is about total calories and not about any particular macronutrient.
As their insulin levels decrease, their fat stores are used as energy and over time they naturally reduce their calorie intake.
In an excessively caloric diet, the body will shift away from burning fat to burning carbohydrates causing more dietary fat to be stored.But that doesn't take away from the fact I keep repeating here: If you consume more energy than you burn, you will gain weight. I'm not sure why you think reducing insulin levels will result in a "natural" reduction of caloric intake.
I’m glad you have such great control. However, sudden deprivation is not healthy for the general population, and people hit the ED every day because of problems associated with electrolyte imbalances. Read the article and you’ll see why I mentioned statins. Incidentally, just because God made us capable of surviving for extended periods on small amounts of nutritional intake doesn’t mean it is optimal to do so.
>If you consume more energy than you burn, you will gain weight. I’m not sure why you think reducing insulin levels will result in a “natural” reduction of caloric intake. <
You are stating a fact that people who gain weight take in too much energy. You are stubbornly ignoring that all macronutrients are not metabolized the same, no matter how many times you state it. You must look at why you eat too much, not that it happens.
Carbohydrate is not all used by the body. It is stored as fat, as a function of the release of insulin. Since it’s stored and not used, your body looks for the energy it needs, and once again you eat even more because your body can’t access that energy it just stored. In addition, because the body can’t access the energy, you become more lethargic. You simply don’t have the energy to move.
When insulin levels drop (because that surplus of carbohydrate is gone) a miraculous thing happens. Your body’s metabolism is able to use stored fat to provide energy and voila, you lose weight, especially that dangerous abdominal fat.
I don't believe my comment was off base. We know that protein and fat can back up out of the Krebs cycle and re-synthesize as carbohydrates thereby supplying the brain with glucose. People lost at sea and prisoners in concentration camps went without food for long periods of time and their brains continued to function. So, yes, the brain can continue to function without any carbohydrates. The brain, however, is never devoid of a certain amount of glucose. If the body is completely deprived of carbohydrates, it will still produce glucose as long as it can metabolize fat and protein.
Treating epilepsy is a very specialized and there’s nothing normal about the brains of people suffering from epilepsy. In my opinion, if a normal person had to rely on metabolizing ketones to maintain brain function that would have deleterious effects on that persons nervous system. Similar to what happens when you overload your body with alcohol.
The bigger point being, why would anyone want to live without carbohydrates? That is, if they want to be healthy. It makes no sense and is, really, just plain stupid. Living without carbs would put an unnecessary strain on the body and would leave you less healthy and less competent as you would be with a diet that included carbohydrates. For someone wanting to live a healthy lifestyle, why would you even bother living without carbs in moderation? It doesn't make any sense.
I've never stated any such thing.
You must look at why you eat too much, not that it happens.
Overeating is a learned behavior. Unless you think there is a "fat gene?"
Carbohydrate is not all used by the body
Huh? In a highly active body, all carbs consumed could be utilized for immediate energy. It all depends on the state of the body. Your statement doesn't make sense.
It is stored as fat, as a function of the release of insulin.
Really? I thought insulin drove blood glucose into the cells to keep the cells metabolizing and the energy flowing. Are you claiming that carbohydrates are never converted to glycogen and stored in the liver and muscles? I also thought the liver converted excess glycogen to fatty acids to lipids and to adipose tissue. Now you're telling us it's insulin that makes this happen?
Since it’s stored and not used, your body looks for the energy it needs, and once again you eat even more because your body can’t access that energy it just stored.
Say what? My body can't access stored glycogen or fat for energy when it needs it forcing me to eat more? You might want to look at that statement again.
When insulin levels drop (because that surplus of carbohydrate is gone) a miraculous thing happens. Your body’s metabolism is able to use stored fat to provide energy
Nothing miraculous about that at all. We've understood this for a long time.
.....and voila, you lose weight, especially that dangerous abdominal fat.
So I can lose weight simply by reducing my insulin levels? How about if consume more energy from fat and protein than I burn, will I still lose weight - especially that abdominal fat I have having in front of me?
Do you have the names of the products you used. I want to lose about 25lbs and I am borderline diabetic. I could not find a sugar free meal replacer. Only slimfast which is too sugarry for me
Tried making some using a dieticin’s receipe and whey proticn...NASTY.
I am post menopausal and very interested in the low calorie diet.
Any links would be appreciated.
Thank you
ml
This is interesting - what do you think? Good science?
Good for all the rest of you. I already have a BMI of 18.8, so cutting calories is not going to help.
OK, but this is understandable on the basis that a low calorie diet reduces the demand on the body's ability to metabolize sugar. It's an accommodation to your diminished capacity which reduces the blood sugar level.
The article says that this diet is found to "jump-start" the body's insulin production. This is what I find puzzling.
Well, I suppose this would be more in the nature of a recovery enouraged by the relief of a stress ( excessive caloric intake ) after a breakdown, assuming that the substance of the report is true. So maybe my issue is merely rhetorical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.