Page 3 of 5

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:41 pm
by CJ Waid

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:25 pm
by Stephen Johnson
Saw this article today, and decided to throw it into the mix:
A Scottish businessman believes diet rather than drugs may play a key part in tackling the epidemic of diabetes among Scots. Graeme Chatham was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in January 2002 and was prescribed drugs to lower his blood-sugar levels. But he decided to attempt to control his condition without medication, by following a strict dietary regime.

Such a regime has been labelled a "hunter-gatherer" diet - returning to what our ancient ancestors would have eaten. Chatham, a company director of car dealership Graeme P Chatham Ltd, says: "Their diet would have consisted, in the main, of fish and shellfish, eggs, game of all kinds, nuts, berries, roots, mushrooms, herbs and leaf vegetables. Life must have been physically demanding, short and brutal. However, whatever they died of, you can be sure it was not diabetes.
Why can't someone come up with a pizza and beer diet, though? ;-)

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:25 am
by Ironman
Good article. It looks like some people have figured it out, and then there are some naysayers at the bottom, who still have a long way to go. Actually a number of doctors are doing that with diabetics now.

It kept me from getting it, and got my blood levels normal again. Fortunately at the time, I knew just enough to understand that low fat crap they were pushing would just make it worse.

When I talked to the doctor about my results of the follow up. She wanted to know how I changed the levels so dramatically in 3 months. Asking if I made major changes to my diet. Not wanting to have the "low carb" discussion, I lied and just pretended like I don't pay much attention to what I eat. I just said I started lifting weights and maybe that was it. She probably knew I was lying, but didn't question me further.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:05 am
by TimD
Stephen, there have been many studies out there since the early 90's that support this idea. Dr Sear's references some of his studies on , while not curing, controlling , type II in his book "The Zone". I've actually witnessed it with several buddies that got type II. They just went protein and veg, and WORKED OUT. So, while it may not be best for everyone, it certainly seems to have some merit.
As to the pizza and beer diet, I'm off the the rest of the week, and I'm going to start this afternoon, let ya know how it goes

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:55 am
by pdellorto
Ironman - that makes me realize how lucky I was doctor-wise back in the US. I had a great one. Never opposed me, never lectured just registered her opinion on my plans and then provided me with whatever tools I needed. I could be totally honest with her because I knew she wouldn't give me any flackeven when I was totally going against her advice. Treated me like I was and adult and it was my life and my body. From hearing other people's doctor stories, she was uncommon at least.

Poor Mog16, we've completed derailed his thread.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:29 am
by TeeBee
Avoid junk food ... drink plenty of water ... get enough sleep ... smaller, more frequent meals ... exercise 6X a week ... keep the faith and stick with it.

I had horrible blood-sugar problems in my twenties, so I educated myself and no more problems. This is before the Internet, mind you.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:54 pm
by Ironman
That would be hard pre-internet. You would just have to check out lots of books at the library I suppose.

You have an unusual doctor, Pdell. Normally they like to lecture about low carb if they aren't up to date on the research. Which most of them don't know about anything that has happened on the subject since they were in med school.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 pm
by TimD
Actually, IM, I've beem driving my father out to is cardiologist for the past five years, and they ALL agree with low starch, meaning a diet full of fruit and veg sans grains, potatoes, bread and pasta. You'd be surprised, the med community is keepting up.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:37 pm
by CJ Waid
It goes a little deeper than those type of studies...

You have to remember, carbs are NOT the only thing that affects blood sugar.

I mean, what is a protein??? it's a carbohydrate with amino acids stuck to it. Basically, and that is how the body treats it, like it's carbon with amino acids stuck to it.

If there were no carbohydrates, just protein, the body would degrade the protein by removing the amino acids, then utilizing the remaining carbohydrate (carbon center if you will)...

Anyway, yeah, there are other factors regarding blood sugar.

My dad is a type one diabetic, I had to change his wound dressing from his amputations for a year, I am pretty familiar with blood sugar.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 pm
by Stephen Johnson
CJ Waid wrote:My dad is a type one diabetic, I had to change his wound dressing from his amputations for a year, I am pretty familiar with blood sugar.
Type 1 diabetics are unable to produce adequate amounts of insulin. This is a far cry from Type 2 diabetics, who have developed an insensitivity to the ordinarily adequate amount of insulin that they produce.

Chatham, from the article, has overcome his diabeties by changing his diet. People like your father, on the other hand, need insulin no matter how wise their dietary choices are.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:53 am
by Ironman
That's good to hear that they are catching up now.

Actually CJ, EVERYTHING organic is a carbohydrate with something stuck to it. That something stuck to it makes a big difference though. A few extra subatomic particles will give you a completely different element too. Helium, hydrogen, what's 1 little neutron between friends!? lol

While protein can be converted to glucose for something like the brain that needs it, your body normally uses dietary fat for energy. Protein has a negligible effect on insulin.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:21 am
by CJ Waid
Hey bro, the reason I threw out that bit about my dad wasn't to compare type 1 to type 2, but... whether it's blood sugar controlled through your body or external mean (injections), it is similar, there are several types of insulin, both within the body, and injectibles, etc... yeah, I know, but blood sugar responses are similar enough for illustrative conversation.

AND, yeah... that's what I was getting at, regarding the carbs, organic carbon based, etc. etc...

Yeah, but your body readily will degradate the protein and utilize it's carbon core. (Of course, happens to a minimal degree compared to the overall dietary intake)...

The point I was gettng at wasn't anything that serious, just that you can easily control your blood sugar through balance of diet, not cutting out carbs.

Hell, Interesterified fats, like stearic acids raise your blood glucose more than a lot of 'high' glycemic foods.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:08 am
by Stephen Johnson
CJ Waid wrote:Hell, Interesterified fats, like stearic acids raise your blood glucose more than a lot of 'high' glycemic foods.
Unadulterated stearic acid doesn't raise blood sugar levels, and is less likely to be incorporated into cholesterol esters than most other saturated fats.

More here.

Interesterified fats aren't commonly consumed by the public at large - yet. They're the dubious replacement for trans fats.

Except immediately before and/or after exercise, eating low gylcemic carbs in preference to high gylcemic carbs is a sound dietary strategy for most people

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:01 pm
by Ryan A
You shouldn't say it's a carbohydrate with amino acids stuck to it.

Amino acids are fundamentally at the same level as carbohydrates and thus are either one or the other. It's called carbohydrate because it is just water and carbon while amino acids have nitrogen groups as well as carboxyl groups which give them there acid properties.

The building blocks of all proteins are amino acids as directly coded from DNA/RNA. Indeed, it would be hard to find any life on the planet that codes sugars into its proteins from it's DNA.

I am not saying it doesn't affect your blood sugar implicitly but a direct interaction similar to the carbohydrates is just not there.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:06 pm
by CJ Waid
I think we are all splitting hairs.

I guess that is my fault, I didn't read the post that started this part of this conversation, I just skimmed it.

Trying to be illustrative over the internet is a little hard, but basically what I was getting at is that cutting out carbs to control blood sugar isn't a good fix, and on top of that, doesn't neccessarily gaurantee that your blood sugar will drop... There are other factors affecting blood sugar, a whole host of minimal impacts can add up... and they do... they are just not overly discussed at this point, since most people can't even grasp the idea of what a calorie means.

and yeah, I through out the stearic acid without ellaborating on it, but I figured that anyone who knew the issue would just catch my drift.