Live data from Hacker News

Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

theguardian.com

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#11
post #6
post #2

The article is about Type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetics are unable to manufacture insulin. No amount of green tea and yoga change that.

Came here to ensure that was discussed. It's really kind of a shame that there's as much confusion about the types of diabetes as there is. I've taken to referring to them, in an EXCEEDINGLY reductive manner, as "autoimmune diabetes" and "cheeseburger diabetes." My brother has autoimmune diabetes (aka Type 1). We give to and volunteer with the JDRF as a result, because its mission is laser focussed on type 1 related…

You could also just say that one type of diabetes is about people who love cheeseburgers by nature, and the other one about people whose genes are broken in a different way (also by nature). Now, if you want to discuss which one is more important: maybe the one which occurs more commonly and is easier to cure?

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#12
post #5

It's estimated that 60% of type-2 diabetics would no longer be affected if they simply lost weight and got down to a healthy BMI. Obese Type-2s should really be called "Type F" because it's not fair to people who didn't self-inflict their condition.

[deleted]

Exactly. When far people say 'but my genetics' I want to scream. No amount of genetics can create matter from thin air.

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#13
post #2

The article is about Type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetics are unable to manufacture insulin. No amount of green tea and yoga change that.

Yeah. If it doesn't explicitly state a type, 99% of the time it's about Type 2. As a Type 1 Diabetic, it's really frustrating that these unrelated diseases have the same name. I've been asked more than once if I ate a lot of candy as a kid.

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#14
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to ensure that was discussed. It's really kind of a shame that there's as much confusion about the types of diabetes as there is. I've taken to referring to them, in an EXCEEDINGLY reductive manner, as "autoimmune diabetes" and "cheeseburger diabetes." My brother has autoimmune diabetes (aka Type 1). We give to and volunteer with the JDRF as a result, because its mission is laser focussed on type 1 related…

You could also just say that one type of diabetes is about people who love cheeseburgers by nature, and the other one about people whose genes are broken in a different way (also by nature). Now, if you want to discuss which one is more important: maybe the one which occurs more commonly and is easier to cure?

Its a big lie though. Type-2s genes are (usually) also broken. ;)

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#15

It's estimated that 60% of type-2 diabetics would no longer be affected if they simply lost weight and got down to a healthy BMI. Obese Type-2s should really be called "Type F" because it's not fair to people who didn't self-inflict their condition.

I hear this repeated often, but I don't think type 2 diabetes is due to being fat alone, nor can you get rid of diabetes by losing weight. There are morbidly obese people who do not develop type 2 during their lifetime, and then there are severely underweight people (like my dad, who is literally skin and bones, and I mean concentration camp prisoner of war underweight where you see every rib from the back) who still somehow developed type 2 diabetes. So, there has to be a strong generic component to type 2 diabetes.

Also, no one gets cured of diabetes type 2, you just control your blood glucose levels better and in effect alleviate the symptoms of diabetes, but you still have diabetes. If you think you don't, do a glucose tolerance test (i.e. drink a sweet drink and measure your blood glucose 1 hr later) and you will find that your glucose tolerance is still compromised no matter how well you managed to control your glucose levels by avoiding eating high glycemic food for life.

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#17

It's estimated that 60% of type-2 diabetics would no longer be affected if they simply lost weight and got down to a healthy BMI. Obese Type-2s should really be called "Type F" because it's not fair to people who didn't self-inflict their condition.

Oh, completely ignoring the fact that most people who get Type-2 diabetes are genetically predisposed to it and it can also be caused by things like repeated bouts of pancreatitis and EPI. But no, let's shame everyone who is fat for being overindulgent. Maybe having diabetes wouldn't be stigmatized so much if so many Type-1s didn't participate in it as well. (Non-diabetic here, I have no dog in this fight.)

>most people who get Type-2

Do you have any evidence that it's most?

>let's shame everyone who is fat for being overindulgent.

Being overweight is tied to many diseases, and costs me a lot of money in health care costs. I have a say in this.

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#18
I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about a year and a half ago, at the time I had an HBA1C of 8.2 (6.0 is the top end of normal). The first thing I did when I got home was google "cure for diabetes", the newcastle diet is what came up. After 6 months of the usual medication (metformin etc.) I decided to give it a go. You can see my log, which includes medication, supplements, exercise, total calories per day and BG readings 5 times a day[1]. You can see that it took me just 12 days to come off the medication and that in the following 2 months I was able to maintain excellent BG control.

A year later I'm still off the medication, my last HBA1C was 5.7 which is considered normal. Maintaining that does require daily exercise (and I do mean _every_ day) and good diet management but I've found it a fairly easy regime to follow (half an hour of 80% intensity is enough most days).

My quality of life is now excellent (it was terrible on the medication) and I'm able to eat a little more freely. The only big differences regarding diet are that I now only drink a couple of times a month and I don't go near anything with wheat flour in it.

EDIT: google docs doesn't seem to allow me to share the docs publicly (I can only share with specific email addresses or within my domain) so I've made them available as csv and excel files.

[1]

CSV - https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr1xwd3l6ziiows/newcastle_diet.csv...

Excel - https://www.dropbox.com/s/12tjf23oz7ihq4d/newcastle_diet.xls...

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#19

It's estimated that 60% of type-2 diabetics would no longer be affected if they simply lost weight and got down to a healthy BMI. Obese Type-2s should really be called "Type F" because it's not fair to people who didn't self-inflict their condition.

I hear this repeated often, but I don't think type 2 diabetes is due to being fat alone, nor can you get rid of diabetes by losing weight. There are morbidly obese people who do not develop type 2 during their lifetime, and then there are severely underweight people (like my dad, who is literally skin and bones, and I mean concentration camp prisoner of war underweight where you see every rib from the back) who still…

> So, there has to be a strong generic component to type 2 diabetes.

Yep. The inheritance in families with monogenic diabetes and high incidence in certain ethnic groups make this pretty clear.

Re: Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

#20

It's estimated that 60% of type-2 diabetics would no longer be affected if they simply lost weight and got down to a healthy BMI. Obese Type-2s should really be called "Type F" because it's not fair to people who didn't self-inflict their condition.

"Self-inflict."

It's actually a fairly complicated and can be quite difficult for people to break out of, even people who desperately want to change. When people follow the standard guidelines (which are beginning, slowly, to change) to avoid fat and reduce calories, they end up feeling hungry all the time, and have to white knuckle their way through. This is not a state that people can maintain long-term.

Starvation studies from the University of Minnesota have been described this way: "During the semi-starvation phase the changes were dramatic. Beyond the gaunt appearance of the men, there were significant decreases in their strength and stamina, body temperature, heart rate and sex drive. The psychological effects were significant as well. Hunger made the men obsessed with food. They would dream and fantasize about food, read and talk about food and savor the two meals a day they were given. They reported fatigue, irritability, depression and apathy. Interestingly, the men also reported decreases in mental ability, although mental testing of the men did not support this belief."

In addition, there is evidence that the body begins to reduce energy output in response to reduced energy input, thus making the advice every overweight person hears from nearly every source to "eat less and move more" a load of nonsense. That can work short-term, but the combination of reduced energy output and constant hunger make that recipe very ineffective long-term.

There is even more to complicate the story (e.g. it is common for overweight people to feel hungry even with massive amounts of energy stored in fat due to some of the effects of what's now being called variously, metabolic syndrome, syndrome X and diabesity).

In short, when people become overweight, which is a progressive condition of insulin resistance that grows slowly over time, or in other words and emergent hormonal dysfunction because of diet, they cannot "eat less and move more." To that extent it is not self-inflicted especially since millions of Americans are doing exactly that as told by their doctors and it is having no effect.

The only way to really change body composition long-term, is to change diet in a way that is at odds with what doctors learned twenty years ago in the two days they studied nutrition in medical school, which, as it turns out, is wrong.

Post reply on HN