111–120 of 122 posts
Carbs cause diabetes. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/reversing-diabetes.html
That's Type 2 diabetes, which is misnamed since it's a completely different than Type 1 which honestly affects more people.
You cant reverse type1 but if you cut carbs from your diet with type1 your diabetes stops being a problem.
Plus, type 1 is fairly rare. >90% of diabetes is type2.
I need to give this a good read. My dad is diabetic and his doctor told him that cinnamon is good for blood sugar levels. It's not in this study though. He was also told to avoid rice and potatoes. He manages quite well and the doctors are astonished at his low blood sugar measurements every day.
The absolute worst thing I can eat is potatoes - their GI is higher than that of pure glucose, and sure enough I'll hypo only 30 minutes after eating them!
I spent a lot of time reading about and testing various things to see if they could allow me to eat carbs while keeping my blood sugar down. I tried cinnamon, but found no difference in my blood sugar readings (but cinnamon tea is quite delicious!).
The only thing I found that reduced my blood sugar was turmeric. Problem is that when it reduces your blood sugar is quite unpredictable, and actually caused me to hypo quite badly (I presume it depends on what else you eat).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nu·tri·ent noun a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life. Turmeric isn't a nutrient. I'm talking about fats, sugars, proteins, which your body hoards every bit of no matter how much is eaten in one meal or spaced out. Of course there are exceptions like if you drink a gallon of oil and you get oily diarrhea, but a normal person absorbs all the calories and energy that is…
Yes, turmeric isn’t a nutrient, it’s a spice made up of nutrients. Believe it or not vitamins and minerals are nutrients. In nutrition science vitamins and minerals are generally referred to as micronutrients whereas fats, sugars, proteins are referred to as macronutrients. And no macros are not all absorbed the same. As a general rule the longer someone’s intestines the more macro absorption they will have than some…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calories+black+pep...
This is the only reference I see in pubmed for calories and black pepper and it says black pepper raises the resting metabolic rate, nothing about absorption. And it shows black pepper reducing obesity which would be the opposite of what you are describing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true. Maybe they do matter somewhat, but here's the deal: if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the s…
> if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the science really confidently supports that position, and I'd be happy to look at anything you think denies it. Again, no. You are tautologically restating CICO…
No, we can reason about this fairly easily knowing the extraction costs of calories from macronutrients. You're correct in that macronutrient content can affect CO, but you're vastly overstating the amount. There is no model of digestion we've come up with that accounts for much more than 10% of calories going to digestion, so even if you max that out, you still end up with pretty similar levels of obesity. We cannot fix this problem without radically reducing the amount we eat, regardless of the macronutrient content.
> I seem to recall a bunch of animal models where compliance was controlled for and still showed a strong correlation between insulin and set weight.
Please send links, all I can do is respond to the specifics of an actual study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, turmeric isn’t a nutrient, it’s a spice made up of nutrients. Believe it or not vitamins and minerals are nutrients. In nutrition science vitamins and minerals are generally referred to as micronutrients whereas fats, sugars, proteins are referred to as macronutrients. And no macros are not all absorbed the same. As a general rule the longer someone’s intestines the more macro absorption they will have than some…
I'm sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about. I think you have accumulated a lot of repeated information from blogs and shoddy websites instead of from science. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calories+black+pep... This is the only reference I see in pubmed for calories and black pepper and it says black pepper raises the resting metabolic rate, nothing about absorption. And it shows black…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat a…
> To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/…
> Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are:
1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed.
2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here.
3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability.
Good find, though, thanks!
As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This actually makes a ton of sense and is what people on the sidelines of the insulin debate have been screaming since Gary Taubes starting publishing his work about dietary sugar. Unfortunately it's given people a very non-nuanced view of the science. The problem is not dietary sugar, it is blood sugar levels, which are elevated by many things (including protein and fat), but more than anything by excess calories. T…
Sorry for the dumb question, but given the total calories are the same, does this mean that it is generally healthier to eat one big meal per day rather than 10 small ones? Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big meals rarely rather than small meals frequently. For some reason, your post got me slightly confused because I lack the necessary knowledg…
But...
My own experimentation (beware of experiments with the sample size of one...) results is that restricting myself eating rarely but in bigger doses makes me feel more healthy and makes keeping / loosing weight much easier. Rarely in this case means something like one large meal a day or every two days or something inbetween.
Now, I attribute this to what happens between the meals.
Just as training to run a marathon is mostly focused on teaching your body to reach into fat stores before your glycogen stores run out I think of fasting in between meals as an excercise for the body in running pathways in the opposite direction.
My understanding is that the fat stores are neither good or bad. Your body uses them to store energy for later with the assumption that it will be extracted at some point.
If you keep yourself satied constantly, keep insulin levels all the time except maybe short time before breakfast, your body is not trained in effectively using the stores. The metabolic pathways for ketosis are unused and underdeveloped.
In that state, as soon as you stop eating and blood glucose levels fall you start feeling hungry. There are other reasons for this happening (misinterpreting not being satiated for hunger) but one of the reasons is that the metabolic pathways for getting back at your fat energy stores are not kicking fast enough to react to demand.
This is of course vicious cycle -- you get hungry quickly so you reach for a snack or something else to immediately satisfy your hunger which further makes sure you never excercise yourself to deal with hunger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the science really confidently supports that position, and I'd be happy to look at anything you think denies it. Again, no. You are tautologically restating CICO…
> You are implicitly assuming that CO will be constant and would be independent of CI... We do not know that to be true. No, we can reason about this fairly easily knowing the extraction costs of calories from macronutrients. You're correct in that macronutrient content can affect CO, but you're vastly overstating the amount. There is no model of digestion we've come up with that accounts for much more than 10% of ca…
But we're getting out track , my point is simply that CICO expresses a relationship between calorie in , calorie out and the variation in people weigth . It's doesn't say that one can control people weigth using CI. The analogy that Judea pearl uses is that there is a relationship between the number displayed on a thermostat and the temperature outside , but that does not imply that one can control the temperature outside by changing the number displayed on the thermostat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's Type 2 diabetes, which is misnamed since it's a completely different than Type 1 which honestly affects more people.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet-for-type1-diabetes.html You cant reverse type1 but if you cut carbs from your diet with type1 your diabetes stops being a problem. Plus, type 1 is fairly rare. >90% of diabetes is type2.
Look up "dawn syndrome". Your body sometimes works against this idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with everything you are saying and have mostly come to the same conclusions you have except: It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. This is determined by a bunch of factors including hormones. So if hormonal balance or other metabolic behavior is modu…
> It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. Yep, I would not suggest anyone take up a diet of pure sugar, only that if you are trying to use science to set your diet we aren't really confident, at the level of macros, about what makes a difference, but we are ve…
The way you are wording your comments, someone could come away feeling like these things aren’t really worth considering.
It’s like, your comments to me seem like you are technically correct but a person reading them might think “ok, this smart person said the Atkins diet doesn’t really work, it’s all sleight of hand.”
That could be counter productive, because the Atkins diet really DOES work for some people. Proving that it’s likely not working for the reason people think it is can be helpful for accuracy’s sake, but depending on delivery can just become discouraging.
The missing point is these interventions really can be effective. Why they are effective is more of an intellectual exercise.