Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it? • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by methehack » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #25

ollysb wrote: post #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…

Given that Type 2 diabetes is generally believed to be caused by diet, it makes sense that diet could fix it as well. My personal hypothesis is that some people have intestinal bacteria that are really, really good at breaking down sugar very quickly. So when you eat high GI foods, your gut turns them into glucose very quickly releases them into your blood, and your body has to deal accordingly. IMO that would help e…

Times article (from 5 years ago) describing an emerging awareness of gut-bacteria types much like blood types: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/science/21gut.html?_r=0

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

#42

Post by vonmoltke » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:52 PM UTC

super_mario wrote: post #15

MonadQueen wrote: post #3

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…

> 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.

That may not have been T2DM. One of the things research has revealed over the past 30 or so years is that there are far more manifestations of diabetes than the old two-mode model though. Incidentally, that is one reason the types were renamed "Type 1" and "Type 2", to acknowledge that there are likely more types. There is a particular subtype known as Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults (LADA), which some researchers have named "Type 1.5" because it shows signs of both T1DM and T2DM. It initially presents as T2DM, though, so people are often misdiagnosed at first. This manifestation has only been known for about 20 years, though, so it isn't surprising.

> 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.

This is flat-out contradicted by Dr. Taylor's research. He is demonstrating that patients on a hypocaloric diet, either from bariatric surgery or just a medically-supervised diet, can (and in many cases do) regain normal glucose control after about 10% loss of body weight. I personally went from borderline diabetic to normal glucose control (I can pass an OGTT) after a four-month, 35lb weight loss. I changed nothing about my diet except amount of consumption.

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

#43

Post by buzzcut » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #26

buzzcut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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 abou…

Unfortunately I can only summarize.

On the starvation study it's merely one example that highlights how calorie restriction affects people. Yes, it's an extreme version, but it is different only in degree from any other calorie restriction, and when people try to reduce by X calories, it's probably a linear effect; more restriction, more of these effects. Oddly though, fasting tends not to have these effects, it's only in sustained calorie restriction, so fasting in various forms is one of the tools people can use to lose weight.

As for the lowered energy output Jason Fung wrote (pg. 53 of the Obesity Code, "One major problem is that the basal metabolic rate does not stay stable. Decreased caloric intake can decrease basal metabolic rate by up to 40 percent. We shall see that increased caloric intake can increase it by 50%."

If you want to learn more here are some sources:

Jason Fung - The Obesity Code: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C6D0LCK/ref=dp-kindle-re...

Robert Lustig on sugar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

and also here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

Peter Attia on ketosis and fat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwvcrA7oe8

Reversal of diabetes by diet, also Jason Fung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAwgdX5VxGc

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

#44

Post by tosseraccount » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #35

forgetsusername wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Being overweight is tied to many diseases, and costs me a lot of money in health care costs. I have a say in this. If you have a say in this you might want to look at effective ways to push your message. We know from lots of research that merely yelling "GO FOR A JOG FATTY" does nothing to help fat people lose weight, and probably makes things harder for them.

nothing to help ?

While some people respond to a pat in the back, others respond to a kick in the butt.

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

#45

Post by busterarm » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #37

busterarm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> 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. Considering MonadQueen said "* 60%* of type-2 diabetics" and " Obese Type-2s" (emphasis mine) I wonder where you got the idea that she as "completely ignoring" anything. > But no, let's shame everyone who is fat for being overind…

Not everyone is fat because of issues of self control. Hypothyroidism, Cushing's syndrome, PCOS, complications of depression.

The accusation was that these cases are self-inflicted. It's WAY more complicated than that.

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

#46

Post by facepalm » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

Sounds great, although it seems to me it is not so much curing Diabetes as keeping it in check?

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

#47

Post by reasonattlm » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

super_mario wrote: post #15

MonadQueen wrote: post #3

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…

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201141231.h...

A team from Newcastle University, UK, has shown that Type 2 diabetes is caused by fat accumulating in the pancreas -- and that losing less than one gram of that fat through weight loss reverses the diabetes. "So if you ask how much weight you need to lose to make your diabetes go away, the answer is one gram! But that gram needs to be fat from the pancreas. At present the only way we have to achieve this is by calorie restriction by any means -- whether by diet or an operation."

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

#48

Post by softawre » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #37

busterarm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> 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. Considering MonadQueen said "* 60%* of type-2 diabetics" and " Obese Type-2s" (emphasis mine) I wonder where you got the idea that she as "completely ignoring" anything. > But no, let's shame everyone who is fat for being overind…

Does being uneducated hurt your career options? Do you go around telling people that it does?

What about being ugly, does that hurt your dating options?

Like being fat, both are things you can improve/fix with enough work.

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

#49

Post by wdewind » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

buzzcut wrote: post #20

MonadQueen wrote: post #3

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…

> 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.

I don't think there is anyone recommending reducing fats and calories as the only thing. Both of those are positive things to do to your diet, but if taken while ignoring the rest of the actual "standard guidelines" (which include eating more fiber and fruits and veggies), then yes, you are basically simply reducing calories (which is good) and increasing glycemic index (which is bad, for some).

> 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."

I don't believe this is true but would be interested in seeing a study.

> 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.

People have success with every kind of diet program, and it's a bit of a strawman to argue that the medical profession is advocating a diet that is only low in fat, but still high in sugar (which is what produces the results you're talking about). In fact, millions of Americans are following only a small portion of their doctors' advice (ie: lowering fats) which has the effect of lowering satiety, increasing overall glycemic index of their consumption (while ignoring the advice that they should eat more fiber and less sugar). There is no doctor out there recommending that as long as you eliminate bacon you can drink all the gatorade you want.

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

#50

Post by wdewind » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

buzzcut wrote: post #43

vonmoltke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 abou…

Unfortunately I can only summarize. On the starvation study it's merely one example that highlights how calorie restriction affects people. Yes, it's an extreme version, but it is different only in degree from any other calorie restriction, and when people try to reduce by X calories, it's probably a linear effect; more restriction, more of these effects. Oddly though, fasting tends not to have these effects, it's on…

> On the starvation study it's merely one example that highlights how calorie restriction affects people. Yes, it's an extreme version, but it is different only in degree from any other calorie restriction, and when people try to reduce by X calories, it's probably a linear effect; more restriction, more of these effects. Oddly though, fasting tends not to have these effects, it's only in sustained calorie restriction, so fasting in various forms is one of the tools people can use to lose weight.

No dude, you are ignoring the fact that these people did not have ample fat stores. It is completely unreasonable to expect that obese people would behave the same while restricting calories than people who are already borderline starving (4% BF). These aren't effects of caloric intake restriction, they are effects of caloric restriction in general, which is a state obese people are not, have not been in for years and will not be in for years.

> One major problem is that the basal metabolic rate does not stay stable. Decreased caloric intake can decrease basal metabolic rate by up to 40 percent

This is basically unrelated to your statements about insulin though, so don't conflate the two. This statement does not support the idea that obese people cannot harvest energy from their fat stores, it supports the idea that you get less energy output from less energy input which is almost tautologically true.