Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diabetes: can you really eat to beat it?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

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

#81

Post by nabla9 »

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…

Excuse my ignorance, but this does not seem any way unconventional.

It seems to me that you are treating your condition without medication, not reversing it. Exercise and regulating your blood sugar using diet is what doctors suggest but not many people follow it. You still have permanently increased insulin resistance and you must stay on your exercise and diet to prevent it getting worse.

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

#82

Post by wdewind »

buzzcut wrote: post #61
wdewind wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 restrictio…

> "No dude, you are ignoring the fact that these people did not have ample fat stores." I don't think I am ignoring it. You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat. There is no evidence for that I am aware of. A simple rejoinder based on anyone's experience, do fat people get hungry? If they do, why? They have all that energy available. But I don't need to rely on argumen…

> You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat.

No I'm asserting that what happens to people's bodies at 4% body fat when in severe caloric restriction is very different than what happens to people's bodies at 40% body fat with severe caloric restriction, and so we can't apply the metabolic damage/starvation models to fat people. Fat people just need to eat less, and the issue basically comes down to compliance. How do we get people to stay on a healthy diet long term?

> do fat people get hungry? If they do, why?

Because, as even you have shown, hunger is not a reflection of your bodies actual caloric needs, it's hugely a reflection of blood sugar levels, among other htings. Given enough time (in the order of magnitude of minutes to hours) in an obese but otherwise healthy person fats will be broken down and blood glucose will increase and hunger will decrease. It's getting through that period that is a mental compliance issue, but not otherwise physiologically challenging.

> The failure rate is astronomical

Again, this is a compliance issue. People absolutely lose weight on caloric restriction, and starvation issues like low metabolism do not become an issue until you are very low body fat. You simply do not see obese people going into so-called "starvation mode." In fact there are a few cases, though admittedly not many, of obese people that abstain entirely from eating for months at a time without long term "metabolic damage."

> People can totally abstain from food for very long periods of time (depending on body fat), with very little hunger.

I think we basically agree, then, that it's mostly a compliance issue and not an issue of caloric restriction working or not, and also that hunger is not a reflection of the body's actual metabolic state (especially in obese people).

> Fat people can get energy from fat stores, just not in the way we are typically told.

Fat people get energy from fat stores in the same way skinny people do. Very skinny people on severe caloric restriction are not a good model for the general population.

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

#83

Post by wdewind »

mchmch wrote: post #58
wdewind wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current science does not support this position. The current science basically says there is an interplay between fats and carbs, and that fat tends to clog your arteries when consumed in the presence of a caloric surplus, usually brought on via carbs. Low fat diets seem to work provided they are high in fiber, and high fat diets seem to work provided they are low in carbs. High fat, high carb seems to be where we…

I am not saying it is the only way... but it is the best way to prevent/cure T2 diabetes without causing other issues. If you have T2 diabetes and don't want to adopt a diet that will expose you to high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, kidney issues, gallbladder removal, etc.. a very low fat diet is the solution. Just do it you will be happy you did. The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon…

> but [a vegan diet] is the best way to prevent/cure T2 diabetes without causing other issues.

There is basically no science that allows you to state this confidently.

> The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon and cheese so we keep looking for ways to say it is "OK". Big Pharma really wants you to keep eating your fats too. They make billions of dollars a year selling people drugs to offset their lack of will power.

It's been repeatedly shown that basically all fats, even the once thought of as "bad" like saturated fats, do not clog arteries (or raise cholesterol, while we are here) when not in the presence of caloric surplus. I don't follow it, but the success many have had with the keto diet is one great example of this. It's just not as simple as you are saying.

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

#84

Post by wdewind »

_0w8t wrote: post #78
wdewind wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current science does not support this position. The current science basically says there is an interplay between fats and carbs, and that fat tends to clog your arteries when consumed in the presence of a caloric surplus, usually brought on via carbs. Low fat diets seem to work provided they are high in fiber, and high fat diets seem to work provided they are low in carbs. High fat, high carb seems to be where we…

Could you recommend some useful links about this? In particular it is interesting to know if there is some range with fat/carbo ratio when the result is particularly bad.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/

This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.

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

#85

Post by spinlock »

leonroy wrote: post #77
exelius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand. What's interesting is that intestinal flora can take time to adjust in response to dietary changes (wish I could find some good figures on precisely how long, but the whole field of research on the subject is so new). This means that those on a seemingly unhealthy diet can initially do far worse switching over to '…

I know when I started eating paleo, I had really painful gas (to me and everyone else) for a few months. Then, after a while, I could eat all the broccoli I could stand and it was fine.

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

#86

Post by spinlock »

dualogy wrote: post #28
exelius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Are there such bacteria? I only know about intestinal bacteria breaking down indigestable carbohydrate (also called soluble "fiber") into short-chain fatty acids. Other carbs ex…

> Exception is some cause or other flushing stuff down the tract prematurely prior to absorption, perhaps something dangerous that stomach acid didn't neutralize, enzyme problems, overstuffing or what not..

I've read some advice about not drinking water with meals for this reason. The idea is that it will dilute your stomach acid making it more basic and less effective.

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

#87

Post by spinlock »

wdewind wrote: post #49
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…

> 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 whi…

It's not a straw-man. Look at the adoption of the low fat/high carb diet by medical professionals in america. Now compare that to the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

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

#88

Post by mchmch »

_0w8t wrote: post #74
KingMob wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegetarianism/veganism may help with diabetes, but it's probably not because of reducing fat intake. "Less fat" has been the dominant message since the late 70's, and it's coincided with the explosion in the rate of consumption of sugar, overweight people and diabetics. The epidemiology suggests you're mistaken.

From what I read plant-based diets help with diabetes only if one eliminates all oil. "Less fat" still leaves way too much fat to make a difference.

I agree. A high fat vegan diet is also bad. You need to bring saturated fat near 0 and keep the rest of your fat intake down to about 10% of total calories.

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

#89

Post by ollysb »

nabla9 wrote: post #81
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…

Excuse my ignorance, but this does not seem any way unconventional. It seems to me that you are treating your condition without medication, not reversing it. Exercise and regulating your blood sugar using diet is what doctors suggest but not many people follow it. You still have permanently increased insulin resistance and you must stay on your exercise and diet to prevent it getting worse.

Note they're using the term "reversed" not "cured".

> So, nearly four years down the line, is my diet still successful? Yes – but it takes close monitoring and willpower. We all know that diets are notoriously hard to stick to – unless the incentive is powerful enough. In my case, it is.

> …and the 1,750-calorie diet he follows now

As the theory goes some people are genetically predisposed to accumulating fat within the pancreas which causes insulin resistance. The (hypothesised) reason that the diet works is that it causes the body to use up fat from within the pancreas to the point where it begins to function again. Unfortunately the tendency remains, without continued management the pancreas will accumulate the fat again and the diabetic symptoms will return. This is borne out by the fact that a year later many of the original participants were experiencing diabetic symptoms once again.

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

#90

Post by wdewind »

spinlock wrote: post #87
wdewind wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 whi…

It's not a straw-man. Look at the adoption of the low fat/high carb diet by medical professionals in america. Now compare that to the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

No offense but you literally just ignored everything I wrote and restated the original argument, which I see all the time, which is "medical professionals don't understand diet and don't recommend the right thing," which is, frankly, bullshit.

Let me repeat: There are zero (0) medical professionals advocating for a high sugar diet. The "high carb" part of the recommended diet is meant to come from vegetables and whole grains (which contain a fair amount of fiber).

There isn't any evidence I'm aware of showing people eating a calorically balanced, low fat, high carb, low sugar, moderate fiber, micronutritionally balanced diet and having diabetes. I understand that's more complex that saying "low fat/high carb" but again, there aren't doctors out there recommending cutting out fats and subsisting on sugar. So yes, it's a complete and total straw man, but when you only consider large macronutrient groups and ignore the rest of nutrition it's easy to see why that seems ignorable.

Post reply on HN