What puzzles me is why the Japanese who eat their high glycemic diet (rice and more rice) have such low rates of heart disease and diabetes and live a lot longer than we do.

Dr. Davis,

Be wary of the Glycemic Index. It has been promoted very heavily by the grain companies as a way of confusing the public that their products are healthy.

The Glycemic Index values are established by testing foods in completely normal people. Anyone who has abnormal glucose tolerance (i.e. prediabetes) is likely to have a very different reaction to a supposedly low GI food than a normal person.

Oatmeal, for example, can give devastatingly high readings to someone with pre-diabetes, though it is supposedly low GI. Whole wheat bread was proven to raise blood sugars just as high as white bread in people with diabetes in a recent study.

People will have much better results if they ignore the Glycemic Index and pay attention to the total carbohydrate count of a serving of the food they eat.

Every gram of that carbohydrate will require the same amount of insulin to be processed. If it is done slowly, you might not see a high blood sugar, but you will have elevated insulin, which will worsen weight gain and other symptoms of metabolic syndrome.

You might find it interesting to research the extent to which the grain industry has been promoting the GI concept. I get quite a lot of fancy spam from PR firms working for organizations with names like "the Whole Grain Council" telling me how healthy low GI foods--like their grains--are for people with diabetes.

They aren't.

Don't forget that sucrose is the one-two punch of damaging foods.  Half of it is glucose, a.k.a. blood sugar and the cause of the glycemic index/glycemic load values.  The other half is fructose, which causes your liver to immediately stop whatever it is doing and create triglycerides that directly raise your serum triglyceride number.  As in, one of the two numbers in the typical cholesterol test that actually means something (and means high risk).

Sucrose creates the fats (triglycerides) in your blood and then guarantees that they make you fat through insulin's action that pushes triglycerides across liposome (fat cell) cell walls.

It's especially important not to be fooled into thinking that GI and GL are the whole story of why sugar is bad for you.  Otherwise, you end up believing silly assertions like, "White grape juice is better for you than HFCS because white grape juice has a lower GI."  White grape juice is 80% fructose, so of course it has a lower GI than HFCS which is 55% fructose.  Doesn't make it any better for you.  It's just bad for you in a different way.

This quote is right on the money, except for one detail. The author assumed corporations are against regulation, when in fact they love it and depend on it.

What keeps drug companies in business? FDA approval requirements. What did food companies push for in Canada? Total ban on "low-carb" labelling.

So the response to greed and corporatism is not regulation but a free marketplace where everyone is allowed to compete, big or small.

Keep up the good work.

Perhaps governments should do better regulating food publicity and food labeling. For example, in the US they're trying to implement a system called "NuVal(tm) Nutritional Scoring System". Anyone here knows how it works? The official website is http://www.onqi.org and there are 2 articles about this at http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2750793620071128 and http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/articles/2008/07/online-exclusive-nuval-nutritional-scoring-system On the other hand, if this ONQI numerical algorithm incorporates the recommendations of the "famous" USDA Food Pyramid, and ignores evolutionary nutrition (paleodiet, which was low-carb, low insulin, no grains or dairy, etc.), it will certainly be of little use.

Regarding the glycemic index and sugar control, I wonder how useful would it be to get hA1c tested in most people with heart disease?

Wouldn't it be a good gauge of glycemic control? I wonder if l it could play a role in Dr. Davis' program... Besides checking just lipid parameters, perhaps those with lower hA1c would also have less plaque?
And it should be useful to the patient too, so they can see how well they have been eating over the past several months.

The GL (Glycemic Load) is a much better everyday tool to use than GI (Glycemc Index) and here's why: The GI number doesn't account for portion size.  So a drop of glucose and a cup of glucose both have a GI of 100 (it is the reference sugar, so it has the highest rating).  Obviously the former isn't going to do much to your insulin response, and the latter is going to be devastating.  Glycemic Load takes into account portion size.  It is a real-world application of the Glycemic Index.

Once you know this, you realize that the published Glycemic Load number of any food can be miraculously halved...by eating half of it.  (Of course, you can also double it by eating a double portion!)  It puts the whole concept into practice in a tangible, useable way.

Nutritiondata.com uses the GL exclusively and I highly recommend their site.

I used to think the government should do a lot of regulating, because the corporate interests don't do a good job of self regulation.  Not so sure about government regulation now.  They gotten so much wrong, it's frightening.  

With so much of our increasingly complicated lives involving things of which we have little common knowledge anymore (how our food is produced, what to do to optimize health and avoid illness, what chemicals are hazardous long-term, how to do even simple maintenance on our belongings, etc.), it is hard to be personably knowledgeable enough about everything, so it is easier to pass most of it on to the regulators and hope for the best.  But wow, that's a massive gamble that we don't seem to be winning very often.

Japanese who lives as long as 90++ years eats their rice at the end of their meals...

The example of Kitavans and also having seen our Kerala people, it makes sense to totally disregard the GI or GL indexes. What is probably more important is the harmful lectin content of grains/legumes.

If we could simply stop eating all grains/legumes and add nourishment that is missing because of our lack of sunlight (Vitamin D3) and lack of good quality meat (Vitamin K2 and Omega3), and possibly other lacking nutrients in our diet, we could also be healthy.

I believe that a high GI carb is actually equivalent to saturated fat, because it will become one after the action of Insulin. Of-course this does not apply to diabetic and may not apply to people with low D3/K2.

The low GI is probably not as good because it will give glucose for a long time and will make the glucose level high for a long time.

For people like me who have already got leptin resistance cannot possibly avoid the glucose overload if they have to keep their fat mass below the level were our brain feels the leptin. The brain thinks that there is no fat at all to convert to glucose and the low blood sugar makes us feel dizzy.

I think that obesity is caused by WGA and similar lectins that cause leptin resistance, compounded by the fact that we don't have D3/K2 which could fight against these ailments.

I think White Rice is the only grain that has very little lectin and can be consumed easily. The south Indians mix it with sprouted legumes and grind it then ferment it before cooking it. This whole process effectively destroys the lectins almost completely. This is probably the only safe way to consume our legumes. Wheat etc the high lectin grains are poison for our health.

-anand

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar

6 months, 37 lbs. That's pretty good. Immediate feedback is a strong tool for pretty much anything we do. When all we have is a scale, it takes a while for the result to show up. And we're never sure what we did that did it. But when we check blood sugar, we have the result right there and then. Like you said, we know exactly what's the cause and can act on it with total confidence.

No problem with this but for the cost.
At six (one before, one after, more if you're "grazing") sticks a day @.40 usd each test strip, we're spending $72/mo.
This must be lowered somehow.

To Anonymous,

$72 / mo is only possible if you are eating different for different meals for the entire month. This is highly unlikely.

Diabetics or pre-diabetics making dietary adjustments based on an objectively measured parameter, such as this, is genius. (I believe constant blood-sugar monitoring is what led Dr. Bernstein to adopt a low-carb diet.)

But what about someone who's not diabetic...a person prone to hypoglycemic episodes for instance.

Seems such an individual's tendency to "overshoot" insulin output in response to incoming carbohydrates would quickly (too quickly)lower blood-sugar levels...giving the false appearance that all is well. Even though much of that glucose got partitioned into fat cells.

Keep up the good work Doc! I'm a personal trainer who regularly sends low-carb disbelieving physician clients of mine to your site. They can obviously receive this kind of info with a more open-mind from a fellow physician than from me.

I have a very similar story!  I lost 30 lbs in just over two months and this blog and Dr. Davis was the entire reason.  Total cholesterol down over 30% and triglycerides down over 50%.  LDL is much reduced too.  My only concern now is HDL.  It will not move an inch!  Started fish oil, then waited then started vitamin D supplementation.  Waited another couple months and earlier this week I started Niacin.  My HDL actually went down as Dr. Davis said it would while I was losing weight.  Then went right back up to 22 were it's been for years.  Might try wine and dark chocolate in moderation and if ALL ELSE fails I will have to submit to exercise.  My most sincere thanks Dr. Davis and keep posting actual patient experience.  It's very motivating.  Can't wait to read about a patient with a "stuck" HDL marker.

It costs too much money to buy the strips. I know doctors can get give you prescriptions for the strips at lower costs, but that isn't something my doctor would do.Too bad, it sounds interesting.

For those having issues with the cost, ask yourself this: what is my health worth?  This motivational tool is key to losing weight and changing your lifestyle intelligently.

With 25.1% of Americans either diabetic or prediabetic, it's about time we start thoroughly and intelligently educating patients about how to maintain normal blood glucose levels. The reality is most Americans continue to eat an American diet, conclude blood sugar control thru diet to be impossible, and fall into a never-ending cycle of insulin resistance, pessimism, false comfort in high levels, and an exaggerated concern of hypoglycemia which they use to rationalize running around with blood sugars in the 200s. Proper education and a glucometer the two best tools to combat these epidemics, and yet only a tiny percentage of the population really understands the disease process and proper regimen to maintain good glycemic control. And it's no wonder with the ADA telling people who consider themselves "moderately active" (as most overweight, inactive people do) to eat 45 grams of carbs per meal.
Dr. Davis, do you have any suggestions on how to develop a glucose tolerance test patients could perform on themselves at home simply using a fingerstick? Do you think there's value in something as simple as checking a fasting blood sugar, drinking a 20 oz Coke, and then taking fingerstick readings at 1 hour and 2 hours?

What I learned from testing was that brown rice and black beans raise my blood sugar 60 or 70 points, and that if I stayed away from grains, beans, and sugars, my blood sugar doesn't budge.  It didn't take many strips to figure this out, the bigger expense is that rice and beans were way cheaper than fish, meat, and cheese.

Concern for one's health is a straw man, it's usually everyone's concern; however cost IS an arbiter, otherwise we'd all have "Cadillac" health plans. Technology will lower the strip costs, or eliminate them. In the meantime some do without.

It is easy to find a free meter and it will come with at least 10 strips. This is enough to tell you if your blood sugar is spiking after eating. That is what I did and then I was able to convince my doctor that, in spite of my "normal" fasting BG, I needed a prescription for testing supplies as my postprandial blood glucose was spiking over 200.

Once I figured out what foods were causing my blood sugar to go high, and totally eliminated these foods, testing became much less frequent. The only time I test now is if I add in a new food.  I will also test throughout the day every once in a while to be sure my BG is not creeping up even with the low carb lifestyle.

When I started doing this a little over 2 years ago, I lost 15-20 lbs and have remained stable. I no longer have daily episodes of hypoglycemia caused by crashes after a blood sugar spike.

To penny-wise, pound foolish anonymous,

I would tend to bet that the price of strips is kept artificially high and it is not lack of technology that is the problem.  However, think of what you'd spend on a dinner out, a movie, or even a doctor's visit--and a doctor's visit won't give you half of the information about your health that a canister of strips will give you.  Anything a doctor does is a single snapshot in time, not ultimately helpful on a day-to-day basis.  Testing your blood sugar systematically for various foods works if you pay attention to what it tells you and modify your behavior accordingly.

Anonymous,

No, health concern is most definitely not a straw man.  Yes, most people will give lip service to their health being a top priority but words mean little.  If you observe the hierarchy of priorities in that person's life based on their ACTIONS you will usually quickly see the truth of the matter is that health is NOT one of their top priorities.  It is called cognitive dissonance and it is endemic to our society, unfortunately.

If someone is not willing to give up their Starbucks, movies, pricey wines, or any number of other extras in their life in order to obtain something that has tremendous possibilities for improving their health then by their actions they are stating clearly their priorities.  Words mean little at that point except to misdirect, evade or confuse the issue.  The actions tell the tale.

I would end by saying that your statement about health usually being everyone's concern is simply not true...not because most everyone doesn't say it, because they do, but because most everyone doesn't act according to their words.  It has always been true that you can tell a tree by it's fruit.

I also want to point out that the old biblical term for cognitive dissonance is "hypocrisy".  I usually avoid that term nowadays, though, since it cuts too close to the heart of the matter and therefore makes people very uncomfortable if not downright offended.

Thanks, Anne, for making a crucial point: Keep costs low by only assessing a previously untested food or combination of foods.

In other words, if you know that a 3-egg omelette with olive oil and green peppers results in an excellent blood sugar response, don't bother to check it again.

"Stuck" HDL was posted 30 Dec. so this may  still interest some.

The Linosa study gives low HDL as 54% heritable, and low HDL accompanied with concurrent high Triglycerides as 31% heritable.

The Erasmus Ruchpen study classes HDL as 43% heritable; with both sexes having the same HDL and Triglyceride genetic pre-disposition.

The Healthy Twin (Korea) study classes low HDL as 77% heritable and Triglycerides as 46% heritable.

Our individual genetics are probably not from those study pools. However, it has been theorized that the genetic tendency for most Caucasians (like the Korean twins)is to low HDL.

The ratio of Apoliprotein B to Apoliprotein A1 has an inverse effect on HDL. Doc has described to us how he clinically deals with ApoB;  HDL reading might not "move" much but being pro-active is preventative.

@Ensues,

You might try increasing sat fat a little. Coconut oil, butter, lard used in cooking can help drive up HDL. It also drives up total cholesterol, but as a ratio, HDL goes up more.

Metformin can help with weight loss in the Non Diabetic patient. A great addition to the glucose meter

$72 a month is cheaper than weight watchers.

Taking niacin to raise HDL worked for me, but it raised my fasting GLU to over 160. Another dangerous side effect for me is that even a small dose will cause me to fly into a rage with the least provocation.

Wal-mart sells a test kit with 50 test strips for under $20 (side-kick).

This raises a good question: what is the ideal weight for any individual?

Ensues, Here is a post on Inhuman Experiment about  hibiscus tea  increasing HDL and lowering LDL.

Dr. Davis

I had my HbA1C checked while I was eating roughly 60% of my calories from carbohydrate and it was 4.9%. After 3 months on a low-carb diet I had it checked again and it had risen slightly to 5.0%. How could this possibly happen?

@Many...

Thanks for the tips.  I never cease to be amazed by how supportive this community is.  I was a SAD poster child always "trying" to follow government guidelines.  I made a list of all of the "little" changes I made to conform better.  Whole wheat pasta, skim milk, whole wheat bread, no chicken skin etc etc etc.  My damaged metabolism took hit after hit after hit.  My triglycerides were over 1000.  My PCP advised to avoid greasy fried foods.  It's comical (and sad) looking back on it.  My glucose meter has a permanent place in my laptop bag and my weight goes down every week AND my health improves. Thanks again for the suggestions and data.

Ensues

I eat the same foods everyday, so I don't have to test my blood sugar very much. I save money on test strips (I use freestyle lite) and I save money since I buy food in bulk.
I think it's important to not eliminate foods just because they raise blood sugar. It's also the combination of foods that affects the glycemic response. There are ways to eat oats and other potentially high glycemic foods with minimal glycemic response. I don't like elevated sugar, but after trying to live on flax alone, I became too depressed to continue. Flax is ok for 1 meal, but that's it for me. One example. I eat semi-pureed sauerkraut with glucomannan and dulse flakes and I get less glycemic response than with sauerkraut alone.

I forgot to post my other example of food combining. Quick oats can be processed in a food processor for 2-3 minutes and added to nut butters or perhaps even added to eggs and meats, although I've only tried oats with nut butters. If I eat oats alone once daily, I spike to 150. If I eat oats twice daily, I don't go above 120, so it's about previous meals and also the time of day for me.

Though it's bizarre to me that spending money on health isn't widely accepted as being a good investment, there is a fairly easy way to avoid doing so and still get this information.
Why doesn't the good doctor create a central repository that lists various foods/meals and the BG response to them. There must be variation between individuals, but generally speaking, a "bad" food is a bad food. I understand that the point of the process is to rein in recalcitrant patients who need to see what the food is doing, but for those who don't want to spend the money or don't want to do this for another reason, but who do have self-control, we could just share info on which foods cause the biggest response. Presumably they would be grains, sweeteners, high-lactose dairy and fruit eaten on an empty stomach. Meals comprised of mostly meat and green veggies with a serving of carbs (25g or so) should not elicit such a response.

Travis Culp,
The 'Glycemic Index' may be what you are looking for. To see a very good listing and discussion check out www.mendosa.com
At his site there is a link to Excell listing of GI, this is nice as you can reorder it in assending /desending order. There are also  a book.
Ed

My husband was diagnosed as a diabetic and I am prediabetic so I read Dr. Bernstein's book and started testing, testing, testing as suggested. When I went to get the testing strips refilled the pharmacy said I could not get more yet as I was using them too often!  After explaining what I had done and that I did not know I was only allowed to use a certain number of sticks a day (two), they refilled it but I think that is wrong for the insurance companies to restrict that.  I was glad to read the posts that once you know a food combination does not elevate sugars then you don't need to test then.  That helps a lot.  Thanks for all of your input.  It is a big help to me.

Really liked the way you used to help Jack loose his weight. The results are pretty good and appreciable.
Thanks for the post and awaiting to read more.

Is it really possible to get NO increase in BG?

I am using this plan and have stopped testing that a m fasting (which is always elevated, for some reason).
This has made me way less crazy.

So back to my question....
Yesterday my pre breakfast was 70; pp was 96.
Lunch was 92; 102

I seem to always have some increase so when peop say they have none, do they really mean none?

The other question; Is the 1 hr pp enough?
When I was testing 2 hr the reading was always higher.

So, as you can see, there's much less stress involved w 1 hr pp testing...but am I kidding myself?

Jem--

Some people digest and process carbohydrates more slowly, or the mix of foods slows the process.

Find your peak by performing every 30 minute checks, then use that time in future.

Does anyone have any experience with Mulberry Zuccarin for glucose control?  I read an article about it and came back here to find this thread, hoping for some insight.  Just snake oil, or is there something to it?

For people concerned about cost.  I bought a walmart store brand meter for 9.00 and 50 strips is 20.00   This meter/strips is a good brand,  have no trouble with it.  the pharmacist told me she used it personally with no issues.  I don't test every day every meal,  Great price.

thank you, very timely and informative, explains allot of my increase as well.But I am working to become a Low Plague Poster Baby Boomer.

For someone that has explosive plaque, how would you try to treat?  Would lowering matrix metalloproteinase by prescribing doxycycline be an appropriate next step?

First, consider correction of the cause.

Unfortunately, a cause is not always identifiable, at least one you can do something about. Yes, anti-inflammatory strategies against MMP might be useful. Otherwise, there is, with present knowledge, no specific therapy for, say, grief.

Rearranging the equation:

Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + Triglycerides/5

Should that not read

Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - Triglycerides/5

No, because the first equation is a mis-print and should read:-
LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

LDL 60 mg/dl + HDL 25 mg/dl + Triglycerides 675 mg/dl - (an indeterminate risk pattern)

Isn't that HDL low and the triglycerides very high?  Isn't that a very high risk?  If not, why not?  Just because the LDL is lowish?

Usually, only the total, HDL, and triglycerides are measured. For cost reasons, the VLDL is usually estimated as one-fifth of the triglycerides and the LDL is estimated using the Friedewald formula.

All adults age 20 or older should have a fasting lipoprotein profile — which measures total cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, HDL (good) cholesterol and triglycerides — once every five years.  This test is done after a nine- to 12-hour fast without food, liquids or pills. It gives information about total cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, HDL (good) cholesterol and triglycerides.

Aren't all these numbers completely useless without knowing the total number of lipid particles, and possibly their diameters?

That's what the NLA keeps harping on at least.

What is the risk pattern for 200 LDL + 92 HDL + 40 Trig = 300 TC?

Jonathan Carey,

From what I've gathered, such low triglycerides usually mean that LDL particle size is large -- correct me if I'm wrong on this -- and thus risk is pretty low. Besides, your HDL/LDL ratio is still okay.

Then again, some of the new meta analyses suggest that LDL by itself is a better predictor of heart disease risk than LDL subfractions. Someone care to comment on this?

Anyhow, you can check out my blog for tips on reducing LDL and increasing HDL:

http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/search/label/cholesterol

Cheers,
JLL

Whoops!

Thanks, all, for catching my absent-minded typo.

Hi, JLL--

One of the great difficulties in trying to squeeze such predictions out of basic lipid values is that so much is not revealed. For instance, if lipoprotein(a) is present, it will not be revealed by surface lipids, even if they are wildly favorable, yet cardiovascular risk is high.

So I didn't mean to suggest that an alternative interpretation of lipids was desirable, but that total cholesterol was the least useful of all, misleading in fact.

By the way, you are absolutely EXCELLENT work on your blog. It is one of my absolute favorites.

A debate over Total Cholesterol was one of the factors that led to me quitting my last nursing job working in a outpatient pediatric office. The pediatricians decided to start screening cholesterol to comply with the LDL-centric screening recommendations (and with such harmful advice as "eat a low fat diet"). They then didn't even comply with the recommendation for fasting lipid panels, and instead just perfomed random fingerstick total cholesterols. This needless alarmed many parents, left some who should be concerned in the dark, and harmed many children who received destructive, fragrantly incorrect dietary advice.
There was an email thread discussing it. I was the only one who voiced concerns about using total cholesterol as a screening tool. Naturally, I, the 25-year-old nurse couldn't know better than the AHA and AAP guidelines. It was perceived as ridiculous that I had intelligent, well-reasoned objections to their line of thinking. They were a nice, but somewhat mindless and subserviant group who did whatever their palm pilots told them was the "Best Practice." Funny how drugs how always the "Best Practice" nowadays.
Getting back to total cholesterol, to me, checking a fasting lipid panel without also checking blood sugar and HbA1C is foolishness. I certainly believe HbA1C predicts heart disease risk far better than any cholesterol number or ratio.

Thanks!

Hey Dr. Davis, what do you make of the news of one of these latest studies which is saying that niacin is useless for preventing cardiac events? They seem to be putting the message out that statins are again the answer to everything and that niacin's actions to raise HDL translate to no good real world outcomes. Ironically the folks who make Niaspan, Abbott, funded this study which now stands to put a $1 product line in the landfill....

I always thought niacin had a pretty good body of evidence behind it. I've been on a gram a day of IR and it's helping my numbers considerably.  I think it's called the AIM-HIGH study.  I'm not sure if it addresses niacin use as a primary treatment. It seems more to do with combining niacin and statins.


http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/heart/articles/2011/05/26/trial-stopped-after-niacin-brings-no-benefit-to-heart-patients

Dr. Davis,

Could you address this recent study on Niacin, perhaps as a separate topic?  The study was stopped early, and they're basically saying that Niacin failed and doesn't help prevent cariovascular events, so back to the drawing board.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/05/27/niacin-cholesterol-.html

Yes, your opinion on NIACIN and possible health benefit (or lack thereof) would be most welcome. I know you have been an advocate of Niacin but in light of the llatest findings...Is this still your opinion?
Thanks.

The better formula when triglycerides fall below 100:

LDL = TC/1.19 + TG/1.9 – HDL/1.1 – 38 (mg/dL)

I am no longer receiving My Heart Scan Blog. Why is this? The last one I received was in April. I tried reapplying my address, it tells me that I am still listed. I am a Heart  Patient and have been following the no wheat program and have found that it is improving my health. Please look into this and have the Heart Blogs sent to me. Thank You, Harvey

Nobody cares to cure diabetes?  That's certainly not true of guys like Joel Fuhrman who have shown the ability to get over 60% of patients off of insulin and all meds within the first month of treatment.  

That's funny that you call carb restriction a cure though.  

I got a flat tire the other day and took it to Big O Tires and the guy said, "hey, I've got an amazing new cure for flat tires that won't cost you a single penny!"

"Wow, do tell!"  

"Yeah, just park it in your garage, and don't drive it anymore!"

@Matt Stone - exactly.  I find it odd that Dr. Davis is claiming nobody is interested in curing diabetes other than low carb proponents.

Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Fuhrman, as well as the raw food folks like Doug Graham all have helped countless diabetics eliminate the need for insulin, or at least lower it in the most severe cases.  They have done this for years.  

And they do so with diets that allow for plenty of whole food carbohydrates, with naturally occurring, but low, amounts of fat.

If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare.

I'm with Dr. Davis. Saying 'nobody' is hyperbole but it does seem to be the case that most physicians do not try to cure diabetes and in fact will dispute that it is possible.

Low carbohydrate simply makes sense since type 2 diabetes is a sugar metabolism disorder (or a case of sugar poisoning from an evolutionary point of view). It makes sense to reduce the poison.

Sugar isn't poison.  Our cells run on glucose.

"from an evolutionary point of view" = merely making up a story to fit the teller's preconceptions

Peruvians eating potatoes are hardly being poisoned.  Asians eating white rice are hardly being poisoned.

Dr. Fuhrman hardly is poisoning his patients on whole plant foods.


Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU

Joel Fuhrman MD has cured hundreds of people of diabetes using diet and lifestyle. The American Diabetic Association wanted him to write about his work -- but then objected because their sponsor, Eli Lilly drug company, might feel threatened by an MD promoting a cure which could destroy the market for their diabetes medications. This is an excerpt from Dr. Furhman's presentation at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo 2007.

My favorite analogy to so called "DIABETES TREATMENT" used to be... "does Alcoholic's Anonymous tell alcoholics to only drink 6-11 beers a day??"

Then why does American Diabetes Ass. tell diabetics to eat 6-11 servings of carbs per day????

BUT NOW.... this analogy may be my favorite... )

Thanks Dr. Davis!

For some reason the opening analogy really freaked me out. I'm already paranoid and freaked out that I must be dying from something that I don't know of. Every bit of me wants to trust the medical establishment but I know they are more concerned with their legal liability and lawsuits than seeing me get healthy. You gotta take care of yourself first and the average doctors are no exception.

Go easy with the analogies there, Dr. Davis.

-- Boris

Fuhrman, McDougall, and others often point to studies comparing their diets with the ADA diet.  The results show weight loss and improvements over the ADA diet, BUT the criteria being used for acceptable blood glucose levels are still too high.

Check out "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars"  by Richard K. Bernstein.  My Mom (T2) has been on the plan for just about 2 years now.  She's lost 60 lbs., HbA1C dropped from 6.8 to 5.3, total cholesterol is down, LDL is down, triglycerides are down, and complications such as retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy have stabilized or improved.

If one cares to buy Matt Stone's E-book titled Die-uh-beat-eeez, he suggests 5 approaches to curing Type 2 Diabetes, including Fuhrman's.

I draw your attention to his last & least favoured approach - Low Carb - and what the author Ron Stone writes:

".. assume that a person tries the other strategies laid out in this book .. and still can't seem make progress ...  in some circumstances a low carb diet really is the most prudent diet."

Verba ipsa loquitur.

Hey! Give Dr. Davis a break! When he says nobody is interested in curing diabetes, he means that the vast majority of physicians (but not ALL of them) will recommend the ADA diet to their patients instead of something else (i.e. low carb, whole foods, etc.).

KitingRules said, “Sugar isn't poison. Our cells run on glucose.”.

Incorrect.

(Table) sugar isn't glucose...it's a disaccharide of half glucose and half fructose. Fructose in large quantities can be disastrous for a persons health....high triglycerides, excess uric acid, increased blood pressure, increased production of advanced glycation end products (AGEs), small LDL, more abdominal fat....the list goes on and on..

As for Asians and rice, go to India and you'll see that many of their citizens suffer from diabetes too. Eating rice (or most any carbs) when you are on a calorie deficit isn't as damaging as eating carbs as part of a diet in which a person eats more calories then their body needs. In this country it's very easy to eat excess calories thought the course of a day. Food is just too abundant, cheap, tempting and calorie dense compared to other countries.

Lastly, it would be helpful if people wouldn't use the comments section of this blog to promote their own sites, blogs, books, etc. but I know this is asking too much...

Hey, Matt Stone, you keep using that photo from when you were low-carbing...when are you going to use a photo that shows how fat you are now?

My father and grandfather were Diabetics. They slowly died of its complications.
I work very hard not to be.
They weren't as informed as we here are on how to deal with it or even reverse it.
And I'm not sure they would've drastically altered their lifestyles.
Other than asking for a "Bigger Pill".

From what I saw, the average Endocrinologist is going with the flow of the ADA and Drug Co's.
Granted, Diabetics are stubborn about lifestyle change.
So, I guess that Doctors - in addition to all the effort on their parts - are just burnt out from many Diabetics not even looking to change.
If the thought of Dialysis isn't enough to eat less bread... what is ?

That aside -- if too much Insulin in the body is dangerous, isn't the injecting of massive amounts of it, just as dangerous ?

@ KitingRules (re: "If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare.")

If you had diabetes and were working to control your blood sugars through diet, you might very well see what a quick, and large, effect fast-acting carbs--sugar, grains, starches--can have on your blood sugar levels, and discover that it is entirely possible to eat a low-carb diet that is ad libitum, rather than calorie-restricted, and that is very enjoyable, to boot.  In February 2008, my A1c was 6.5.  I was given a blood glucose meter and told to eat to it (check out Jenny Ruhl's "Blood Sugar 101", regarding "How to Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control").  I started restricting carbs, and lost 65 pounds in the next 9 months. My A1c was down to 5.5 by the 9-month mark, and has been at 5.3-5.4 since.

@Kiting Rules: your comment was too abrupt in tone to be considered polite discourse.

Nearly anything we ingest can be a poison if taken to excess. While Kiting Rules criticizes: '"from an evolutionary point of view" = merely making up a story to fit the teller's preconceptions' I doubt there is any 'story' of hominid history that would include eating refined carbohydrates in anywhere close to the quantities the average American does... so sugar can in fact be considered a poison in modern quantities.

"Asians eating white rice are hardly being poisoned."

Ah. the Asian rice paradox.  Asians aren't nearly as obese as Americans, but they do have high rates of type II diabetes. For example, the age-adjusted prevalance for Korean adults is 7.6%, compared to 8.2% for US adults (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/2/226.full).   The gap is rather small considering how much heavier Americans are and how much more processed food is consumed.

The differences are real, but Drs Davis, Fuhrman, and McDougall could come up with a very long list of processed foods none of them would go near.  

If someone has cured their diabetes on Fuhrman or Mcdougall's diet there's not much reason to eliminate grains a la Davis, but if they haven't, eliminating grains might be a worthwhile experiment.

Matt Stone, a cure means a method to remove a disease permanently. Since diabetes is merely chronic carbohydrate poisoning, removing carbs from the diet permanently is a cure.

The correct analogy with the flat tire is that the nail that caused the flat tire is the carbs that caused diabetes. In other words, it's not all food that causes diabetes but only the carbs that do that. And avoiding driving the car on any road is like avoiding to eat all food. With humans, avoiding to eat all food would kill us in short order. It's not a cure if it kills us.

But you gotta eat something. Yes, and it might as well be food. But carbs is food. Not if it makes you sick it isn't.

Correction, I meant to say "since diabetes is merely a symptom of chronic carbohydrate poisoning".

Diabetes, just like many other health conditions and symptoms are a cash cow - why on earth should we cure it!??!

One crazy example is a man named Jim Mann; he represents the Department of Human Nutrition and Medicine and the Edgar National Centre for Diabetes Research, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and have written in many publications about how to eat and live if you have diabetes (and his suggestions are along the line with ADA)... But he is also an advisor for 'Sugar Research Advisory Board' (SRAS). And after looking through their material SRAS is clearly a marketing device for SUGAR! SRAS is trying with many colorful Fact sheets to make sugar look healthy, good, and something every human need for survival… He even says things like "...there is insufficient evidence to recommend that sugar intake to be restricted..." in one publication called "Free sugars and human health: Sufficient evidence for action?"

So, the world cares about diabetes alright... just not in the right way.

KitingRules said "If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare."

I do have T2 diabetes and I developed it after 12 years as a low-fat veg eating ad libitum of starches and fruits.  I received the same medical and 'nutritional' advice as most others newly-diagnosed T2s (the type that Dr. Davis is describing).  I chose the low-carb paleo approach and maintain an A1c of approx 4.9, along with a 75 pound weight loss, and across the board improved health markers.

I now eat ad libitum of whole unprocessed foods, restricting (not eliminating) only carbs.  It's not calorie restricted and has never been miserable.

Hi, Steve--

I love your alcoholics analogy!

Surely one for the road.

If we were to compare, line by line, the diets of Dr. Joel Fuhrmann, Dr. John McDougall, and the sort of low-carb diets advocated by Drs. Mary Vernon and Dr. Eric Westman, I believe we would see more congruity than difference.

Throw in the issue of Advanced Glycation End-products and I believe that introduces yet another twist to diet that 1) tempers enthusiasm for the notion of unlimited animal products cooked at high temperature, and 2) limits our carbohydrates.

One issue I am vehement about: Grains are among the most destructive ingredients in the human diet. Wheat stands apart. What other food has its very own mortality rate?

Amen I think far too many in the medical field do exactly as Dr Davis has suggested.I spend hours a week trying to educate people who are literally falling apart because of their high glycemic loads and accompanying inflamation.They are very confused by the dueling nutrition camps. I have been a physician for 27 years, and I think the high glycemic loads and high omega6 intake is taking a horrible toll.It is human nature to think if a little is good then a more is better-so we have the extreme low fat and low carb camps.I think eliminating carbohydrates that produces a high sugar  load in the body is necessary-not all carbs.A thoughtful approach to fats that are less inflamatory and atherogenic is essential.That sadly is not what usually happens.Thank you Dr D

My mother, who is diabetic, has really been helped by a low-carb approach. She's losing weight, her blood sugar levels have decreased, and she no longer goes into carb-induced stupors. Unfortunately, I think this has come too late for her to ever get back to normal.

I think Mr. Stone must have been jilted by a low-carber.

Correct me if I am wrong but if diabetes is a result of impaired pancreas function, i.e beta cells not producing adequate insulin due to their ceasing to function, how can this condition be "cured". One could probably learn to live with it as people do with say one lung or other organ deficiency, but that isn't what I would think as a cure, where normal function is returned. The only cure to me would be where the beta cells regenerate (isn't that what the stem cell research in this area is aiming to do)

Can someone please clarify my confusion on what a cure would mean ? Thanks.

Enough good comments here to temper the patent nonsense, but as a frustrated "conventional" physician, I can't help but chime in.

It infuriates me that so much money (some of it even taxpayers' money) is being spent on diabetes "research" when the salient physiological/biochemical pathways are well-known, and have been for years. Let me adopt a patronizing, condescending tone for a moment and walk the Baffled and otherwise confused thru it bit by bit:

Type II diabetes is a result of insulin resistance,  which means the cells are less receptive to insulin prompting an influx of glucose(sugar). Insulin resistance may occur for a few different reasons, but one - I would say the most IMPORTANT one - is repeated and sustained excess insulin secretion. And the most important cause of this excess insulin? Excess blood sugar. The source of this excess blood sugar? Dietary sugar and starch. Sure, there's a lot of blather about arginine and other insulin secretogogues. But no other signal makes it happen like blood sugar.

Simple enough?

Here's the good news (for the umpteenth time, sorry everyone who's already said it clearly): the relatively small amounts of sugar and starch in fresh vegetables and WATERY fruits are mitigated by the relatively large amounts of fiber they contain. It slows it down, provides built-in damage control. Just don't eat the poisonous stuff with almost no fiber left to slow it down (grain products, etc). Get off the sugar/starch roller coaster, and you likely won't suffer abnormal hunger prodding you to overconsume daily, leading to your early death.

Okay, I've got that off my chest. Now I'll leave the windmills alone and go back to saving patients one at a time. Keep up the good work, Dr Davis and company!

As Dr. Bernstein often explains it: Doctors can get sued when a patient dies from the consequences of hypoglycemia and therefore prefer to keep you eating carbs and "control" your hyperglycemia with medication. Here it shows the DMT2-pathway: http://bit.ly/d4oVSz Draw your own conclusions.

Inspired by the good doctor I have essentially eliminated all grains from my diet, particularily wheat, with positive results. But I must admit that I do still enjoy a cold beer and am loath to forsake this one precious pleasure. Where does beer fit into this picture  I wonder?  Is it a grain product like bread or cereal, and accordingly should be eliminated for cardiac health?

I'm a little confused...If you have type 1 diabetes where your pancreas can't produce insulin, surely you can only cure that by having a pancreas transplant (not always successful) and treatment (possibly vitamin D) to prevent autoimmune attacks on the new pancreatic cells? Perhaps Type 2 is curable, but I don't know too much about either.

JTownsend: Most beers contain gluten. There are a few that don't, including some Belgian ales that are pretty good -- Green's is the brand to try. For something more like a session beer, in the US, look for Bard's, New Grist, or Redbridge (an Anheuser-Busch product).

Antidrug--

Thanks for the great explanation!

Baffled--The sort of diabetes you describe only applies to 1) certain genetic types of the sort Jenny Ruhl talks about, i.e., LADA, and 2) when you are irretrievably diabetic after many years of carbohydrate overconsumption and being overweight.

I just use my glucose meter to see how rice, potatoes, etc., affect my blood sugar and I get a clear message that I need to avoid them.

As for vegan diets, studies piting vegan diets against the ADA diet show that the vegan diets are "better" than the ADA diet.  However, the vegan diet resulted in average A1C of 7.1%.  Even the ADA defines "tight control" as an A1C < 7%.  While vegan diets may outperform the ADA diet, they still can't achieve even the ADA's anemic defininition of "tight control."  My A1C has consistently been below 6% wit low carb.  Plus, I like the tasty and satisfying food I eat on low carb.  It's much more satisfying than the low fat, high carb diet I used to eat while trying to combat morbid obesity.  I don't feel deprived at all.

Big pharma has a big interest in keeping people "sick" or creating new condition to make people think they are "sick."  There is no cure for type 1 diabetes and I'm not sure that you can really "cure" type 2 either.  Low carb controls it to near normal blood sugar levels, but you can never go back to your previous way of eating and expect good blood sugar levels.

@JTownsend and JohnR:

I enjoy a brew or two also, and have been concerned about "gluten", gliadins, etc. After much searching, I have learned that if the beer is brewed from barley, the offending proteins, called "hordeins" in barley, are reduced in amount, broken into peptides rather than complete hordeins, and are barely measurable using European standards of "gluten free". The US standard is based on NO wheat/barley/rye/etc raw material input, rather than actual amount of the offending protein in the final product; so, under current regs, no barley product could qualify as gluten/gliadin/hordein free irrespective of how minute the quantity is.

For a pretty complete discussion please see more at http://tinyurl.com/23929af

I think it's dangerous to talk about "curing" diabetes. A cure would mean that you could eat a lot of sugar and starch and your blood sugar wouldn't go up, as a healthy young child can do.

Getting people off insulin and all oral meds isn't a cure. Too many sellers of supplements say their expensive supplements will cure diabetes. When you read the details, you see the people got off meds, or their fastings were reduced from 200 to 140, still much too high. No cure!

You can control your diabetes so your blood sugar levels are in normal ranges, but you're still not cured.

And even a strict low-carb diet won't control diabetes in type 1 or in type 2 that was advanced when the person was diagnosed. I'm a type 2 on a LC diet, I haven't eaten wheat for more than 10 years, and even reaonable amounts of protein (less than 4 oz per serving) make my blood sugar go up.

I find it offensive when people say my diabetes would be cured if I took some supplement or followed some particular diet.

As for why most doctors don't try to cure your diabetes, it's because most doctors aren't in the business of doing research, and except for pancreas transplants, which are a last resort because the anti-rejection drugs are worse than the diabetes treatments, there is not yet a cure.

Many, many people are working on it. But I think promising people a cure when there is not yet a cure is cruel.

In the meantime, LC diets help many people get excellent control. But they're not cured.

There will be a cure some day. But it's not here yet.

I am so pleased to see your post on preventing diabetes.  Indeed, why not?  Walking the walk and talking the talk at "Your Health is on Your Plate," I am reversing diabetes and obesity by teaching folks how to tell the difference between real food and fabricated calories.  Roxanne Sukol MD  http://yourhealthisonyourplate.com

"I think it's dangerous to talk about "curing" diabetes. A cure would mean that you could eat a lot of sugar and starch and your blood sugar wouldn't go up, as a healthy young child can do."

Yes, healthy children can seemingly get away with this ie no big sugar spike.  It is also how they later become diabetic.  So in reality, if you include duration over time when looking at health, a healthy person just can not eat large amounts of refined starches and simple sugars.

It is not just "the carbs" rather a bit more complex.  Insulin resistance is also caused by excess dietary calories, excess dietary fat, excess body weight, excess body fat (even if "normal" weight) and inactivity and, (see below) it seems overconsumption of animal protein esp red meat.  This last could ultimately be from beta cell damage from the iron overload.

Pooled data from 12 different studies: High meat intake increases diabetes risk

POSTED ON JULY 22, 2010 BY DEANA FERRERI, PH.D.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diabetes-pooled-data-from-12-different-studies-high-meat-intake-increases-diabetes-risk.html

I believe people are very suspicious of doctors who say they have cures for illnesses that are not talked about in the mainstream. Even at my hospital, nobody ever talks about curing diabetes. Now granted our patients aren't newbies to the disease and they already have neuropathies, etc.

But skepticism is something we Americans are proud of and hang our hats on. Nobody wants to be taken for a ride. So unless physicians can get blinded, randomized, controlled studies with a large "n" published in respectable jounals (not yoga weekly), we'll remain cautious about blog postings like this one.

But, I like that it's getting talked about, at least in a blog. Perhaps, enough will get published that funding will come available for some really nice, multi-center studies.

Re the red meat study:

Note that the cited study concludes, "However, the possibility that residual confounding could explain this association cannot be excluded."

This study is of association, not cause. Quite often, people who eat a lot of red meat also eat a lot of french fries and drink a lot of sodas. Many studies lump red meat together with processed meats.

Also, this is a meta-analysis and they are notorious. Unfortunately, Diabetologia charges a lot for full text, so one can't do a critical reading.

"Insulin resistance is also caused by . . ." There's also a genetic component, some people estimate about 50%. Some ethnic groups have more insulin resistance to start with.

Thanks for the feedback fellas (JohnR & Jim) and your heads up on gluten in beer. Very interesting. Im not clear on the connection between gluten and cardiac health though, particularly as it relates to such things as the triggering formation of small LDL particles (which this blog views as a potent predictor of cardiovascular events). The other thing I wonder about is beers possibly harmful effect on blood glucose levels and glycation, given the mitigating effects of alcohol on liver function (ie liver production of glucose interrupted by alcohol). I cant find info that puts this all together in layman terms re cardiac health aside from the brewery sponsored media noise.

Thanks for the feedback fellas (JohnR & Jim) and your heads up on gluten in beer. Very interesting. Im not clear on the connection between gluten and cardiac health though, particularly as it relates to such things as the triggering formation of small LDL particles (which this blog views as a potent predictor of cardiovascular events). The other thing I wonder about is beers possibly harmful effect on blood glucose levels and glycation, given the mitigating effects of alcohol on liver function (ie liver production of glucose interrupted by alcohol). I cant find info that puts this all together in layman terms re cardiac health aside from the brewery sponsored media noise.

"Usually, when we think about foods that increase diabetes risk, we think of white flour-based processed foods, sugary sodas, and desserts, since these foods are known to produce dangerous increases in blood glucose. Also, many diabetics are under the impression that that they should avoid carbohydrate-containing foods, and eat higher levels of protein to keep their blood glucose levels in check."

I find these generalizations fascinating. It wasn't too long ago that everyone was blaming diabetes on fat. Even today, many people with diabetes are told to follow the low-fat "ADA diet," which tells patients to "make starch the star."

If the "we" and "many diabetics" cited above are in the majority, then the country has done a complete turnaround.

"The ADA diet prescribed encourages you to increase carbohydrates" HUH? My husband and I went through diabetes education courses at a local hospital when he was diagnosed where we learned to reduce carbs to control diabetes. Would be interested to know what source Dr. Davis is quoting.

Hi DR. Davis,

As usual you have hit it out of the park.  Most doctors and most people believe that in order for one to say that they have cured diabetes type2 one should be able to consume all the high carbohydrate,sugar,fruit, starch, and HFCS one desires.  This is the same as saying that in order to consider yourself cured of arsenic poisoning one should be able to consume all the arsenic one wishes.  On it's face this is a ridiculous statement.  Eat poison and you will be poisoned.  I followed Dr. John McDougall's plan for many years and all I did was become very fat and ill.  I now follow an Evolutionary Lifestyle  promoted by Dr. Kenneth Tourgeman nephrologist.  His practice is dedicated to evolutionary medicine and he cured my diabetes type 2 along with reversing other diseases of the metabolic syndrome.  My last four HbA1c levels are as follows: 4.5, 4.7, 5.0, and 4.9.  Dr. Tourgeman practices evolutionary medicine, and I follow an evolutionary health supporting lifestyle.  Because of this I have been able to take and keep off 50 pounds over the 18 months without any hunger what so ever.  If low fat and high carb worked for most of us, then why is obesity the biggest problem for the majority of Americans?  It is time for the medical profession to change.  Doctors should be paid a standard yearly stipend and those who show cures and reversals of illness as far as the diseases of the metabolic syndrome are concerned should receive bonuses relative to cure and reversal rate.  If this would become the system you would see a big difference in the health of Americans.

Billy E
Editor
EVMed Forum.com

Dr. Davis, considering the persistent confusion I think it's time you bring precision to your suggestion. How much carbs by weight should a diabetic eat maximum daily? 50g, 100g, or 300g?

My dad was given a guide that said he should eat a total of three meals per day, each containing no more than 60g of carbs, and two snacks per day, each containing no more than 30g of carbs. That's a total of 240g per day for a 65 yo diabetic man who is at least 50 lbs overweight. This guide came directly from the nutritionist employed by the diabetic association here in Canada. The guide also told him to reduce fat intake to a minimum especially saturated fat. And to reduce meat consumption and to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. I don't understand how this diet can be lower in carb if he must eat less fat.

In fact the diet my dad was prescribed mimics exactly the Canadian nutritional guidelines. But wait, that's exactly how he got sick in the first place.

For those who doubt Dr. Davis, all you need to do is ask your local diabetes association about the diet they prescribe for their patients. Then compare it to your national guidelines.

test

Hi, Billye--

Thanks. And keep up your own good work!

It makes me shudder to think of the years I spent following a low-fat diet, glycating proteins left and right.

Why do you presume the ADA diet causes 10-15lb/year weight gain if followed?  That's just ridiculous.

I have been following with interest the discussion thread regarding the harmful effects of grains. However one must remember that the ancient civilizations in Africa and Asia have been eating fermented grains for a long time with minimal impact. Please link up to these sites to see the benefits of fermented grains.

Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater

http://herbs.sakthifoundation.org/rice.htm

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-way-to-soak-brown-rice.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-search-of-traditional-asian-diets.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/fermented-grain-recipes-from-around.html

meenraja, there is a lot of value in this blog and what Dr Davis has to say but I am constantly frustrated by the conflation here of refined, extracted, highly processed carbs with intact, whole grains.  Better still fermented whole grains!!!  It all depends on your individual metabolism but indeed, the baby does risk a flying lesson...

Dr. Stramge,

Frustratingly, the link you provided for the 12 studies can not be opened.  However, it doesn't matter, because, if the studies that you cite were correct that red meat caused diabetes type 2 in the first place, there would be an existing archaeological record of diseases of the metabolic syndrome being present throughout history.  There is none.  We were metabolic syndrome disease free for 2.5 million years.  Now this is an experiment I can trust.The first mention of diabetes type 2 was in the Egyptian era after the advent of agriculture.  If this was not correct, how did we get here disease free in the first place?  We ate predominately red flesh for millions of years without diseases of the metabolic syndrome. If You wish to avoid or cure diabetes type 2, follow as your ancestgors did a low carb high saturated fat evolutionary health supporting lifestyle under the direction of your doctor who practices evolutionary medicine.

Billy E
Editor
EvMed Forum.com

Long story short, finally got around to changing my screen name to my real name

Formerly known as Dr.Strange (you really do not want to know about it)

" We ate predominately red flesh for millions of years without diseases of the metabolic syndrome. If You wish to avoid or cure diabetes type 2, follow as your ancestgors did a low carb high saturated fat evolutionary health supporting lifestyle under the direction of your doctor who practices evolutionary medicine."

It is not known for certain what was eaten pre-ag but from everything I have read about hunter-gatherers, I rather doubt they were meatitarians.  Mostly plants, leaves, roots, fruits, yes some meat whenever they could get it.  It isn't the meat per say but the iron load according to the article I linked above

Geoffrey, do you know about the expensive tissue hypothesis? See here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/

To summarize, eating meat made us human. The expensive tissue hypothesis says that our brain got bigger while our gut got smaller. And the only way the two happened simultaneously was because we ate meat, lots and lots of meat. But most especially fat fatty meat. The fatter the better.

The brain is the most expensive tissue while the gut is the second most expensive tissue.

Fat is the easiest thing to digest and we have one dedicated organ for just that purpose, the gallbladder. In fact, bile is made in part from cholesterol which is made from fat. Also, bile and cholesterol is recycled sometimes several times during the same meal. So, fat digests itself and it's cheap and efficient to do so.

Fat also contains the most energy per weight and per volume. Thus, not only is it less expensive to digest fat, but it's also more profitable to eat fat. Consequently, the gut can shrink since it doesn't need to be so big, and the brain can grow since there's enough fuel for that.

Finally, from fat we get ketones. When the brain uses ketones, it works about 30% more efficiently than when it uses glucose. This means it can do the same work with 30% less fuel or do 30% more work with the same fuel. No matter the point is that by eating fat fatty meat, we allowed our brain to grow the size it is today.

We can also find studies that show that vegetarians have smaller brains than omnivores and carnivores. This last seems to tell us that not eating enough meat restricts the growth of our brain.

Geofrey Levens,

Iron overload from red meat is a false premises unless you are talking about hemochromatosis which is a genetic disease.  I would love to read the studies that you cite, but, as aforementioned the link can't be opened.  However, rest assured that if such studies were valid Dr. Tourgeman would have surely come across them.  After all he is a nephrologist and as such his specialty is chronic kidney disease and he treats iron deficiency all the time.  No such iron problem as you cite exists in normal people.

Billy E
Editor
EvMed Forum

Hi Martin Levac,

You ask about what is the proper amount of carbohydrate for a person with diabetes type 2 to eat.  I cured my diabetes type 2 under the direction of my doctor who practices evolutionary medicine eating no more than from 20 grams to 50 grams of carbs daily.  If involved in very strenuous exercise one can go up to 70 grams of carbs daily, but remember only under your doctors supervision.

Billy E
Editor
EvMed Forum

Re "It isn't the meat per say but the iron load according to the article I linked above"

I eat a lot of red meat, and I had my iron level measured. It was in the low end of the normal range.

We're all different and someone else might be affected differently. It seems to me that if you're concerned about something, you should be tested for it rather than accepting some generalization from a book.

Different people interpret diet guidelines differently and different people have different physiologies and can react differently to the exact same diet.

@Martin

"We can also find studies that show that vegetarians have smaller brains than omnivores and carnivores. This last seems to tell us that not eating enough meat restricts the growth of our brain."

Can you find a peer reviewed scientific study published in a reputable journal ?

On eating lots of meat and animal fat:

"...the expensive tissue hypothesis? See here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/ "

Well, "Yaba-daba-do!"  There are competing theories.  All evidence from modern hunter-gatherers indicates meat only part of largely plant based diet.  The two articles below may help...

http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009/09/lets-not-twist-history-to-support-our.html

http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009/11/saying-something-over-and-over-doesnt.html
---------------------------------
Iron load:

"However, rest assured that if such studies were valid Dr. Tourgeman would have surely come across them. After all he is a nephrologist and as such his specialty is chronic kidney disease and he treats iron deficiency all the time. No such iron problem as you cite exists in normal people."

Acute problems are quite a different animal than chronic.  Low grade iron overload is basically a form of heavy metal poisoning.  Bodies differ in ability to carry such loads and higher iron levels may well be a cancer risk.  This is at far lower levels than hemochromatosis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2577284/
"...increased iron concentrations after the menopause could be an important aetiological factor in the development of breast cancer in this population. Iron is well known for catalysing Fenton/Haber-Weiss or autoxidation reactions, that lead to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and lipid peroxidation, as well as their products, which give rise to mutagenic aldehydyes, such as 4-hydroxynonenal..."

@Geoffrey,

One of the arguments raised against the expensive tissue hypothesis and the claim that we were healthier before agriculture is that humans that were sick died quickly.

That argument actually supports the claim that we were healthier before agriculture. Why? Natural selection was swift back then. Indeed, if we follow the logic to its conclusion, we find that since natural selection was swift, and since only the fittest survived, well, only the fittest survived. Consequently, we are the descendants of those who lived. Or rather, we can't be the descendants of those who died.

Whenever we argue natural selection, we must consider that only the fittest survived and only their descendants are alive today. Furthermore, the proof of this natural selection can be had by doing some simple tests with only a couple humans. We have such a test concerning diet. It's the Stefansson all meat trial.

How does that support the expensive tissue hypothesis? Well, that trial tells us that we can maintain perfect health indefinitely on a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh. How does that support the hypothesis? Well, if we can survive today on a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh, this means that in our past those that couldn't survive on such a diet died off quickly enough so that they did not produce offspring. See? That's how natural selection works.

Natural selection can work within a single period and still be very effective at sifting the species. But for the argument at hand, both hypotheses acknowledge that this kind of natural selection in favor of carnivores took place several times and for long periods. I.e. there were several lengthy and repetitive periods of famine. It's important to note that famine happens across the spectrum of life. It's also important to note that it starts at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. plants.

So, all these periods of famine naturally selected against those who relied on plants and in favor of those who relied on animal flesh. This happened several times so that only those who could rely on animal flesh could survive.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

@anonymous

Here's one paper on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18779510
"Vitamin B12 status and rate of brain volume loss in community-dwelling elderly."

Martin Levac, one study w/ N=1 is not even a rumor let alone proof that all can do it let.  And "can do" does not even imply "should do" let alone prove.

I suppose those food animals were unaffected by the same drought/food shortage that starved the humans and so they just continued to hang out in the area in great abundance, waiting to be eaten?

@Geoffrey

We can claim that this person was unique and had the unique ability to eat a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh that not shared but the rest of the population, but we'd have to test this claim before it was valid. So how do we test this claim? First we see if he is like us. As it happens, that all meat trial did test this idea whether the subjects (ah yes, there were two subjects for that study) responded like the rest of us to specific stimuli. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. It's called the Bellevue all meat trial. The point is, if they respond like us to specific stimuli, then we should respond like them to the same stimuli.

But even then that's not enough to conclude that an all meat diet was at some point the only diet for most humans. We'd have to test the alternative hypothesis: That we have the best health in a mixed diet. It so happens that we have such tests. One is the Minnesota starvation experiment, the other is the Biosphere 2 project. In both instances, a mixed diet did not maintain us in perfect health indefinitely. In fact, deficiency developed. Deficiency in those experiments developed in short enough time that any deficiency would have shown up in the all meat trial (which lasted one year), if deficiency such a diet should have caused.

If you mean that when there's a famine, certain animals just stick around in large groups? I don't know about that. Do you? However it seems most reasonable that if sticking around is a survival strategy for a group of prey to defend themselves against predators, I doubt they'll change that strategy just because there's less food for them. I mean, that kind of behavior is one such aspect that gets sifted through natural selection. In other words, if sticking together gives them the best chance for survival, then those who do stick together will reproduce, both in numbers and in behavior.

With natural selection, you must always ask if this particular aspect you're looking at was most advantageous for the species' survival.

With science, you must take intervention experiments more seriously than epidemiological observation even if the experiment was done with a single subject while the epidemiological observations were done on billions of subjects. Why? Because with epidemiological observation, it's impossible to determine cause and effect. We can only do that with experimental study. So while you'd like to dismiss this N=2 study, you'd have to find another study of equal value before you could refute it.

Correction. I wrote "that not shared but the rest of the population" when I should have written "was not shared but the rest of the population".

A further bit of logic for natural selection.

Maybe Stefansson and his acolyte were unique examples of the human species who were specially adapted to an all meat diet and the rest of us are not. But that doesn't matter because the very fact that we have two examples of humans with the special ability to maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all meat diet means that at some point we did have to survive on an all meat diet exclusively for a long enough time so that the genome required for this feat came into existence. Or rather, only the previous existence of the required genome allowed us to survive that way during such a time of famine.

But no matter, the ability to survive on an all meat diet is dependent on our physiology. It so happens that all humans have the same physiology with very rare exceptions. And Stefansson and his partner were not those exceptions.

After you've been diabetic a while, you get very suspicious of anyone using the word "cure".

Low-carb is not a cure.  Low-carb is a method of control allowing you to attain normal bg numbers.  And it doesn't always work, cause after 2 decades of low-carb, I needed to go on insulin to continue good bg control.

Low carb is like saying, my car doesn't run very well, so I'll prolong it's life by not driving much.  This is not a cure, it's management.

My husband achieves normal bg numbers after eating 1/6th of a chocolate cake.  This is because he is NOT diabetic. His bg "spikes" to all of 70-80 after a giant piece of cake.

A "cure" would be achieving *that* - not just achieving normal bg numbers.  

Anyone, with attention to diet, exercise, an appropriate diet, and whatever drugs are needful, can achieve normal bg numbers - and that is very important for the health of diabetics.

But it's not a cure until you can do it with sugar.  My blood glucose control system works just fine as long as it has minimal sugar to deal with.  But a CURE would be it working like my husbands.

Martin Levac, I do not understand who you can even imagine that the two studies you mention (Biosphere and Minnesota starvations)have any relationship whatsoever to a mixed diet, a vegetarian diet, vegan diet, all meat/fat diet, any diet at all.  In both studies, the participants were literally starved by being grossly calorie deficient.  No diet will keep you healthy in that situation.  So really, those are both irrelevant.

As for "famine" etc, when plant foods get scarce, plant eating prey animals get scarce, and soon enough, predators also get scarce.  They all starve.  So what is your point?  That overweight/fat people will live a bit longer during a famine compared to those at a lower BMI?

"the very fact that we have two examples of humans with the special ability to maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all meat diet means that at some point we did have to survive on an all meat diet exclusively for a long enough time so that the genome required for this feat came into existence. Or rather, only the previous existence of the required genome allowed us to survive that way during such a time of famine."

Only your last sentence is correct.  Genetic changes do not occur due to specific outside influences. What does occur is increase in random mutations and then the environment selects for those.  So yes, the genes for all meat survival were there but not because it had long been done or was necessary.  The enviro influences effect gene expression in specific ways, that is true...

@jpatti, I'm sorry that you can't get your blood sugar under control. I hope you get better.

Somebody explained to me what diabetes was. He said that basically it was "uncontrolled hyperglycemia combined with uncontrolled hyperinsulinemia". What he meant was that diabetes was high blood sugar combined with high insulin.

Now that makes sense. However, when I read more, I realized that the real nature of diabetes was that cells didn't respond to insulin anymore. When that happens, blood sugar rises uncontrollably and insulin rises uncontrollably but even then there's not enough insulin to control blood sugar.

Why is it like that? I don't know but maybe cells stop taking in insulin because somehow too much insulin hurts them and that's the only way they found to protect themselves from the bad effects of high insulin. Now that would make sense. I mean, if kids made too much noise around you, you'd put plugs in your ears and that would take care of the problem, wouldn't it. However, when kids talk to you, you need to be able to hear them. But if you have plugs in your ears, that's not gonna be possible anymore.

So what's the solution? Get rid of the kids or at least get rid of the noise they make. In other words, get rid of the sugar or at least change the nature of the sugar. So, either you cut out all carbs, or you stop eating refined carbs (like sugar, HFCS and white flour for example) and go with whole foods instead. But ultimately, you will have to cut down on the amount of carbs you eat.

@Geoffrey

Well, the two studies were done with a mixed diet. And the participants did suffer the same consequences. I don't understand how you could consider 1600-1800 calories per day "grossly calorie deficient".

So what is my point? That only those best adapted to the situation right now survive to reproduce. But that's not my point, it's the point of natural selection. I merely pointed out that natural selection was the driving factor in our current physiology.

Did you propose that only the fattest would survive times of famine? Or were you implying that I proposed that idea? I didn't propose that. No matter, let's explore it anyway.

Considering how we get fat today, then we'd have to show that the fattest humans back then had access to a boatload of refined carbs. OK, I see no point in going further with this argument.

Hi Martin Levac,

I see you finally became exhausted and gave up.  I came to the same conclusion some 14 comments ago.  To argue with Geoffrey is just like arguing with Ancel Keys, pointless.  To keep arguing against evidence gathered in the greatest scientific archaeological experiment that has been going on for the last 2.5 million years and probably much longer, shows an incredible lack of comprehension.  If not for eating red meat we would not be here now and certainly not with the large brain that we have.  In order for Geoffrey to be correct it would mean that the vast majority of archeologist's were wrong.  That is an incredible reach.You made some very cogent points, and I know that most of readers agree with us, as does Dr. Davis and Dr. Tourgeman along with the rest of the evolutionary lifestyle blogosphere.  An evolutionary health supporting lifestyle is the future along with the practice of evolutionary medicine.  The primary component of a health supporting lifestyle is grass fed and finished animal flesh, with a few not very starchy tubers, ample greens, and a few not very sweet berries.  I rest my healthy flesh eating case.

Billy E
Editor
EvMed Forum.com

Meenraja--

I would not be so quick to dismiss the adverse effect of grains based on the presumption that they were benign in ancient times. In fact, they were not.

Celiac disease, for example, has been with us for 2000 years. Millions have likely died, not of famine or war, but from grains like wheat. How senseless is that?

Meenraja--  people die from peanut allergy.  Does not mean peanuts are bad or even dangerous. Just that those w/ certain physiological abnormalities should not eat them.  Celiac/wheat is same. Gluten intolerance may indeed effect up to 30% of population but that means, large majority, 70% are absolutely fine with it.

"I don't understand how you could consider 1600-1800 calories per day "grossly calorie deficient."

"a 6-mo semistarvation period, beginning on February 12, 1945, in which they received 1800 kcal (7531 kJ) of food/d, with the starvation diet reflecting that experienced in the war-torn areas of Europe, i.e., potatoes, turnips, rutabagas, dark bread, and macaroni"

Opps, well I guess they did get plenty of calories.  Could be the study proved we need to eat some non-starch vegetables to be healthy?  I do know that not having eaten any animal protein nor animal faand t for close to 3 years now, the only problem I have encountered was EFA deficiency from going too low fat following the McDougall diet.  I exercise pretty hard daily, have good energy, etc.  I guess that is an experiment w/ an N of 1...

@Geoffrey

If you ate dairy, then you ate animal protein. B12 is also found in dairy. Did you eat dairy? If not, then consider that B12 deficiency is inevitable and probably already well established since you're been avoiding animal protein for 3 years.

Ironically, taking supplements to counter the obvious deficiency of a diet lacking animal flesh acknowledges that humans require vitamin B12 which is only naturally found in animal flesh. Ergo, humans require animal flesh to maintain perfect health indefinitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B12_Deficiency

Dr. Davis,

Wonder if you are concerned whether cutting carbs significantly increases the consumption of dietary AGEs?  The table in the linked article shows order of magnitude higher AGEs in fat-rich foods, including olive oil and nuts, than in carbs...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497781

David

@Anonymous

The study you looked at is about dietary AGEs, not blood levels or cellular levels of AGEs. The two are not synonymous.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/ketosis-cleans-our-cells/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/low-carb-diets-reduce-oxidative-stress/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

Hi, David--

Excellent point.

There are two general sources of AGEs: endogenous from carbohydrates and exogenous from animal products.

We've got to eat something, so it becomes a matter of identifying the foods richer in AGEs and minimizing exposure.

This will be the focus of future discussions here and on the Track Your Plaque website.

Martin, no dairy...no animal derived foods. No B-12 deficiency either as I supplement w/ methylcobalain.  Of course we need B-12 but this is 2010 so no need to get it from animals.  You can but it is not necessary.

Oh and I take K2 as well as vitamin D3

@Geoffrey

So you do take supplements to alleviate the obvious deficiency that an all plant diet would cause? The subjects in the Biosphere 2 project also took supplements to the full RDA at the time yet suffered the same problems as the subjects of the semi-starvation study.

I rest my case.

"So you do take supplements to alleviate the obvious deficiency that an all plant diet would cause? The subjects in the Biosphere 2 project also took supplements to the full RDA at the time yet suffered the same problems as the subjects of the semi-starvation study.

I rest my case."

I have been following this discussion closely and have learned a lot. I have no sides and am only in search of my own path and optimal health. I'm more of a middle of the road type. My wight has never been an issue and my energy levels are great. But I have to agree with what I have quoted. I am really not schooled I any of this. Truly a lay person. But I think any fool can see that if you need to "supplement" it is because something is missing. In my simple minded view if something is "missing" then why supplement if you can get it from the source? Ok....suppose the source has been tainted? ( chemicals, hormones etc). So what? that doesn't negate the fact that we (at least at one time) "needed" that stuff.  Supplementation only proves (IMO) that we need to consume animal products. Way back when there were no supplements so today that is only a luxury. So is a drive through....that doesn't make it better.

If you look at rodent nutrient self-selection studies; diabetic animals will select a high fat, low-carb diet and keep their blood sugars from getting out of control in this manner. Studies correlating meat intake to disease and blaming the disease on the diet don't establish cause and effect; and it's well established that disease (and diabetes in particular) can cause a food  preference shift.

I am not propagating wheat at all. I am more in favor of fermented brown rice as well as gluten free grains like millet. In fact since i stared eating fermented brown rice with home made oragnic yougurt my Choletsrol, BP as well as triglycerides has come down markedly. I used to have symptoms of IBS as well which has gone away. Whereas if I eat homemade wheat bread symtoms reappear. This is just a personal example.

"In fact since i stared eating fermented brown rice with home made oragnic yougurt my Choletsrol, BP as well as triglycerides has come down markedly. I used to have symptoms of IBS as well which has gone away."

Interesting as all those conditions/symptoms can be and often are mediated strongly by stress and fermented rice will give you a good dose of GABA which is quiet calming an stress reducing, lowering cortisol levels quite rapidly!

I see this type of 'doctoring' in customers all the time.  Their doctor does not tell them what to eat or when not to eat certain foods.  There is no discussion on the use of chromium, cinnamon or any other hypoglycemic herb or mineral that can work with the body to reduce fasting blood sugar and H1c.  Of course the snack food makers are going to contribute to the ADA. I believe you can make a case for the snack food makers being the same a drug cartel.  So what if it kills our customers there are always new one to replace them. One last thoght, We can't after all cure diabetes otherwise the drug companies would have no one to sell to.

Shame on you, Dr Davis for helping the spread of ignorance.  You say "The tragedy is that diabetes is a curable condition".  The ignorance you are helping to spread is that anything called "diabetes" can be cured/controlled by proper eating alone.  As many other commenters have already said, Type 2 can be excellently controlled by low-carb eating although that is not the same as a cure. Type 1 diabetes is a lot easier to control with low-carb eating, but it cannot yet be cured by any method.  There is enough ignorance out there that all diabetics brought it on themselves without those who should know better reinforcing this erroneous view.

its just so sad to hear about those doctors whose practicing this. they should help / cure sick people not just deal of it.

I have been recommending Purity 12 to my patients. I have personally seen the wonders and effects of Purity 12. After looking at what was in these products and trying them myself, I knew then that it would be a very effective and efficient way to help change the lives of my patients. I’ve personally tried them and experienced the change that it gave. I know my patients would agree because I would notice the difference in their glow and aura whenever they come back! Learn More

I am so happy I found this blog!  

I am 43, with overall cholesterol of 230 and slightly elevated LDL and HDL of 57.  Ratio is 3.5.  Blood pressure is usually in the 130/90 range.  Weight is 240 at 5'11".  Good musculature but body fat all over.

I figure NOW is a good time to nip this in the bud.  I have started an exercise program and really like the way it makes me feel!

Worried that I might be straining a bad heart or something by ramping up workouts quickly, I got a Heart Scan.  The reading was zero.

I think that this means my likelihood of heart disease is pretty small?  I hope so, for I am proceeding cautiously but consistently and intensively with the exercise program.

I have pushed the diet to largely plant based, with low fat meats and of course tuna.  I still have fats in the salad dressings I eat, and I am having a hard time shaking the beer (which I love more than life itself, especially after a long hot day outside!).  I think I'd be OK if I could limit it to two, but that is, uh, difficult for me

So now I'll commence reading this blog of yours, and glean all of the positive reinforcement that you offer.

Thanks, Dr. Davis, and best regards!

Bob Brooks

Our city finished the outer loop quite a while ago, and had to put down the freeway next to existing neighborhoods. Most have really tall cement walls to supposedly cut down on the noise. I would guess they also cut down on the pollution too.

I wonder how much those walls might help in a study like that? If it's a lot, then maybe it would encourage putting up more walls for neighborhoods close to freeways.

I'm sure that those who routinely drive on those highways are getting more pollution and stress than those just living near the roads.

This German study is timely.  I have been looking at purchasing land in the country side and then building an energy efficient home on it.  I'm gong to add this study to my list of reasons why I should do it.

There are abstracts at PubMed that suggests that gamma-tocopherol can inhibit TNF-alpha. See for example--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12724340

I'm sure readers here are all capable of the basic maths involved but I would like to emphasize this research simply confirms what Dr Davis has previously told us about the average amounts needed to raise 25(OH)D status.
The study confirms 3320iu/d raised status 55.5nmol/l from 30 to 85.5nmol/L = 34.2ng
Bonn is 10 degrees further north from where Dr Davis works. EEC countries do not fortify milk/cereals with D3. It is likely therefore that double the amount used in this trial should produce, (at this more northerly latitude & in countries where milk/cereals are not vit D fortified) a result comparable to Dr Davis's finding, that his average patient requires 5500iu/d to achieve 60ng. (given the usual proviso's about individual variation and need for individual testing to confirm your particular needs)

What's the TYP take on this report:

"MRI study shows plaque lipid core depletion with intensive lipid-lowering therapy."

http://www.theheart.org/article/958759.do

"Intensive statin therapy in patients with coronary or carotid artery disease significantly depleted the lipid content of atherosclerotic plaques"

On a slightly different topic, this was on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8016006.stm

Now if vitamin D, vitamin D analogues and statins (which studies have shown raise D to some extent) have an impact on prostate issues, it should be glaringly clear what the 'magic ingredient' is. Yet we're still sold the mantra that analogues are safer (unproven) and statins have other benefits (again unproven).

Kiwi, what do you mean? What should it be? Statins work... to some very limited degree if not used at high doses or combined with other treatments.
BTW, there's an impressive synergy between statins and vitamin D.

Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Feb;85(2):198-203. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
Effects of vitamin D supplementation in atorvastatin-treated patients: a new drug interaction with an unexpected consequence.
Schwartz JB.

Kismet.
Well, it was a surprise to me that statins shrink plaque.
My cardiologist never explained that one to me ;)
I thought TYP was the gold-standard.

News today that men on statins have a significant reduction in prostate cancer (presumably through reduced inflammation).
Headline reads:
"Cholesterol-Busting 'Wonder' Drugs"

What about vitamin D then?
Where is:
"D the Wonder Vitamin"

Of course, no money in promoting it, so not newsworthy.
Most never get to hear about the broad spectrum benefits from D, even though it's well known medically now.
Could even save your life if you get swine flu.
I doubt statins will do that!

According to Marshall et al (you commented on his theory already) 25 (OH)D ist immunosupressive. This effect starts at about 20 ng/ml.  Thus it is no wonder that immflamatory markers are reduced. However suppresion of the immune systems may lead to other side effects, as growing number of pathogens that may be also relevant for other diseases (including hearth)
Alex

Talking about the vitamin D reminds us to get our bone and teeth strong. Everyone needs vitamins, I egree. This is a good website and thanks for sharing. Vitamins Blog

A German group has now shown that the important inflammatory marker, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), is also reduced by vitamin D supplementation. Many studies have implicated increased TNF levels in promoting cancer.

I have learned more about diabetes from Jenny's blog and her 101 site than I have from any doctor, any diabetes program I have attended or any reading I have done on my own. She has organized this information so it is easy to read and understand. After reading the information she posted, I realized that my blood glucose was high enough to put my health at great risk. My doctors did not seem too concerned, but with the help from a meter and low carb eating, my BG is now so much better.

Blogs and websites such as Jenny's and Dr. Davis' are invaluable. Thank you.

So glad to see this post.  Finding Jenny's website nearly two years ago was a pivotal point for me.

Despite my history with gestational diabetes, after my pregnancy my doctors didn't monitor my glucose control beyond an annual FBG, even when twice my dentist advised investigation because of the condition of my gums (my PCP said I was fine and not overweight enough for diabetes, even though after weaning I gained 5 lbs a year for 4 years).  

Still, knowing my pregnancy history put me and my son at higher risk, I kept my eyes open for information that might be pertinent about future risk (thinking 50s, 60s, and 70s, not my current age in the 40s).  Periodically, I would spend an evening online learning about the current state of research into risk factors and outcomes for mothers and offspring with gestational diabetes.  That's how I found Jenny's site.  I was in shock, I think.  Maybe outraged was more like it.  I realized I needed to know more about my current glucose metabolism condition right away.

Like Jenny, I am not nor have ever been obese, and my FBG is still (barely) in the normal range.  But I now know many carb-rich foods will give me diabetic level post meal BG.  And with even moderate sugar and starches in my diet, I will gain weigh easily.

I credit Jenny's website for providing the insight I needed to tighten my glucose control for my health, not just my weight.  I am achieving fairly normal BG levels with a high fat/low carb diet and without medications.   Additionally, the knowledge and confidence I gained from Jenny's website enabled me to approach my skeptical PCP and insist on a GTT and insulin levels, which turned out to be abnormal.

Of course, I have ordered Jenny's book and look forward to receiving it soon.  Knowing the high quality of her writing and website information, I am sure it will be a valuable book for people with diabetes, people who have family history of diabetes, and for those who have loved ones with diabetes.

Dear Dr Davis,

It's good to see an interview with Jenny. Her diabetes website was one of the first I discovered when I was trying to find answers when I was diagnosed with diabetes type 2 last year. I am not at all the typical type 2, I'm very slim and have never eaten junk or processed food. Her website was one that had answers for me, and it led on to Dr Bernstein and his book.

I'm glad Jenny has a book out now....I'll be buying it !

Anne

Thanks!  The American Diabetic Association says 2 abnormal readings are grounds to label someone "diabetic."  The healthcare industry loves labels--perhaps because once there's a "disease" they can assign a code that insurance companies will accept which then generates a whole treatment plan, including pharmaceutical products.  A high carbohydrate diet defies common sense in my opinion.  It just seems like this would trigger yoyo readings.

Jenny's blog and website should be required reading/participation for anybody with diabetes. She speaks truth.

Sarah, who credits a 5.1% a1c to the information provided by Jenny and others in the online community.

So for now there is a huge divide in the quality of life of those people with diabetes who educated enough to go out on the web and educate themselves and those who get their diabetes information from doctors. Sadly most doctors still encourage patients to eat low fat/ high carb diets, and counter the very high blood sugars this diet produces with oral drugs of questionable efficacy, while assuring patients they will be safe if they maintain blood sugar levels that meet the American Diabetes Association's recommendations, though a mass of research shows these are high enough to produce every single diabetic complication possible.