|All posts (215)||Dementia (7)||Infections (1)|
|ADHD (6)||Depression (4)||Liver disease (4)|
|Acne (1)||Diabetes (85)||MS (2)|
|Addiction (19)||Digestive issues (12)||Metabolic syndrome (5)|
|Allergies (4)||Eating Disorders (1)||Migraine (3)|
|Bipolar disorder (1)||Epilepsy (4)||PCOS / Fertility (12)|
|Cancer (12)||Gallbladder disease (1)||Parkinson's disease (2)|
|Caries/Crooked teeth (2)||Heart Disease (22)||Sleeping disorders (6)|
|Cholesterol (21)||High Blood Pressure (10)||Thyroid problems (2)|
I just got an email from Mike, who was told he was diabetic and that he had to go on drugs to control it.
However, he chose another path, the LCHF diet path. Here’s his short story:
The world’s largest meeting on diabetes research is over, but next year it will be in Stockholm, Sweden – almost my home town. I’ll be there and my suggestion to the organizers is simple. Try to get it right next time.
At least, do have the courage to discuss all the research showing that today’s lifestyle advice isn’t working for people with diabetes, but instead unfortunately makes people sicker. To ignore this fact is unreasonable and unethical when 5 million people die from their diabetes every year.
Here’s the obvious thing, that is being ignored at the diabetes conference. Instead, medications, advanced tests and molecules are discussed.
The tests are represented above with red circles (the chips lunch) and green triangles (eggs, olives and tuna fish salad and a goulash soup), respectively. Unfortunately I measured my blood sugar far fewer times after the second meal, but the difference is still obvious.
These are the results in a healthy, lean person. How much bigger do you think the difference would have been for a diabetic that really doesn’t tolerate large amounts of carbohydrates?
None of the drugs presented at the conference are without side effects. Yet, even combined, they won’t come close to providing the same effect that you get from just changing what you eat – which also provides many more benefits than just blood sugar improvements.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to make money from serving diabetics quality food. There’s big money in daily pills and injections. And it’s hard to make scientists and pharmaceutical business leaders change their view if it leads to a loss of income. Continue Reading →
Perhaps a somewhat better lunch the day after the last one, which says a lot about how horrible the former lunch was.
I didn’t eat from the conference bag above, but instead I went to a restaurant where you could buy real food. The idea was to test my blood sugar and compare with the last test:
What’s wrong with the world’s largest meeting on diabetes research? Nobody talks officially about the real problem. A problem that has been demonstrated in two gigantic studies in recent years. Studies nobody has the courage to talk about.
The market for diabetes research and diabetes medications will only increase as long as the silence continues. More and more people will get sick unnecessarily.
At the meeting, I got the chance to talk quite a bit with Professor Fredrik Nyström and Dr Anders Tengblad. They both have, just like I do, a keen interest in the importance of lifestyle for diabetics.
Official discussions about this were almost entirely absent from the conference. Despite over 1300 presented scientific articles and discussions, there were not very many about eating significantly less of what diabetics don’t tolerate (carbohydrates). How many do you think? The correct answer is… zero!
What happened when I ate the junk-food lunch at the diabetes meeting?
Above, you can see the blood-sugar graph. My blood sugar predictably shot up from all the sugar and starch. It peaked at around 160 mg/dl (9 mmol/l). The red circles above represent actual measurements, the line represents an average of two consecutive measurements.
A normal fasting blood sugar is between 70 mg/dl and 100 mg/dl (4 and 6 mmol/l). After a meal, blood glucose should stay below 160 mg/dl (8.7 mmol/l) to be considered normal.
Fortunately I don’t have diabetes, but still the blood sugar spikes to levels that usually only diabetics attain. The more often you do this, the worse it is. Or well, worse for the person who eats. But the better for those who sell diabetes medications and other diabetes-related things here at this conference.
With 15,000 participants here for an entire week, one might wonder how many will get type 2 diabetes from eating the junk that is served at the diabetes conference. Some of the participants will probably become part of the rapidly growing diabetes epidemic that feeds the entire diabetes industry.
There’s potential for an even bigger conference next year.
Will cholesterol levels, and thereby heart health, suffer when you eat a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet? That’s what people used to believe – even I thought so once – but science proves that this is wrong.
Studies on diets similar to LCHF usually show that the participants on average not only lose weight but also improve their health markers, including cholesterol. This is also what a Swedish expert investigation concluded last year. And this study from the other week was no exception.
Even the harshest critics have had to concede. Now, they’re sometimes claiming that LCHF will probably cause very poor health markers some time in the future, some time long after the studies have been completed. After, for example, five years – or after you’re weight is stable – LCHF will turn around magically and have the opposite effect.
However, once again reality shows something different. Here are some excellent newly published numbers after five years, from Sweden’s perhaps most rigorous LCHF person, Tommy Runesson. He cut his weight in half in the first couple of years and has since then been practically weight stable for three years:
Perhaps LCHF will magically instead have the opposite effect after six, seven years? Although this doesn’t appear to be the case:
Next week it’s time for the world’s largest scientific meeting about diabetes, EASD, in Vienna. Nearly 20,000 physicians, scientists, vendors and other participants will be there.
The major problem with diabetes treatment today is that diabetics are advised to eat the very thing that they can’t handle – large amounts of carbohydrates. This makes it necessary for diabetics to use a lot of potentially dangerous drugs, they gain weight and suffer long-term complications from uncontrolled blood sugar. The question is if this will even be mentioned on stage at the conference.
On short notice I decided to attend the conference myself on Monday. It could be exciting, or what do you think? Reports are coming up.
Is it harmful to eat a low-carbohydrate diet for weight loss? Or is it even HEALTHIER than the current low-fat dietary advice?
A major new study published today further fuels the debate and has already made major headlines. In the study 148 people were told to eat either a low-carb diet (under 40 g of carbs per day) or a low-fat diet, for one year.
The results are similar to those in previous studies. Once again, those on a low-carb diet lost significantly more weight, in this case three times more:
Those who ate a low-carbohydrate diet also lost more fat mass.
What will upset people the most is that the low-carb group also got better cholesterol levels than those in the low-fat group! As usual, they got more of the good HDL cholesterol, lower triglycerides and an improved cholesterol profile (total/HDL). As if this wasn’t enough, the fat eaters in the low-carb group received a significantly lower risk assessment for heart disease according to the 10-year Framingham risk score!
In addition, the low-carb group got significantly less inflammation in the body (measured as CRP).
Finally, conspiracy theorists don’t get any support that “the meat industry” is behind all studies showing that low-carb diets work best. This study was funded by American tax dollars (through the National Institutes of Health). None of the authors have any financial ties to the industry.
Even before this study the results were nearly unanimous that a low-carb diet provides a better weight and better health markers than today’s low-fat advice:
After today’s study the truth becomes even clearer. It becomes even harder (and more embarrassing) for people to stick their heads in the sand.
When are people with weight problems going to receive scientifically sound dietary advice from most health care professionals? Hopefully soon.
TIME: For Weight Loss, Low-Carb Diet Beats Low-Fat
New York Times: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Reuters: Low-carb diets may beat low-fat options for weight loss, heart health
Washington Post: Low carb diets more than low fat ones may help protect against heart disease
USNews: Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Heart Health: Study Continue Reading →
- 1New Major Study: A Low-Carb Diet Yet Again Best for Both Weight and Health Markers!129
- 2All Diets are Equally Good … Or Are They?78
- 3Fancy a Bug Bar?47
- 4Lunch at the Diabetes Conference40
- 5Do You Want to Watch the Excellent Obesity Documentary FED UP?40
- 1Could that Low-Fat Diet Make You Even Fatter?340
- 2Dr. Oz Positive to LCHF Against Alzheimer’s!196
- 3My Health Markers After Eight Years on LCHF142
- 4New Major Study: A Low-Carb Diet Yet Again Best for Both Weight and Health Markers!129
- 5Sugar vs Fat on BBC: Which is Worse?125
- One MonthOne Year
- 1LCHF for Beginners
- 3How to Lose Weight
- 4Science and Low Carb / Paleo
- 5Questions and answers about LCHF
- 6About Diet Doctor
- 1 - 56 - 6
- Dinner at Diet Doctor's
- LCHF for Beginners
- "I was told I was “diabetic” and had to go on drugs to control it"
- Gallstones and Low Carb
- Another Reason to be Skeptical of Artificial Sweeteners
- Fernán: Interesting! I have a question,…
- "LCHF Saved Me!"
- Mini P.G: Running short of recipes in…
- More comments