Better Blood Sugar, Better Memory

brain-650x499

Yet another recent study shows that people with better (lower) blood glucose levels have a better memory and fewer signs of brain damage:

Neurology: Higher glucose levels associated with lower memory and reduced hippocampal microstructure

As usual, these are only statistical associations, and not evidence that blood sugar affects memory. However, more and more data suggest that high blood sugar levels risk causing long-term damage to the brain.

I just checked my blood sugar, an hour after an LCHF breakfast (eggs fried in butter, roast beef, coffee with cream). It was 99 mg/dl (5.5 mmol/l) – excellent.

More

Dr. Oz Positive to LCHF Against Alzheimer’s!

Order a blood glucose monitor at Amazon.com (Affiliate link, ordering supports this free blog)

40 Comments

Top Comment

  1. FrankG
    But surely that can't be right..? Isn't glucose the brain's "preferred" fuel, so obviously "more is better"..?

    It seems that as each day passes, Alzheimer's is being increasingly recognised as Type 3 Diabetes. Knowing friends who have cared for loved ones during the final stages of this devastating condition, makes me fear the backlash against "the establishment" when the truth is finally realised.

    Reply: #2
    Read more →

All Comments

  1. FrankG
    But surely that can't be right..? Isn't glucose the brain's "preferred" fuel, so obviously "more is better"..?

    It seems that as each day passes, Alzheimer's is being increasingly recognised as Type 3 Diabetes. Knowing friends who have cared for loved ones during the final stages of this devastating condition, makes me fear the backlash against "the establishment" when the truth is finally realised.

    Reply: #2
  2. robert
    Why fear it? Nobody will be lynched, although the urge might be there. Sued, maybe. Discredited, maybe. It is high time the old dogma and accompanying sleaze in all sorts of outwardly health-promoting organizations are burnt down without mercy and exposed as what they are.

    No more health-claims for rancid omega6-laden butter-replacements of dubious origin, "tick of approval" by heart-foundations for breakfast-candy made from hearthealthywholegrains (with vitamins A,B and C, iron-filings...) or fructose heavy "fruit"-juices for a good start into the day (hah!).

    Why is it allowed to disguise total sugar on food-labels by its many names...
    Why are pharma companies allowed to withhold data accumulated in trials that are used to make decisions on whether some drug actually works, what side effects it has?

    The whole system is rotten at its core. It is our job to change it.

    Just one word: "ENOUGH".

    Use it every time you're fed disproven rubbish.

    https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/6119-stop-the-heart-foundation-lies

    Reply: #3
  3. FrankG
    A figure of speech I guess Robert. Of course I welcome the realisation that we are harming ourselves with the current, predominant "expert advice". I do however hope that this does not result in an inherent distrust in the true scientific method (beyond an healthy scrutiny of what we are led to believe) nor a blanket condemnation of all medical health practitioners. :-)
    Reply: #4
  4. robert
    The "true scientific method" is highly welcomed. I'm all for hard endpoints, not some wishy-washy surrogate numbers that supposedly correlate with some outcome (if the moon-phase is right).

    Now remains the issue that we don't always get it in the medical / pharmaceutical sciences / businesses. Even if this flaw might not always be intentional, it has to be addressed by critical people without any conflict of interest whatsoever. The problem of sleaze and cronyism.

    After heaving read various books / publications by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov (just to name one I like), one has to wonder why we still have to put up with so many disproven "truths".

    A scientist's job is to try to falsify a theory with everything he/she's got - not to prove it. If the theory holds, it may be considered a good working model for the time being. Just one black swan is enough to require reworking the theory.

    For decades the old dogma has seen flocks of black swans, but nothing changed. So I have to conclude, that we don't get "the true scientific method" in this sector. At least not when big $ is involved.

    Reply: #5
  5. FrankG
    "A scientist's job is to try to falsify a theory with everything he/she's got - not to prove it. If the theory holds, it may be considered a good working model for the time being. Just one black swan is enough to require reworking the theory."

    Exactly! And I think this is why Gary Taubes ignited so much animosity in the Medical "Science" field. With a background in Physics he knew how self-critically it was really supposed to be done and it clearly is well below standard*. We even see that here when some commenters pose "challenges" in hopes of "proving a point"... evidently they have _missed_ the point completely.

    * I recall him discussing his experience at physics presentations after which the presenter had better be damn well prepared for the rapid-fire cross-examination from his peers and be ready to justify his position. Compare that to his first experience at a nutrition presentation, which concluded with nothing but by polite applause!

  6. Steve
    Dr.Oz is coming around, this must be a sign of the end of times! My question is, will he ever apologize to Gary Taubes for the underhanded way in which he treated him on that episode?
  7. eddy
  8. Wade Henderson
    I looked at the link to that study.

    Here is the dietary advices of the lead author, Agnes Floel

    From a interview and email she exchanged with NPR (National Public Radio)-

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What we eat is important. "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products" is recommended, Floel wrote to us in an email.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/25/240784956/aging-well-keep...

    Reply: #9
  9. FrankG
    OMG she said "whole-grain products!" LOL... is that meant to suggest that we should summarily discount this study and ignore the findings... because of what one of the researchers replied in an e-mail? Is _that_ the "true scientific method"?

    I agree with her, what we eat _is_ important. For many like myself even whole-grains are completely out but that is not to say it is the same for everyone.

    Reply: #10
  10. Wade Henderson
    Come on FrankG,

    "because of what one of the researchers replied in an e-mail? Is _that_ the "true scientific method"

    She, Anges Floel, is the lead author and head of the entire study.

    She is just saying for normal folks, like herself, she incudes carbs, such as those healthy carbs found in whole grain products.

    She is not freaking out as we see in Grain Brain and such publications.

    Replies: #11, #12
  11. robert
    You do realize that "healthy carbs from whole grains" is quite a generalization.

    A lot of people don't do well eating grains, for whatever reason. So why are they healthy? And does she mean that carbs themselves are healthy (contentious) or the grains as food (contentious)?

    Declaring a food as healthy should entail that the vast majority of people can consume it without ill effects on their health - without making a conscious effort to stick to small serving sizes and so forth. Try overeating eggs. Grains and the omnipresent carbage derived from them don't really fit into that box.

  12. FrankG
    Come on Wade Henderson,

    It is not even an entire quote but a snip, with the context and emphasis provided by Allison Aubrey* who wrote the NPR piece

    What we eat is important. "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products" is recommended

    I wonder what the entire e-mail chain says? Maybe the correspondent asked Dr Floel "do you think that a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products is important?" and perhaps the response was "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products is currently recommended but for many the grains may prove to be troublesome and fruits may need to be limited to occasional wild berries."

    Obviously I am speculating because I really have no way of knowing, any more the you do Wade Henderson.

    And sure she may have been the lead author of this study... she could be gawd almighty for all I care..! does any of that change the findings of the study? Sure I am critical and skeptical of any study -- that is the scientific method -- but I'm especially alert when the agenda is questionable; such as pharmaceutical companies paying for statin trials.. but even those rarely if ever seem to outright lie about the data. They may try to skew the results with pre-screening the test subjects and applying misleading interpretations to the conclusions but unless I am very naive the data are not entirely fabricated.

    Results: Lower HbA1c and glucose levels were significantly associated with better scores in delayed recall, learning ability, and memory consolidation. In multiple regression models, HbA1c remained strongly associated with memory performance. Moreover, mediation analyses indicated that beneficial effects of lower HbA1c on memory are in part mediated by hippocampal volume and microstructure.

    ---

    *http://www.npr.org/people/2100208/allison-aubrey

  13. Murray
    I always read with interest the recommendation of the researcher at the end of a report. It is especially revealing if it is stock advice outside their area of expertise, which indicates confirmation bias. Her advice is stock advice, without the appropriate qualification. It appears anti-fat, anti-meat (other than fish) for example, by negative pregnant. It may get you at HbA1c under 6.0, on average (if no insulin resistance), which is considered normal by the people touting that advice. It is advice for a farmer tending a herd, not a coach training an athlete. Personally, I lowered my HbA1c from 5.3 to 4.7 by reducing from low carb to very low carb and keeping portions modest. No healthywholegrains, no fruit other than berries, as much variety of leafy greens and no starchy vegetables I can manage, modest protein including eggs and organ meats, and as much healthy fat as I need for energy.
    Reply: #14
  14. FrankG
    Exactly Murray.. the study was looking at the HbA1C level and not the effect of different diets on memory and hippocampal microstructure.

    This does not make her an expert adviser on which diet is the best to achieve optimal memory and hippocampal microstructure.

    That is assuming we allow that the incomplete sentence, as quoted, should even be taken as "advice" -- "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products"

    As Dr Eenfeldt suggests above, get yourself a Blood Glucose home test kit and figure out what works best for you.

    Reply: #15
  15. Galina L.
    Exactly, why to recommend the list of foods when the blood sugar levels are discussed, and individual differences could be significant? Why to start the list of important foods with a fiber? Just get informed about your own blood sugar fluctuations. You may be surprised one way or another. I do wish they would stop their war on red meat and praise fish as an optimal food. There are a lot good things could be said about fish, but many find red meat to be more satiating, and some people, like me, even have fish allergies.
  16. Wade Henderson
    Robert, FrankG, Murray, Amazing just how far some will go to twist a simple statement by the lead author, such that it would make her advice fit some preconceived position you feel must be bolstered.

    The author clearly made the statement, despite FrankG's machinations that the quote was cropped or otherwise altered to fit some agenda of the NPR staff member.

    I don't doubt that some of you may have problems with certain foods, but why the need to interpret every study through your own special needs?

    The author of the study was dealing with the facts and made her recommendation to a audience of average folks, for whom she felt that the inclusion of "whole grain products" was in line with a healthy outcome..... and didn't contradict her study conclusions.

    Dr Eenfeldt wouldn't have included the study if he didn't think the lead authore was credible.

    Replies: #17, #18
  17. FrankG
    Just as amazing as your special ability to read recommendation to a audience of average folks, for whom she felt that the inclusion of "whole grain products" was in line with a healthy outcome into a snip which did not even encompass one complete sentence from an e-mail! LOL

    I said nothing about her credibility, simply that her observations in this study (the "facts" as you say) do not qualify her to offer dietary advice on how best to achieve a low HbA1c :-)

  18. Paul the rat
    Obviously you are not in a scientific field doing research Wade thus I forgive you your naivety. Authors had to make such a statement underlying how good carbs are (despite the fact that their work points to the other direction for everyone with a fraction of a brain to see), otherwise their work would not be published in this journal. I am sure everyone of us can elaborate on the details why et cetera.
    (by the way "consuming healthy whole-grains' does contradict with this study conclusions - big time)
  19. Wade Henderson
    "otherwise their work would not be published in this journal. I am sure everyone of us can elaborate on the details why et cetera."

    Oh please, for those few of us who are "not in a scientific field doing research" please give us the basic 1, 2, 3 points, so that we also may understand the conspiracy forcing the author to make such unscientific musings..

    I guess the Palace Guard at Neurology must have demanded the inclusion of "whole grain products" in her recommendation.

    Reply: #28
  20. Paul the rat
    Yeah, probably.
    ( by the way, it is not conspiracy , it is fact of life)
  21. Wade Henderson
    "I am sure everyone of us can elaborate on the details why et cetera."

    I'm waiting. Anyone?

  22. FrankG
    This was NOT a diet trial. anything that she choose to say or e-mail to NPR that falls outside the observed data of this study is her opinion. Opinion which she is entitled to of course but it has no bearing on the study or its results.

    And at the risk of repeating myself you are making an huge deal out of a snip. A snip that does not even constitute a complete sentence. What I mean by this is that the words "What we eat is important." and "is recommended" are NOT direct quotes -- notice the lack of quotation marks...

    What we eat is important. "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products" is recommended, Floel wrote to us in an email.

    Which means all we can take as directly coming from Dr Floel is "Consuming a diet rich in fiber, vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole-grain products" ...with the context and emphasis added by the correspondent. I might be interested to see the whole context of this vague snip but otherwise I am (just like Wade) simply speculating as to its intention. I remain skeptical as to what the correspondent added to this quote which reads as if she is completing the incomplete sentence... skeptical because if Dr Floel had indeed stated this then why is it not a direct quote?

    BUT as this was NOT a diet trail, the trial data does NOT qualify Dr Floel to make any such statement based on the trial results, anyway!

    So any chance we can discuss the study itself?

    Reply: #23
  23. Wade Henderson
    Once we get a complete copy of the full study details, we can indeed discuss it.
    As yet, I have not been able to see the full study.
    Please give me a link if you have one.

    Until then, I think I'll rely on what the lead author says.

    Reply: #24
  24. FrankG
    "Until then, I think I'll rely on what the lead author says."

    About the trial, or about what Dr Floel (at least according to this NPR article) says people should eat? Especially as it neatly fits your own bias?

    Once again her opinion about diet is not taken from the study but was snipped from an e-mail correspondence.

    Believe who the heck you like. Choose blind trust, even in an apparently credible source if you will. I'd rather follow where the data leads thanks.

    Reply: #25
  25. Wade Henderson
    Bottom line FrankG, have you read the study? The entire study?

    If so, give me a link, so we can see the details. Without that you have minimal information about what the study actually says.

  26. FrankG

    Methods: In 141 individuals (72 women, mean age 63.1 years ± 6.9 SD), memory was tested using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Peripheral levels of fasting HbA1c, glucose, and insulin and 3-tesla MRI scans were acquired to assess hippocampal volume and microstructure, as indicated by gray matter barrier density. Linear regression and simple mediation models were calculated to examine associations among memory, glucose metabolism, and hippocampal parameters

    What more do you need to read to see that this was NOT a diet trial?

    Seems to me like a one-time collection of measurements on 171 individuals -- with a reasonable final conclusion of...

    "Therefore, strategies aimed at lowering glucose levels even in the normal range may beneficially influence cognition in the older population, a hypothesis to be examined in future interventional trials."

    ---

    More to the point you keep harping on about Wade is, have YOU read the entire e-mail correspondence between Dr Floel and Allison Aubrey?

  27. murray
    Wade, I think you are getting a little obtuse. The abstract sets out the method, which was to measure blood glycation and brain MRIs. There is no mention whatsoever of any attempt to link the results to diet, nor do the results purport to state any linkage to diet.

    Methods: In 141 individuals (72 women, mean age 63.1 years ± 6.9 SD), memory was tested using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Peripheral levels of fasting HbA1c, glucose, and insulin and 3-tesla MRI scans were acquired to assess hippocampal volume and microstructure, as indicated by gray matter barrier density. Linear regression and simple mediation models were calculated to examine associations among memory, glucose metabolism, and hippocampal parameters.

    I have read 1000s of reports of research and they typically have a couple of quotes from the author of the research, including a quote on diet implications or some other metric of relevance. To get funding they have to indicate the relevance of the research, which generally means identifying relevance according to the presumed criteria of the reviewing panel, which generally means the status quo ante--i.e., accepted dogma. This is why I am so interested in the dietary recommendation of the author, because the only advice that warrants credibility beyond the status quo ante is contrarian advice that arises as a result of the research. So nothing this particular author said about diet has any potential to change my mind regarding diet, as it is mere cant. The research, however, enhances the credibility of the unexpected (for me, anyway) evidence that there is no U-curve with blood sugar-----the lower the better. I did not expect that. I am not surprised, after thinking about it, but I did not expect it. The tired advice about healthywholegrains is laughably routine.

    It reminds me of the report on the Mayo clinic study that showed the highest carb consumers had a 360% higher risk of signs of cognitive decline than the average (yes, 3.6 times the rate!!) and the highest fat eaters had 0.42 times the average rate (less than half). The lead author said this shows people should moderate their sugar consumption. Okay....AND? ....but as expected, no comment regarding the finding re fat.

  28. FrankG

    I guess the Palace Guard at Neurology must have demanded the inclusion of "whole grain products" in her recommendation.

    You really do seem unable (or unwilling?) to separate the published study in Neurology from the re-interpretation of it in NPR. Do you not know the difference between a peer-reviewed, scientific journal and news-media?

    BOTTOM LINE: The term "whole grain products" was NOT part of the study but (we are told) came from an e-mail Dr Floel sent to the NPR correspondent. For some odd reason the word "recommended" is NOT a direct quote, but you even seem to have difficulty separating what the correspondent writes from the quoted opinions (only) of Dr Floel.

  29. Wade Henderson
    Look, one of the articles the Diet Doctor links us to is found in the article about Dr. Oz coming around to the carbs idea.

    Here is that same article that Dr Eenfeldt links us to in the Oz article
    (http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-oz-positive-lchf-alzheimers/comment-page-1#comments)

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=abstract

    So we look at that New England Journal article.

    We can't get the full article, but the data it is based on is reproduced here.

    http://thesunbreak.com/2013/08/15/dementia-fed-by-high-blood-sugar-le...

    Look at that same data and look at the levels under which the danger is reduced.
    Suggesting that those with average glucose levels of .95 mg/dl have a below average hazard ratio for dementia.

    Lots of healthy people, eating whole grain products have average glucose levels at or below .95 mg/dl

    Mine is always lower, in the 85 range, perhaps even below.

    Seems that lots of healthy folks, can easily utilize and thrive on such foods. No need for them to get crazy about such matters.

    Remember now, the data you see listed there is the same data from the article Dr. Eenfeldt links us to.

    So are you suggesting that a person with a 85 mg/dl eliminate almost all whole grains from their diet? Driving their levels possibly under 80 mg/dl if that was even possible for them to do?

    Just what is your advice about the end game or goal you want to achieve, such that they should revamp their seemingly healthy diet?

    Ever lower better, just like the ever lower low-fat folks do on the other side of the coin?

    Reply: #37
  30. NS
    @resident zealot-in-chief, FG

    So are you saying that in this case your beloved, "correlation does not causation" does not apply here? Fascinating how you selectively fail to extend that same logic to other significant pieces of the puzzle, i.e. gut dysbiosis and infectious pathogens, that may not fit neatly into your cave. Wonderful to see your intellectual integrity.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249818

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24009397

    http://www.gutpathogens.com/content/5/1/10

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19874530

    Reply: #36
  31. Galina L.
    The gut microbiota subject is very interesting, on one hand it indeed looks like the right fecal transplant may solve the problem with a tendency to be chubby, to have allergies, and much more. On another hand, the convincing on a paper and in experiments theory comes into a contradiction with personal experiences of many, so sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. For example, my son somehow managed to avoid my chubbiness causing microbiota during vaginal birth and breastfeeding, and took after his naturally lean father who he met first time at the age of 3. They both have stable low-normal blood sugar levels regardless of the food they eat, I am starving my obviously wrong gut environment with LCarbing. I am not totally sure about killing my microbiota, but appetite is killed! Try to eat coconut oil , nasty bugs!
  32. NS
    Galina,

    I have found the regular addition of fermented foods like kimchi, vinegar, sauerkraut, and natto to be extremely helpful. Coconut oil has done nothing for me personally except aggravate my acid reflux symptoms.

  33. murray
    Yes, gut bacteria have caused me to rethink diabetes causation. I read Dr. Campbell-McBrides book on the Gut and Psychology Syndrome, which is a diet protocol derived form the selective carbohydrate diet developed in the early 20th century, before falling into disuse after the advent of pharmaceuticals. She has had clinical success with a diet crafted to restore healthy gut lining and gut flora, notably eliminating grains and other sources of starch and disaccharides, but retaining monosaccharides. Undesirable bacteria, yeast and moulds cause problems, releasing toxins that cause leaky gut and have toxic effects in the body. Her focus is neurotoxins, being a neurologist.

    There were a couple of interesting reports of research this past week. Toxins from staphylococcus bacteria in the gut (in combination with toxins from normal e. coli) work synergistically to disable liver destruction of toxins that signal fat cells to produce cytokines, causing inflammation. Earlier research identified cytokines are agents in epilepsy, which is a condition Dr. Campbell-McBride has had success treating with diet to improve gut health. Another report that came out this week found a higher correlation of high-carb diet to depression in women, again consistent with the proliferation of bad bacteria with a diet high in acellular starch and sugar.

    So perhaps a significant factor in developing insulin resistance is inflammation from bad bacteria, yeasts and moulds from excess acellular starch and sugar in the diet, in addition to, in place of, or in synergy with the continual, massive blood sugar spikes caused by these foods.

    The protocol Dr. Campbell-McBride has developed from years of clinical experience is interesting. It is plainly not LCHF, including ripe fruit, beets, carrots and honey. Her protocol does promote fermented foods, including dairy. Dairy is interesting, as it counsels elimination, as many people with gut problems are dairy sensitive, followed by reintroduction in a slow sequence: ghee, cultured butter, live non-commercail yoghurt, live non-commercial kefir and then cheese. Curiously, some cheeses (Parmesan, blue, gouda) but not others (Gruyere). presumably depending on the bacteria culture. This leads to Dave Asprey's sensitivity to different probiotics regarding stimulation of histamines, of which he is acutely sensitive. So some commonly used yoghurt bacteria work for him and others are a problem. The problem with fermented foods, which are great in general for most people, is that you may need strict controls on the bacteria, as opposed to wild ferments where there is a lot left to chance. The chance of variety may be a good thing for the general, but a disaster for the acutely sensitive.

    My takeaway from all of this so far is that research into gut and metabolic relationships are in their infancy and the scientific methods currently used are not up to the task. It does make a mockery of the calories in, calories out methods, as I have yet to see a study that measures caloric consumption by the gut flora, nor any nutrition studies that control for the state of gut health. My takeaway from that is that nutrition science still works with thick clumsy fingers and one best draw insights from clinical experience of physicians, preferably those who overcame their own disease--or their spouse's or their children's--breaking free from guidelines. Genuine progress is made when the brightest minds have something deeply personal at stake, beyond financial interests.

  34. Galina L.
    NS,
    I grew-up on fermented vegetables (we didn't have fresh produce at winter time, only root vegetables and fermented ones), and I still make my own fermented cabbage and pickles which are always present in my fridge. So, I didn't have an opportunity to appreciate some positive change in my health from adding such food into my diet. I am sure the diet of traditional foods and the habit to cook my own food saved me from being obese (and contributed to the health of my family members), but it didn't turn me into a naturally thin person. I still have to limit carbohydrates in my diet to have a better health and to stay at a normal size.
  35. VKOOL
    I like eating fermented food but I am afraid that it is somehow not good for my stomach. Many people told me that those fermented food is the cause of cancer as well. I am wondering if what they said was right. Should I stop eating fermented food?
  36. FrankG

    ...are you saying that in this case your beloved, "correlation does not causation" does not apply here?

    Where exactly do you see me suggesting any such thing?

    Did I perhaps overstate the results of this study when I quoted the study...

    "Therefore, strategies aimed at lowering glucose levels even in the normal range may beneficially influence cognition in the older population, a hypothesis to be examined in future interventional trials."

    ...especially with my bold emphasis on the closing statement suggesting that further study is needed?

    Was that it?

    Or was it in my apparently glaring oversight in failing to address gut bacteria while discussing a study titled "Higher glucose levels associated with lower memory and reduced hippocampal microstructure"

    Where?

  37. FrankG

    ...are you suggesting that a person with a 85 mg/dl eliminate almost all whole grains from their diet? Driving their levels possibly under 80 mg/dl if that was even possible for them to do?Just what is your advice about the end game or goal you want to achieve, such that they should revamp their seemingly healthy diet?

    Again you seem to be putting words into my mouth. Why? I have said no such thing. The only "advice" I have offered in these comments was...

    As Dr Eenfeldt suggests above, get yourself a Blood Glucose home test kit and figure out what works best for you.

    ...this is hardly condemning the way you eat, or what works for you, is it?

    One the other hand this blog is a place to learn about LCHF, so if that approach does not suit you, why keep coming here?

    Reply: #38
  38. FrankG

    [On] the other hand this blog is a place to learn about LCHF, so if that approach does not suit you, why keep coming here?

    Surely you are not trying to convince those who benefit from an LCHF approach that "they should revamp their seemingly healthy diet"..?

    Reply: #39
  39. Wade Henderson
    "Surely you are not trying to convince those who benefit from an LCHF approach that "they should revamp their seemingly healthy diet"..?"

    Oh no, I don't expect those who always pile up convincing evidence from one side to change their ways. They choose to reinforce what they believe over and over and over, normally dismissing any evidence that contradicts their chosen theme.

    This certainly isn't limited to the LCHF crowd. The LFHC crowd does exactly the same thing.

    For the rest of us, probing and questioning the extremes is a useful way of learning.
    Both about diet and about the nature of human psychology.

    By all means, individuals should find what works best for their particular situation.
    However I would think it ideal for all folks to keep their mind open to all the developing science rather than condemning or twisting each item to fit a preconceived notion.

    As such, wanting to know whether a lower reading, below one"s current 85 mg/dl, would benefit a otherwise normally healthy person.
    My readings are low, yet I had a parent who developed dementia. Uncertain if it was pure Alzheimers, vascular related, or some other form. They rarely do autopsies on such individuals, especially when they die well into their eighties.

    So I am curious and handle that by "questioning" the statements of any side, where the prescription for health is often taken without serious questioning.
    Such as ALL people benefiting by cutting down on whole grains.

    Much like people eliminating ALL animal fats, ALL dairy and eggs, and ALL oils.
    Obviously you question such opinions.
    Yet some here seem to suggest that elimination of carbs below 80 grams would be beneficial to nearly ALL individuals.

    So I question that. Many of us learn by questioning instead of repeated piling up of evidence that supports only one side.
    But some seem to find questioning as a attack, circling the wagons.

    Whether it be low fat or low carbs, I look around the world and examine significant populations where healthy people live and see what they have eaten for decades and centuries.

    Quite frankly, I don't find any where the extreme low fat or the extreme low carb diets are maintained. (No, I don't find anything about in the Inuit compelling for general populations)
    Still there is some interesting science, that guides intelligent people in their personal lives.
    Non diet folks like professor Cynthia Kenyon at UCSF.
    She is a normal person who seems to think there may be benefit in going low carb.
    Then there are others, equally intelligent, but with no agenda, on the opposite tact.

    So, I'll keep questioning the blanket style advice.

    I keep asking for evidence and study data showing a benefit for those who already have glucose levels 85 mg/dl or below, to further reduce that reading via lower carbs..... and that such a reduction will lead to less dementia or Alzheimers, or to lower heart disease.
    Information of such a benefit is either missing or scant as it relates to humans.

    That is why I ask. Unlike many, I am open to completely changing my ideas. Just like to keep my mind completely free from the dogma of both sides.

    Reply: #40
  40. FrankG
    All sounds very creditable and reasonable... in which case maybe we could stay focused on the established facts: in this case, as they relate to the study in question, rather that leap off into unqualified opinion (questionably re-interpreted) in news media.

    I am also still open-minded and willing to change if convincing evidence is presented. Hence the early comments in this post regarding the scientific method. Please don't anyone confuse my enthusiasm for the LCHF approach and the significant impact it has had on my health, as overzealous dogma.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts