Vegan Diet May Treat Diabetes
Roman Bystrianyk
Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/health/webmd/main1837927.shtml
Eating a low-fat vegan diet may be better at managing type 2 diabetes
than traditional diets, according to a new study.
Researchers found 43 percent of people with type 2 diabetes who
followed a low-fat vegan diet for 22 weeks reduced their need to take
medications to manage their disease compared with 26 percent of those
who followed the diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association
(ADA).
In addition, participants who followed the vegan diet experienced
greater reductions in cholesterol levels and weight loss than those on
the other diet.
A vegan diet is plant-based and consists of vegetables, fruits, grains,
and legumes and avoids animal products, such as meat and dairy. People
who are on a vegan diet are at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, and so
B12 vitamins were given to the participants on that diet.
"The diet appears remarkably effective, and all the side effects are
good ones -- especially weight loss and lower cholesterol," says
researcher Neal D. Barnard, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine
at the George Washington University, in a news release. "I hope this
study will rekindle interest in using diet changes first, rather than
prescription drugs."
Barnard is also president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine, a nonprofit health organization that opposes animal research
and advocates a vegan diet.
Vegan Vs. ADA Diet For Diabetes
In the study, published in the journal Diabetes Care, researchers
compared the effects of following a low-fat vegan diet and the ADA diet
on reducing the need for drugs to manage diabetes, kidney function,
cholesterol levels, and weight loss in 99 adults with type 2 diabetes.
Meals were not provided, but participants met a dietitian to come up
with a diet plan and then met regularly each week for nutrition and
cooking instruction.
Forty-nine of the participants followed a low-fat vegan diet consisting
of about 10 percent of daily calories from fat, 15 percent protein, and
75 percent carbohydrates. They were asked to avoid animal products and
added fats and instead favor foods like beans and green vegetables, but
portion sizes and total daily calories or food intake were
unrestricted.
The other 50 participants followed the dietary guidelines recommended
by the ADA, including 15-20 percent protein, 60-70 percent
carbohydrates and monosaturated fats (such as olive oil), and less than
7 percent saturated fats (such as animal fats and butter). Total
cholesterol was also limited to 200 milligrams or less per day.
Overweight participants in the ADA diet group were also advised to
reduce daily calorie intake by 500-1,000 calories per day.
The results showed that both diets improved diabetes management and
reduced unhealthy cholesterol levels, but some improvements were
greater with the low-fat vegan diet.
For example:
# 43 percent of those on the vegan diet reduced their need to take
drugs to manage their diabetes compared with 26 percent of the ADA diet
group.
# Weight loss averaged more than 14 pounds in the vegan diet group vs.
less than 7 pounds in the other group.
# LDL "bad" cholesterol dropped by an average of 21 percent in the
vegan group compared with 11 percent in the ADA diet group who did not
change their cholesterol drug use.
# Measures of blood sugar control also improved more significantly
among those who followed the low-fat vegan diet than among those who
followed the ADA diet and who did not change their diabetes drug use.
Researchers say the vegan diet represents a major change from current
diabetes diets because there are no limits on calories, carbohydrates,
and portions, which may make it easier for some people to follow. Talk
to your doctor about what diet changes you might consider to help with
diabetes or other medical conditions.
SOURCES:Barnard, N. Diabetes Care, August 2006; vol 29: pp 1777-1783.
News release, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
- Larry Weisenthal
1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
factors
in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
Seidl K,
Green AA, Talpers S.
5100 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20016.
nbar...@pcrm.org.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate whether a low-fat vegan diet
improves
glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with
type 2
diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes
(n = 99)
were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (n = 49) or a diet
following the
American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (n = 50). Participants
were
evaluated at baseline and 22 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-three percent (21 of
49) of
the vegan group and 26% (13 of 50) of the ADA group participants
reduced
diabetes medications. Including all participants, HbA(1c) (A1C)
decreased 0.96
percentage points in the vegan group and 0.56 points in the ADA group
(P =
0.089). Excluding those who changed medications, A1C fell 1.23 points
in the
vegan group compared with 0.38 points in the ADA group (P = 0.01). Body
weight
decreased 6.5 kg in the vegan group and 3.1 kg in the ADA group (P <
0.001).
Body weight change correlated with A1C change (r = 0.51, n = 57, P <
0.0001).
Among those who did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL
cholesterol fell
21.2% in the vegan group and 10.7% in the ADA group (P = 0.02). After
adjustment
for baseline values, urinary albumin reductions were greater in the
vegan group
(15.9 mg/24h) than in the ADA group (10.9 mg/24 h) (P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS:
Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved
glycemic
and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were
greater
with a low-fat vegan diet.
Juhana Harju
: Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
: Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
: evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
: 1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of
: evidence.
:
: - Larry Weisenthal
Hi Larry,
Did you notice that there is another thread about the same subject:
I have no doubts that a well planned vegan or near vegan diet works in type
2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too, although
I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high protein
diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and blood lipids. High
intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine and heme
iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an adverse
effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name just
few concerns.
--
Juhana
: 1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
Roman Bystrianyk
type
2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too,
although
I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high protein
diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and blood lipids.
High
intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine and
heme
iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an
adverse
effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name
just
few concerns.
There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence in the long term
risks of meat and dairy intake. Here is one example:
Roman Bystrianyk, "Meat and Dairy Increase The Risk of Heart Disease",
Health Sentinel, September 7, 2005,
Since the popularity of Atkins, Zone, Protein Power and other high
protein diets, many Americans are avoiding carbohydrates in favor of
meat and high fat dairy sources such as cheese. Little information is
available on the long-term effects of these diets on human health
although studies show a strong correlation between countries with high
animal protein intake and coronary heart disease [CHD], although
short-term ecologic studies show a favorable effect on blood fats and a
lower risk of ischemic (decreased blood flow to the heart) heart
disease.
A 20-year follow-up study of over 25,000 California Seventh-day
Adventists showed a positive association between meat consumption and
ischemic heart disease. A 14-year follow-up study in over 80,000 women
showed a significant increased risk of major CHD events. In that same
study, a subgroup of over 57,000 postmenopausal women showed that
processed meats, such as hog dogs, bacon, sausage, salami, and bologna,
was associated with a 44% increased risk of CHD.
Studies on that animal protein fed to rabbits increase plaque formation
in the arteries independent of dietary fat and cholesterol, whereas soy
protein fed to rabbits did not show such a relationship, and other
studies consistently show the positive effect soy protein has on blood
fats. More recently, studies have shown a positive association between
consumption of meat that has been fried, barbecued, or broiled with the
development of several cancers, where the connection is explained by
the creation of potent and bioavailable carcinogenic heterocyclic
amines.
A study in the February issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology
examined the long-term relationship of protein intake of over 29,000
postmenopausal women followed over 15 years. The authors found that
there was a 30% increased risk of CHD in the group that had the highest
animal protein intake compared to the group that had more vegetable
protein. The authors also found that, "A composite of red and
processed meat servings in place of carbohydrate food servings was
associated with a 44 percent increase risk of CHD mortality, and a
similar increased risk was observed with dairy servings."
The authors note that the increased risk of CHD may be because animal
protein contains large amounts of methionine. Methionine is an amino
acid that eventually increases homocysteine levels in the body.
Homocysteine has been shown in many studies to be a significant risk
factor in heart disease.
The authors conclude that, "our results, together with the lack of
benefit to sustained weight loss due to consumption of
high-animal-protein diet such as promoted by Atkins and tested in a
recent randomized trial, do not support any salutary gain of these
diets and suggest potential harm. Long-term adherence to popular
high-protein diets, without discrimination toward protein source, may
have potentially adverse health consequences."
SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 2005
http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=054
Vernon
<runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154169410.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
> Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
> evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
> 1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>
Every year new studies show that diabetics HAVE to "limit" carbohydrates.
Every year there are studies showing the Pritikinn diet to shorten life and
be detrimental.
All of the time people post idiotic studies which when read have NOTHING to
do with the conclusions.
A "typical" "vegan" diet is quite low in carbohydrates, but don't confuse
people with facts.
People following a vegan diet have an end result of poorer health.
Idiots don't know that low carb does NOT mean 20 grams per day, but rather
about 60 if diabetic.
Idiots, usually vegans, try to compare vegan diets to diets with 60% or
higher, high fat meats.
Idiots, usually brain starved vegans, do not consider weight loss to be a
primary aid in diabetes.
Matti Narkia
<rbyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have no doubts that a well planned vegan or near vegan diet works in
>type
>2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too,
>although
>I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high protein
>diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and blood lipids.
>High
>intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine and
>heme
>iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an
>adverse
>effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
>constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name
>just
>few concerns.
>
>
>There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence in the long term
>risks of meat and dairy intake. Here is one example:
>
I tend to agree. However, low consumption of sour milk products
containg useful bacteria may be beneficial. And low and moderate
carbohydrate diets can be designed so that they contain no meat and
little or no dairy products.
--
Matti Narkia
Vernon
Non vegan does not mean to eat 60% of the diet in meat protein.
The vegan idiocy post is a result of inadequate knowledge of statistics or
diets, probably caused by a starved and psychotic brain often seen in
vegans.
"Juhana Harju" <shantig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j10inF...@individual.net...
Vernon
"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbyst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154135675....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Researchers say the vegan diet represents a major change from current
> diabetes diets because there are no limits on calories, carbohydrates,
> and portions, which may make it easier for some people to follow. Talk
> to your doctor about what diet changes you might consider to help with
> diabetes or other medical conditions.
>
If you are type 2 and your doctor doesn't know how to control (hasn't) it,
CHANGE DOCTORS.
The sign of insanity (often idiocy or retarded) is to continue the same
activity and expect different results. (That includes continuing with the
same doctor where the results are insufficient)
Matti Narkia
<runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
>Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
>evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
>1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>
>- Larry Weisenthal
>
>1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
>
>A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
>factors
>in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
>
>Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
>Seidl K,
>Green AA, Talpers S.
>
Note that this study compared very high carb diet (vegan) to high carb
diet (ADA). Here some other studies with different macronutrient
ratios:
Nuttall FQ, Schweim K, Hoover H, Gannon MC.
The Metabolic Effect of a LoBAG30 Diet in Men With Type 2 Diabetes.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 May 23; [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 16720631 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
<http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00011.2006v1>
Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ.
Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by
modification of diet composition.
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006 Mar 23;3:16.
PMID: 16556307 [PubMed]
<http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16>
Nuttall FQ, Gannon MC.
The metabolic response to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet in men
with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Metabolism. 2006 Feb;55(2):243-51.
PMID: 16423633 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16423633>
Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ.
Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose
control in people with type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes. 2004 Sep;53(9):2375-82.
PMID: 15331548 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/2375>
"There has been interest in the effect of various types and
amounts of dietary carbohydrates and proteins on blood glucose.
On the basis of our previous data, we designed a high-
protein/low-carbohydrate, weight-maintaining, nonketogenic
diet. Its effect on glucose control in people with untreated
type 2 diabetes was determined. We refer to this as a low-
biologically-available-glucose (LoBAG) diet. Eight men were
studied using a randomized 5-week crossover design with a 5-
week washout period. The carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of the
control diet was 55:15:30. The test diet ratio was 20:30:50.
Plasma and urinary beta-hydroxybutyrate were similar on both
diets. The mean 24-h integrated serum glucose at the end of the
control and LoBAG diets was 198 and 126 mg/dl, respectively.
The percentage of glycohemoglobin was 9.8 +/- 0.5 and 7.6 +/-
0.3, respectively. It was still decreasing at the end of the
LoBAG diet. Thus, the final calculated glycohemoglobin was
estimated to be approximately 6.3-5.4%. Serum insulin was
decreased, and plasma glucagon was increased. Serum cholesterol
was unchanged. Thus, a LoBAG diet ingested for 5 weeks
dramatically reduced the circulating glucose concentration in
people with untreated type 2 diabetes. Potentially, this could
be a patient-empowering way to ameliorate hyperglycemia without
pharmacological intervention. The long-term effects of such a
diet remain to be determined.
Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, Hoover H.
An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in
persons with type 2 diabetes.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Oct;78(4):734-41.
PMID: 14522731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14522731&dopt=Abstract>
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/734>
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/78/4/734?> (full text PDF)
"BACKGROUND: In single-meal studies, dietary protein does not
result in an increase in glucose concentrations in persons with
or without type 2 diabetes, even though the resulting amino
acids can be used for gluconeogenesis. OBJECTIVE: The metabolic
effects of a high-protein diet were compared with those of the
prototypical healthy (control) diet, which is currently
recommended by several scientific organizations. DESIGN: The
metabolic effects of both diets, consumed for 5 wk each
(separated by a 2-5-wk washout period), were studied in 12
subjects with untreated type 2 diabetes. The ratio of protein
to carbohydrate to fat was 30:40:30 in the high-protein diet
and 15:55:30 in the control diet. The subjects remained weight-
stable during the study. RESULTS: With the fasting glucose
concentration used as a baseline from which to determine the
area under the curve, the high-protein diet resulted in a 40%
decrease in the mean 24-h integrated glucose area response.
Glycated hemoglobin decreased 0.8% and 0.3% after 5 wk of the
high-protein and control diets, respectively; the difference
was significant (P < 0.05). The rate of change over time was
also significantly greater after the high-protein diet than
after the control diet (P < 0.001). Fasting triacylglycerol was
significantly lower after the high-protein diet than after the
control diet. Insulin, C-peptide, and free fatty acid
concentrations were not significantly different after the 2
diets. CONCLUSION: A high-protein diet lowers blood glucose
postprandially in persons with type 2 diabetes and improves
overall glucose control. However, longer-term studies are
necessary to determine the total magnitude of response,
possible adverse effects, and the long-term acceptability of
the diet."
Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP.
Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels,
and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Mar 15;142(6):403-11. Summary for patients in:
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Mar 15;142(6):I44.
PMID: 15767618 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/6/403>
<http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/142/6/403> (full text PDF)
"BACKGROUND: It is not known how a low-carbohydrate, high-
protein, high-fat diet causes weight loss or how it affects
blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of a strict low-carbohydrate
diet on body weight, body water, energy intake and expenditure,
glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and lipid levels in
obese patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Inpatient
comparison of 2 diets. SETTING: General clinical research
center of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 10 obese patients
with type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: Usual diets for 7 days
followed by a low-carbohydrate diet for 14 days. MEASUREMENTS:
Body weight, water, and composition; energy intake and
expenditure; diet satisfaction; hemoglobin A1c; insulin
sensitivity; 24-hour urinary ketone excretion; and plasma
profiles of glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin. RESULTS: On
the low-carbohydrate diet, mean energy intake decreased from
3111 kcal/d to 2164 kcal/d. The mean energy deficit of 1027
kcal/d (median, 737 kcal/d) completely accounted for the weight
loss of 1.65 kg in 14 days (median, 1.34 kg in 14 days). Mean
24-hour plasma profiles of glucose levels normalized, mean
hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.3% to 6.8%, and insulin
sensitivity improved by approximately 75%. Mean plasma
triglyceride and cholesterol levels decreased (change, -35% and
-10%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the
short duration, small number of participants, and lack of a
strict control group. CONCLUSION: In a small group of obese
patients with type 2 diabetes, a low-carbohydrate diet followed
for 2 weeks resulted in spontaneous reduction in energy intake
to a level appropriate to their height; weight loss that was
completely accounted for by reduced caloric intake; much
improved 24-hour blood glucose profiles, insulin sensitivity,
and hemoglobin A1c; and decreased plasma triglyceride and
cholesterol levels. The long-term effects of this diet,
however, remain uncertain.
[...]
We designed our study to determine the effects of a strict
low-carbohydrate diet (approximately 20 g of carbohydrates per
day), which included the diet supplements recommended by Dr.
Atkins, on energy intake and expenditure, body weight and body
water, glucose metabolism, and insulin sensitivity in obese
patients with type 2 diabetes in the controlled environment of
a clinical research center.
[...]
We reduced carbohydrate intake to approximately 21
g/d, but patients could eat protein and fat as much and as
often as they wanted.
[...]
During the low-carbohydrate diet period
(days 8 to 22), mean carbohydrate intakes were reduced
from approximately 300 g to approximately 20 g.
patients had free access to all noncarbohydrate food
items, they increased their protein and fat intakes very little."
Sargrad KR, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Boden G.
Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin
sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Apr;105(4):573-80.
PMID: 15800559 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15800559>
"BACKGROUND: Extremely low carbohydrate/high protein diets are
popular methods of weight loss. Compliance with these diets is
poor and long-term effectiveness and the safety of these diets
for patients with type 2 diabetes is not known. OBJECTIVE: The
objective of the current study was to evaluate effects of less
extreme changes in carbohydrate or protein diets on weight,
insulin sensitivity, glycemic control, cardiovascular risk
factors (blood pressure, lipid levels), and renal function in
obese inner-city patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Study
patients were admitted to the General Clinical Research Center
for 24 hours for initial tests including a hyperinsulinemic-
euglycemic clamp (for measurement of insulin sensitivity),
bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and anthropometric
measurements (for assessment of body composition), indirect
calorimetry (for measurement of REE), electronic blood pressure
monitoring, and blood chemistries to measure blood lipids
levels along with renal and hepatic functions. Six patients
with type 2 diabetes (five women and one man) were randomly
assigned to the high-protein diet (40% carbohydrate, 30%
protein, 30% fat) and six patients (four women and two men) to
the high-carbohydrate diet (55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, 30%
fat). All patients returned to the General Clinical Research
Center weekly for monitoring of food records; dietary
compliance; and measurements of body weight, blood pressure,
and blood glucose. After 8 weeks on these diets, all patients
were readmitted to the General Clinical Research Center for the
same series of tests. INTERVENTION: Twelve study patients were
taught to select either the high-protein or high-carbohydrate
diet and were followed for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Insulin sensitivity, hemoglobin A1c, weight, and blood pressure
were measured. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Statistical significance
was assessed using two-tailed Student's t tests and two-way
repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Both the high-
carbohydrate and high-protein groups lost weight (-2.2+/-0.9
kg, -2.5+/-1.6 kg, respectively, P <.05) and the difference
between the groups was not significant (P =.9). In the high-
carbohydrate group, hemoglobin A1c decreased (from 8.2% to
6.9%, P <.03), fasting plasma glucose decreased (from 8.8 to
7.2 mmol/L, P <.02), and insulin sensitivity increased (from
12.8 to 17.2 micromol/kg/min, P <.03). No significant changes
in these parameters occurred in the high-protein group, instead
systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased (-10.5+/-2.3
mm Hg, P =.003 and -18+/-9.0 mm Hg, P <.05, respectively).
After 2 months on these hypocaloric diets, each diet had either
no or minimal effects on lipid levels (total cholesterol, low-
density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein), renal (blood
urea nitrogen, serum creatinine), or hepatic function
(aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase,
bilirubin)."
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
[snip]
>
>Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, Hoover H.
>An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in
>persons with type 2 diabetes.
>Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Oct;78(4):734-41.
>PMID: 14522731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14522731&dopt=Abstract>
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/734>
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/78/4/734?> (full text PDF)
>
[snip]
>
>Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP.
>Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels,
>and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
>Ann Intern Med. 2005 Mar 15;142(6):403-11. Summary for patients in:
>Ann Intern Med. 2005 Mar 15;142(6):I44.
>PMID: 15767618 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/6/403>
><http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/142/6/403> (full text PDF)
>
[snip]
>
>Sargrad KR, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Boden G.
>Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin
>sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in
>patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
>J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Apr;105(4):573-80.
>PMID: 15800559 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15800559>
>
Some additional articles:
Nielsen JV, Jonsson E, Nilsson AK.
Lasting improvement of hyperglycaemia and bodyweight: low-carbohydrate
diet in type 2 diabetes--a brief report.
Ups J Med Sci. 2005;110(1):69-73.
PMID: 15801687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15801687>
"In two groups of obese patients with type 2 diabetes the
effects of 2 different diet compositions were tested with
regard to glycaemic control and bodyweight. A group of 16 obese
patients with type 2 diabetes was advised on a low-carbohydrate
diet, 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women, distributed as
20 % carbohydrates, 30 % protein and 50 % fat. Fifteen obese
diabetes patients on a high-carbohydrate diet were control
group. Their diet, 1600-1800 kcal for men and 1400-1600 kcal
for women, consisted of approximately 60 % carbohydrates, 15 %
protein and 25 % fat. Positive effects on the glucose levels
were seen very soon. After 6 months a marked reduction in
bodyweight of patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group was
observed, and this remained one year later. After 6 months the
mean changes in the low-carbohydrate group and the control
group respectively were (+/-SD): fasting blood glucose (f-BG):
-3.4+/-2.9 and -0.6+/-2.9 mmol/l; HBA1c: -1.4+/-1.1 % and
-0.6+/-1.4 %; Body Weight: -11.4+/-4 kg and -1.8+/-3.8 kg; BMI:
-4.1+/-1.3 kg/m_ and -0.7+/-1.3 kg/m_. Large changes in blood
glucose levels were seen immediately. CONCLUSION: A low-
carbohydrate diet is an effective tool in the treatment of
obese patients with type 2 diabetes."
Nielsen JV, Joensson EA.
Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Stable improvement of
bodyweight and glycaemic control during 22 months follow-up.
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006 Jun 14;3(1):22 [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 16774674 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
<http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/22>
<http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-3-22.pdf>
(full text PDF)
"ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Low-carbohydrate diets in the management
of obese patients with type 2 diabetes seem intuitively
attractive due to their potent antihyperglycemic effect. We
previously reported that a 20 % carbohydrate diet was
significantly superior to a 55-60 % carbohydrate diet with
regard to bodyweight and glycemic control in 2 non-randomised
groups of obese diabetes patients observed closely over 6
months. The effect beyond 6 months of reduced carbohydrate has
not been previously reported. The objective of the present
study, therefore, was to determine to what degree the changes
among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group at 6-
months were preserved or changed 22 months after start, even
without close follow-up. In addition, we report that, after the
6 month observation period, two thirds of the patients in the
high-carbohydrate changed their diet. This group also showed
improvement in bodyweight and glycemic control. METHOD:
Retrospective follow-up of previously studied subjects on a low
carbohydrate diet. RESULTS: The mean bodyweight at the start of
the initial study was 100.6+/-14.7 kg. At six months it was
89.2+/- 14.3 kg. From 6 to 22 months, mean bodyweight had
increased by 2.7+/- 4.2 kg to an average of 92.0 +/- 14.0 kg.
Seven of the 16 patients (44%) retained the same bodyweight
from 6 to 22 months or reduced it further; all but one had
lower weight at 22 months than at the beginning. Initial mean
HbA1c was 8.0 +/- 1.5 %. After 6 and 12 months it was 6.6
+/-1.0 % and 7.0 +/-1.3 %, respectively. At 22 months, it was
still 6.9 +/- 1.1 % . CONCLUSION: Advice on a 20 % carbohydrate
diet with some caloric restriction to obese patients with type
2 diabetes has lasting effect on bodyweight and glycemic
control."
Nielsen JV, Westerlund P, Bygren P.
A low-carbohydrate diet may prevent end-stage renal failure in type 2
diabetes. A case report.
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006 Jun 14;3:23.
PMID: 16774676 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/23>
"ABSTRACT: An obese patient with type 2 diabetes whose diet was
changed from the recommended high-carbohydrate, low-fat type to
a low-carbohydrate diet showed a significant reduction in
bodyweight, improved glycemic control and a reversal of a six
year long decline of renal function. The reversal of the renal
function was likely caused by both improved glycemic control
and elimination of the patient's obesity. Insulin treatment in
type 2 diabetes patients usually leads to weight increase which
may cause further injury to the kidney. Although other unknown
metabolic mechanisms cannot be excluded, it is likely that the
obesity caused by the combination of high-carbohydrate diet and
insulin in this case contributed to the patient's deteriorating
kidney function. In such patients, where control of bodyweight
and hyperglycemia is vital, a trial with a low-carbohydrate
diet may be appropriate to avoid the risk of adding obesity-
associated renal failure to already failing kidneys."
This one is about type 1 diabetes:
Nielsen JV, Jonsson E, Ivarsson A.
A low carbohydrate diet in type 1 diabetes: clinical experience--a
brief report.
Ups J Med Sci. 2005;110(3):267-73.
PMID: 16454166 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16454166>
"Due to failure to achieve control twenty-two patients with
type 1 diabetes with symptomatic fluctuating blood glucose
started on a diet limited to 70-90 g carbohydrates per day and
were taught to match the insulin doses accordingly. The caloric
requirements were covered by an increased intake of protein and
fat. The purpose was to reduce the blood glucose fluctuations,
the rate of hypoglycaemia and to improve HbA1c. After three and
12 months the rate of hypoglycaemia was significantly lowered
from 2.9 +/- 2.0 to 0.2 +/- 0.3 and 0.5 +/- 0.5 episodes per
week respectively. The HbAlc level was significantly lowered
from 7.5 +/- 0.9% to 6.4 +/- 0.7% after three months and was
still after 12 months 6.4 +/- 0.8%. The meal insulin
requirements were reduced from 21.1 +/- 6.7 I.U./day to 12.7
+/- 3.5 I.U./day and 12.4 +/- 2.6 I.U./day after three and 12
months respectively. Furthermore the triglyceride level was
significantly lowered whereas the levels for total cholesterol
and HDL-cholesterol were unchanged. The present report shows
that a 70-90 g carbohydrate diet is a feasible long-term
alternative in the treatment of type 1 diabetes and leads to
improved glycaemic control."
Arora SK, McFarlane SI.
The case for low carbohydrate diets in diabetes management.
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005 Jul 14;2:16.
PMID: 16018812 [PubMed]
<http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/16>
"A low fat, high carbohydrate diet in combination with regular
exercise is the traditional recommendation for treating
diabetes. Compliance with these lifestyle modifications is less
than satisfactory, however, and a high carbohydrate diet raises
postprandial plasma glucose and insulin secretion, thereby
increasing risk of CVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity and
diabetes. Moreover, the current epidemic of diabetes and
obesity has been, over the past three decades, accompanied by a
significant decrease in fat consumption and an increase in
carbohydrate consumption. This apparent failure of the
traditional diet, from a public health point of view, indicates
that alternative dietary approaches are needed. Because
carbohydrate is the major secretagogue of insulin, some form of
carbohydrate restriction is a prima facie candidate for dietary
control of diabetes. Evidence from various randomized
controlled trials in recent years has convinced us that such
diets are safe and effective, at least in short-term. These
data show low carbohydrate diets to be comparable or better
than traditional low fat high carbohydrate diets for weight
reduction, improvement in the dyslipidemia of diabetes and
metabolic syndrome as well as control of blood pressure,
postprandial glycemia and insulin secretion. Furthermore, the
ability of low carbohydrate diets to reduce triglycerides and
to increase HDL is of particular importance. Resistance to such
strategies has been due, in part, to equating it with the
popular Atkins diet. However, there are many variations and
room for individual physician planning. Some form of low
carbohydrate diet, in combination with exercise, is a viable
option for patients with diabetes. However, the extreme
reduction of carbohydrate of popular diets (<30 g/day) cannot
be recommended for a diabetic population at this time without
further study. On the other hand, the dire objections
continually raised in the literature appear to have very little
scientific basis. Whereas it is traditional to say that more
work needs to be done, the same is true of the assumed standard
low fat diets which have an ambiguous record at best. We see
current trends in the national dietary recommendations as a
positive sign and an appropriate move in the right direction."
Miyashita Y, Koide N, Ohtsuka M, Ozaki H, Itoh Y, Oyama T, Uetake T,
Ariga K, Shirai K.
Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral
fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;65(3):235-41.
PMID: 15331203 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15331203<
"The adequate composition of carbohydrate and fat in low
calorie diets for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with
obesity is not fully established. The aim of this study was to
investigate the effects of low carbohydrate diet on glucose and
lipid metabolism, especially on visceral fat accumulation, and
comparing that of a high carbohydrate diet. Obese subjects with
type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to take a low
calorie and low carbohydrate diet (n = 11, 1000 kcal per day,
protein:carbohydrate:fat = 25:40:35) or a low calorie and high
carbohydrate diet (n = 11, 1000 kcal per day,
protein:carbohydrate:fat = 25:65:10) for 4 weeks. Similar
decreases in body weight and serum glucose levels were observed
in both groups. Fasting serum insulin levels were reduced in
the low carbohydrate diet group compared to the high
carbohydrate diet group (-30% versus -10%, P < 0.05). Total
serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in both
groups, but were not significantly different from each other.
High-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) increased in the
low carbohydrate diet group but not in the high carbohydrate
diet group (+15% versus 0%, P < 0.01). There was a larger
decrease in visceral fat area measured by computed tomography
in the low carbohydrate diet group compared to the high
carbohydrate diet group (-40 cm(2) versus -10 cm(2), P < 0.05).
The ratio of visceral fat area to subcutaneous fat area did not
change in the high carbohydrate diet group (from 0.70 to 0.68),
but it decreased significantly in the low carbohydrate diet
group (from 0.69 to 0.47, P < 0.005). These results suggest
that, when restrict diet was made isocaloric, a low calorie/low
carbohydrate diet might be more effective treatment for a
reduction of visceral fat, improved insulin sensitivity and
increased in HDL-C levels than low calorie/high carbohydrate
diet in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus."
This one investigated effect on risk factors for diabetes:
Meckling KA, O'Sullivan C, Saari D.
Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight
loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and
cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jun;89(6):2717-23.
PMID: 15181047 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/6/2717>
"Overweight and obese men and women (24-61 yr of age) were
recruited into a randomized trial to compare the effects of a
low-fat (LF) vs. a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet on weight loss.
Thirty-one subjects completed all 10 wk of the diet
intervention (retention, 78%). Subjects on the LF diet consumed
an average of 17.8% of energy from fat, compared with their
habitual intake of 36.4%, and had a resulting energy
restriction of 2540 kJ/d. Subjects on the LC diet consumed an
average of 15.4% carbohydrate, compared with habitual intakes
of about 50% carbohydrate, and had a resulting energy
restriction of 3195 kJ/d. Both groups of subjects had
significant weight loss over the 10 wk of diet intervention and
nearly identical improvements in body weight and fat mass. LF
subjects lost an average of 6.8 kg and had a decrease in body
mass index of 2.2 kg/m2, compared with a loss of 7.0 kg and
decrease in body mass index of 2.1 kg/m2 in the LC subjects.
The LF group better preserved lean body mass when compared with
the LC group; however, only the LC group had a significant
decrease in circulating insulin concentrations. Group results
indicated that the diets were equally effective in reducing
systolic blood pressure by about 10 mm Hg and diastolic
pressure by 5 mm Hg and decreasing plasminogen activator
inhibitor-1 bioactivity. Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate
concentrations were increased in the LC only, at the 2- and 4-
wk time points. These data suggest that energy restriction
achieved by a very LC diet is equally effective as a LF diet
strategy for weight loss and decreasing body fat in overweight
and obese adults.
[...]
In conclusion, hypoenergetic diets of widely differing
macronutrient concentration are feasible strategies for
promoting short-term weight loss and improvements in chronic
disease risk markers in overweight and obese men and women. A
LF regimen may be preferred when reduction of blood cholesterol
is a primary goal, whereas the LC regimen may be more
appropriate when improvement in insulin sensitivity is the
target. Either strategy promotes loss of fat weight and
improvements of similar magnitude in blood pressure, and
triglycerides, both of which can be seen as additional benefits
to chronic disease risk reduction in addition to weight loss
itself."
--
Matti Narkia
Juhana Harju
: On 29 Jul 2006 03:36:51 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
: <runn...@aol.com> wrote:
:: 1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
::
:: A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular
:: risk factors
:: in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
::
:: Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster
:: B, Seidl K,
:: Green AA, Talpers S.
::
: Note that this study compared very high carb diet (vegan) to high carb
: diet (ADA).
It doesn't do justice to the ADA diet to call it high carb diet.
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
I haven't calculated the energy percentages from the amounts given in
grams, but, but if it has 55-60% carbs as Susan mentioned, it is high
carb in my book.
--
Matti Narkia
Juhana Harju
: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:38:43 +0300, "Juhana Harju"
I presented something more reliable based on the information given in the
full study.
--
Juhana
Juhana Harju
: x-no-archive: yes
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:
:: It doesn't do justice to the ADA diet to call it high carb diet.
:
: Are you serious????
Yes.
: Even they characterize it that way.
Any reliable reference to back your claim?
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
>Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
>Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
>evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
>1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>
>- Larry Weisenthal
>
>1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
>
>A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
>factors
>in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
>
>Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
>Seidl K,
>Green AA, Talpers S.
>
One thing which bothers me in the setup of this study is the fact that
its proncipal author Neal D. Barnard is president of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit health organization
that opposes animal research and advocates a vegan diet:
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/health/webmd/main1837927.shtml>:
""The diet appears remarkably effective, and all the side effects
are good ones -- especially weight loss and lower cholesterol,"
says researcher Neal D. Barnard, MD, adjunct associate professor
of medicine at the George Washington University, in a news
release. "I hope this study will rekindle interest in using diet
changes first, rather than prescription drugs."
Barnard is also president of the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit health organization that opposes
animal research and advocates a vegan diet."
----------------------
If a scientist is an advocate of something he researches, his
objectivity usually goes out of the window. Even worse, if he is an
advocate before starting his research, and not after it, as a
consequence of the results of his research.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<shantig...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm aware of that, but did you calculate the energy percentages?
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
Apparently you didn't. Let's see, you said that the _actual_ average
macronutrient intakes in the ADA group were: protein 73
g/day, carbs 165 g/day, and fat 52 g/day. In the vegan diet the
_actual_ ingested macronutrient amounts were protein 51 g/day, carbs
251 g/day, and fat 30 g/day. The energy yield per gram is
approximately as follows: carbohydrate - 4 kcal, fats - 9 kcal and
protein - 4 kcal. So we get total energy = 4*73 + 4*165 + 9*52 = 1420
kcal according to google's calculator. Energy from carbs = 4*165 = 660
kcal. Percentage of energy from carbs = 660/1420 = 46%. So, if the
figures you gave are correct, I would declare ADA's diet as normal or
average carb diet, although slighty lower carb than previously
recommended by ADA and various athorities in various countries.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
>On 29 Jul 2006 03:36:51 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
><runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
>>Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
>>evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
>>1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>>
>>- Larry Weisenthal
>>
>>1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
>>
>>A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
>>factors
>>in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
>>
>>Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
>>Seidl K,
>>Green AA, Talpers S.
>>
>Note that this study compared very high carb diet (vegan) to high carb
>diet (ADA).
After calculating the energy percentages of ADA's diet from the
average gram intakes provided by Juhana, it seems that ADA's diet had
46% of energy from carbs, which makes it normal or average carb diet,
although slighty lower carb than previously recommended by ADA and
various athorities in various countries. So the study was a comparison
of a very high carb diet (vegan) to an average carb diet (ADA).
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Timing is everything; article about Bernstein diabetes diet:
>
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060728.diabetes29/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
>
Thanks. Did you have look at the studies I posted? Any comment?
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
R. H Eckel
A new look at dietary protein in diabetes
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, October 1, 2003; 78(4): 671 - 672.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/4/671>
"The optimal diet for patients with diabetes continues to be
evaluated. Currently, at least 3 nutritional issues are
important to consider in patients with type 2 diabetes. Because
overweight and obesity exist in most patients with type 2
diabetes, the first—but not always the highest—dietary priority
relates to energy balance. Typically what is needed is a
hypocaloric diet, in which energy expenditure is greater than
energy intake. The second and third nutrition-related issues in
patients with diabetes are glycemic control and macrovascular
or microvascular complications, both of which relate more to
the macronutrient composition of the diet than body weight. The
near-consensus opinion about diet and macrovascular
complications of diabetes is to restrict the consumption of
saturated and trans fats and cholesterol (1). Concerning
microvascular complications, there is some—albeit
insufficient—evidence to recommend restrictions in dietary
protein for patients with nephropathy, as defined by gross
proteinuria, diminished renal function, or both (2–4).
Glycemia is the most immediate and lasting effect of diet
therapy in patients with diabetes. Historically, the emphasis
has been placed on dietary carbohydrate restriction, with the
related and necessary increases in dietary fat and protein to
achieve reductions in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose
concentrations (5). The increase in protein was an "innocent
bystander" because most fat-containing foods are higher in
protein. After insulin became available for the treatment of
diabetes and after the potential relation between high fat
intake, hypercholesterolemia, and atherosclerosis was
appreciated, the pendulum swung toward recommended increases in
dietary carbohydrate and relative restrictions in dietary
fat—particularly saturated fat and its associated protein.
Although the restriction of saturated fat remains the
recommendation, the carbohydrate-fat ratio continues to get
attention (6). The effect of dietary protein on glycemic
control has been more carefully examined in the past 15 y;
however, the science has suffered from flaws in experimental
design, small sample size, and insufficient short-term and
long-term data.
The typical design of published glycemia studies involves the
examination of the effect of a single meal of added protein
compared with that of other macronutrients on postingestion
plasma glucose and insulin concentrations. In general, these
studies showed no or only modest increases in postprandial
insulin concentrations; most often, however, no changes in
glucose were shown (7–10). The study by Gulliford et al (8)
points out the limitations of interpretation that accompany
many of these published studies. In the study by Gulliford et
al (8), the consumption of 25 g protein as tuna fish in
combination with 25 g carbohydrate as either mashed potatoes or
spaghetti failed to modify postprandial insulin concentrations
in subjects with type 2 diabetes, but a lower glycemic response
was seen with mashed potatoes than with spaghetti. The further
co-ingestion of 25 g fat as margarine reduced the differences
in the glycemic effect of the 2 carbohydrates. Thus, as
expected, the glycemic index of a single dietary protein was
modified by the co-ingestion of a single 25-g load of
carbohydrate with different physical properties and then again
by the co-ingestion of one form of fat. The possible
macronutrient combinations to examine are infinite, and applied
conclusions remain extremely limited from this type of
experimental design.
The study design is the strength of the study by Gannon et al
(11) in this issue of the Journal, although sample size was
small and the duration of the study was limited. Gannon et al
tested the hypothesis that a 5-wk period of increased dietary
protein through a variety of foods would produce a lower plasma
glucose response to feeding in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
The subjects typically had mild, untreated type 2 diabetes and
had a mean age of 61 y and a mean body mass index (in kg/m2) of
31. Subjects were randomly assigned to consume a high-protein
(30% of energy) or a lower-protein (15% of energy; control)
diet—with differences in carbohydrate intake (40% compared with
55% of energy) but not fat (30% of energy in both diets)
between the 2 diets—for 5 wk with a washout period before
crossover to the alternative diet. In addition, dietary fat was
fixed at 30% of caloric intake by using a balance of
polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated fats (10% of
energy from each). Importantly, all meals were provided to the
subjects, weight was maintained, and 24-h assessments of plasma
glucose and insulin and other metabolites were made under close
observation. Subjects were considered to have been compliant if
they had a 2-fold increase in the ratio of urinary urea to
creatinine with the high-protein diet. Impressively, the high-
protein diet resulted in a 40% reduction in the 24-h integrated
plasma glucose area and a significant decrease in glycated
hemoglobin after just a 5-wk interval. Although the plasma
insulin, C-peptide, and free fatty acid area responses were not
significantly different and the plasma glucagon concentrations
were higher with the high-protein diet than with the low-
protein diet, the triacylglycerol area response was also
reduced.
Despite these impressive results, additional questions remain.
Are these results reproducible, and, if so, how long will the
benefit of high-protein feeding last? What would the effect of
such a diet be in patients with diabetes taking oral
hypoglycemics or insulin? Does the type of oral hypoglycemic
drug taken—ie, sulfonylurea compared with metformin compared
with thiazolidinedione—matter? If the caloric content were not
controlled, would patients lose weight, and, if so, would the
glycemic effect be exaggerated? Of interest, a trend for weight
reduction was seen in the high-protein group. What effects
would result if the study lasted for months, years, or even a
lifetime? Will high-protein diets remain palatable and not
overly restrictive over the long term? Moreover, in this
setting, will patients with diabetic nephropathy experience the
same benefit without progression of renal disease? A similar
question could be posed about patients with autonomic
neuropathy, ie, gastroparesis. Because some concerns exist
about the effect of higher protein intakes on urinary calcium
excretion, would skeletal mass be adversely affected long term
(12)?
Many myths about dietary protein and diabetes control need to
be recognized, as recently summarized (13). Although
nonessential amino acids may promote glucose production, plasma
glucose does not increase after protein ingestion. Moreover,
increases in dietary protein do not promote sustained
elevations in glucose, slow the absorption of dietary
carbohydrate, or accelerate the increase in plasma glucose in
response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia. The variable ability
of dietary protein to increase insulin secretion or to decrease
insulin clearance may be related to the experimental design,
the type of protein ingested, or both. Additional work is
clearly needed here. With the studies of Gannon et al (11) now
in hand, the substitution of dietary protein for carbohydrate
may improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of
atherosclerosis. The recommended percentage of energy in the
diet from saturated fat, however, should not exceed 7% (1, 14).
The stage is set for long-term studies that use different food
sources of dietary protein and to determine the relevance of
increasing dietary protein in patients with more complicated
diabetes."
--
Matti Narkia
Juhana Harju
I was not online (I went to swim). Now that you have presented these figures
and defined "ADA's diet as normal or average carb diet" I can agree with
you.
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
wrote:
>
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> After calculating the energy percentages of ADA's diet from the
>> average gram intakes provided by Juhana, it seems that ADA's diet had
>> 46% of energy from carbs, which makes it normal or average carb diet,
>> although slighty lower carb than previously recommended by ADA and
>> various athorities in various countries. So the study was a comparison
>> of a very high carb diet (vegan) to an average carb diet (ADA).
>>
>>
>
>virtually always stipulated at 55% carbs.
>
Yes, it used to. But based on something I found in the net, I think
that they may have had some changes and no longer recommend any fixed
energy percentage for carbs. Heve you heard about that?
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Juhana Harju wrote:
>
>> I was not online (I went to swim). Now that you have presented these figures
>> and defined "ADA's diet as normal or average carb diet" I can agree with
>> you.
>>
>
>But Matti was wrong in his analysis of carbs. The ADA diet is always
>described as 55% carbs, and they recommend up to 10% of that can be
>table sugar, and most of the rest of calories to come from starches.
>
If Juhana's figures, which he took from the full text study, are
correct, I wasn't wrong. I also think that ADA no longer recommends
any fixed energy percentage for carbs.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
>control your bg with that. Further, they suggest that it's perfectly
>acceptable for 10% of total calories to come from table sugar.
>
>Any study that compares diets (that I've seen) has used the 55% number.
Well, apparently this study was different.
--
Matti Narkia
Juhana Harju
: Barnard is also president of the Physicians Committee for
: Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit health organization that opposes
: animal research and advocates a vegan diet."
:
: If a scientist is an advocate of something he researches, his
: objectivity usually goes out of the window. Even worse, if he is an
: advocate before starting his research, and not after it, as a
: consequence of the results of his research.
I have a contrary view. I think that it is a civil right to have an opinion
on any issue and to express it publicly. I don't think that he compromises
his credibility as a scientist in any way.
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
>control your bg with that.
I found this comment from the web:
<http://www.rnceus.com/ddiet/exch.htm>
" ... In the past, the patient’s physician ordered a nutrition
prescription in the form of an "ADA" diet. The term "ADA" diet is
no longer used, as the American Diabetes Association doesn’t
endorse any specific meal plan or specified percentages of
protein, carbohydrates, and fats in the diet. ..."
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<shantig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>: Barnard is also president of the Physicians Committee for
>: Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit health organization that opposes
>: animal research and advocates a vegan diet."
>:
>: If a scientist is an advocate of something he researches, his
>: objectivity usually goes out of the window. Even worse, if he is an
>: advocate before starting his research, and not after it, as a
>: consequence of the results of his research.
>
>I have a contrary view. I think that it is a civil right to have an opinion
>on any issue and to express it publicly.
I can agree with that.
> I don't think that he compromises his credibility as a scientist in any way.
If he is a long time _advocate_ of something he researches, and
perhaps has even got into that research because of his advocatism, it
surely affects his credibility in that research, IMHO.
--
Matti Narkia
D. C. Sessions
Bystrianyk wrote:
> "Vegan Diet May Treat Diabetes", CBS News, July 26, 2006,
> Link:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/health/webmd/main1837927.shtml
>
> Eating a low-fat vegan diet may be better at managing type 2 diabetes
> than traditional diets, according to a new study.
Sorry I don't have the reference, but one of the other sources
commented that part of the difference may have been attributable
to compliance: the vegan dieters were more likely to stick with
the plan than the (if I may coin a phrase) quatitative dieters.
I can understand that -- it's *much* easier to stick with a diet
that simply says, "don't eat that" than it is to stick with one
that says, "you can eat that but only so much."
As with just about any lifestyle change, compliance is arguably
THE most important factor, so this is powerful.
--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
Juhana Harju
: On 29 Jul 2006 06:26:40 -0700, "Roman Bystrianyk"
: <rbyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
:: Juhana Harju wrote:
::: I have no doubts that a well planned vegan or near vegan diet works
::: in type
::: 2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too,
::: although
::: I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high
::: protein diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and
::: blood lipids. High
::: intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine
::: and heme
::: iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an
::: adverse
::: effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
::: constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name
::: just
::: few concerns.
::
:: There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence in the long term
:: risks of meat and dairy intake. Here is one example:
::
: I tend to agree. However, low consumption of sour milk products
: containg useful bacteria may be beneficial. And low and moderate
: carbohydrate diets can be designed so that they contain no meat and
: little or no dairy products.
I think that it would be prudent to reconcile these two seemingly opposing
views. Reducing carbs and increasing dietary protein has clearly certain
benefits in controlling blood sugar and insulin levels. On the other hand
there are clear advantages in trying to control diabetes by a vegan diet. I
think that the compromise of these opposing views would resemble the recent
recommendations given by the Joslin Diabetes Center, but would probably
include somewhat more vegetable foods.
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
>Periodically we argue about this. Low carbers are rabid that treating
>Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
>evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
>1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>
I don't count carbs or calories and I don't regard myself as low
carber, perhaps a moderate carber. I don't have any kind of stake in
macronutrient ratio discussion, my opinions about that topic are based
only on studies and on effects carb reduction has had on my lipid
profile.
Apparently high carb diets can have positive effect in diabetes in
some comparisons. But in every study you have to pay attention to
which high carb diet was compared to.
As for Pritikin studies, I found only two diabetes related studies by
Pritikin from the Medline. These were:
Barnard RJ, Lattimore L, Holly RG, Cherny S, Pritikin N.
Response of non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients to an intensive
program of diet and exercise.
Diabetes Care. 1982 Jul-Aug;5(4):370-4.
PMID: 7151652 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7151652>
"To assess the effectiveness of the Pritikin program of diet
and exercise for treating patients with non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), data were obtained from 60 patients
who completed the 26-day residential program. Of the 23
patients who were taking oral hypoglycemic agents upon entry,
all but 2 were off medication by the end of the program. Of the
17 patients who were taking insulin, all but 4 were off
medication at discharge. Two of the four had their insulin
reduced by 50% while the remaining two had no major change in
their insulin dosage. Fasting blood glucose was reduced from
194.9 +/- 10.1 to 144.6 +/- 7.1 mg/dl. Serum cholesterol was
reduced from 225.4 +/- 5.7 to 181.7 +/- 4.9 mg/dl while
triglycerides were reduced from 283.7 +/- 28.8 to 186.2 +/-
11.6 mg/dl. The group as a whole lost an average of 4.3 kg/body
wt and achieved 40.5% of their desired weight loss. Maximum
work capacity increased from 5.6 +/- 0.3 to 7.9 +/- 0.4 METs,
while daily walking increased from 11.7 +/- 2.4 to 102.8 +/-
4.8 min/day. The decrease in fasting glucose was not correlated
with weight loss (r = 0.24), increase in walking time (r =
0.00), or increase in MET capacity (r = 0.05). We conclude that
the total program is an effective means for treating NIDDM
patients. We also feel that the high-complex-carbohydrate,
high-fiber, low-fat diet is of primary importance."
Barnard RJ, Massey MR, Cherny S, O'Brien LT, Pritikin N. Long-term use
of a high-complex-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet and exercise
in the treatment of NIDDM patients.
Diabetes Care. 1983 May-Jun;6(3):268-73.
PMID: 6307614 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6307614>
"The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term effects
of a high-complex-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet and
exercise on 69 NIDDM patients. During the initial 26-day
program, fasting glucose was reduced from 179.5 +/- 10.6 to
133.5 +/- 4.0 mg/dl. This decrease in fasting glucose was
achieved along with the discontinuation of oral hypoglycemic
agents in 24 of 31 patients and of insulin in 13 of 18
patients; one patient was placed on insulin. Serum cholesterol
and triglycerides were reduced by 25% and 27%, respectively. At
2-3 yr of follow-up, fasting glucose was not significantly
different from the value observed at the end of the 26-day
program. Compared with the end of the 26-day program, seven
more patients were taking oral agents and four more were on
insulin. Exercise and diet inventories obtained at follow-up
indicated good compliance to the program and also indicated
that the main difference between those patients who went back
on medication at follow-up compared with those remaining off
medication was the percent of calories derived from fat."
Comments:
- Pritikin studies included exercise, which has beneficial effect on
type 2 diabetes, and may improve the tolerance to high carb diet,
because exercise effectively burns the extra carbs. The effects of
exercise cannot be differentiated from the effects of the diet, so
the possible effects of diet itself are unknown.
- Pritikin studies are uncontrolled, there is no control group. This
is a very questiobale study design. Therefore no comparison can
made between Pritikin's program and some other program.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
Vegan diet can have various amounts of carbs, it does not need to be
high carb. If you are referring to the high carb vegan diet in the
study, which started this thread, it depends what you compare it with.
The high carb vegan diet in that study seems to have advantage over
ADA's average carb diet, but what would have interested me more, is a
comparison to a well designed low carb (say 20-30% carbs) diet
composed from healthy ingredients, with patiens suffering from type 2
diabetes.
>think that the compromise of these opposing views would resemble the recent
>recommendations given by the Joslin Diabetes Center, but would probably
>include somewhat more vegetable foods.
I think we need more studies.
--
Matti Narkia
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
its type, I'd think it of only minor interest. As it is, it isn't
anything groundbreaking; it's simply confirmatory.
As we all recognize, there is no such thing as an unbiased investigator
in the field of nutrition.
Do you have any global warming going on over there in Finland?
Here in California, we seem to be having a lot of it.
- Larry Weisenthal
D. C. Sessions
> They certainly do have a minimum number of carbs recommended for their
> lowest calorie diabetics. And every single diabetic I know who's been
> hospitalized or seen a dietician following the ADA has been told to eat
> a minimum of 35 grams of carbs per meal, without exception, and an
> additional 15 grams twice per day for snacks.
Are you distinguishing between type I and type II?
Cutting out carbs for a type II is rather a different
thing from cutting carbs for a type I.
D. C. Sessions
> Apparently high carb diets can have positive effect in diabetes in
> some comparisons. But in every study you have to pay attention to
> which high carb diet was compared to.
Considering the wild differences in conversion rates for
"carbohydrate" foods, IMHO lumping them all together
oversimplifies.
And, of course, lumping type I and type II together also
clouds the issue.
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
be detrimental. .<<
Vernon, I'll ignore the personal insults. They really aren't
necessary.
For starters, can you direct me to the studies "showing the Pritinin
diet to shorten life and to be detrimental" ?
- Larry Weisenthal
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
posting a blizzard of abstracts, without telling me what exactly is
your point.
Most such studies are fatally flawed by virtue of an isocaloric study
design and the absence of an exercise program.
I am completely uninterested in the "optimum" diet for the couch
potato.
As I've stated in the past, whatever arguments you wish to make about
what diets humans evolved to eat, it is abundantly clear that humans
evolved for vigorous exercise.
Do you know why humans have huge gluteus maximii, relative to chimps?
What is it that the gluteus maximi do?
What they do, and the ONLY reason they are essential, is to keep the
human body from falling on its face when running.
Chimps can walk on two legs, but they can't run, because they'll fall
on their face, because they lack gluteus maximi to adjust spinal
posture to keep the body upright while running.
You don't need gluts to walk; but you need them to run.
Exercise, therefore, is the cornerstone of any lifestyle plan.
So the only diet studies which are relevant are those in which:
(1) A vigorous exercise program was included
(2) An ad libitum feeding design was used.
So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
libitum feeding design.
In the future, I'll make it clear in my posts that my data and opinions
only apply to the above two situations, as well.
As you may remember from prior discussions, I am NOT a "believer" in
the one-size-fits-all diet.
I think that choice of diet isn't an emergency.
I'd advise a Type II diabetic to start out with an exercise program and
thereafter to modify the diet to favor low glycemic carbs, low total
fat, and extremely low "bad" fat.
Determine success or failure with the usual measures.
If that didn't work, then, by all means, go to plan B.
It shouldn't be all that controversial.
- Larry Weisenthal
Vernon
"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbyst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154179600.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have no doubts that a well planned vegan or near vegan diet works in
> type
> 2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too,
> although
> I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high protein
> diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and blood lipids.
> High
> intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine and
> heme
> iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an
> adverse
> effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
> constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name
> just
> few concerns.
>
>
> There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence in the long term
> risks of meat and dairy intake. Here is one example:
>
A statement by some sort of religious nut case.
Humans are omnivores.
HIGH meat intake or NO meat intake are EQUAL
Vernon
"Matti Narkia" <m...@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
news:0k0nc21rj9s6c67lk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:38:43 +0300, "Juhana Harju">>: On 29 Jul 2006 03:36:51 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
>>: <runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>:: 1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
>>::
>>:: A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular
>>:: risk factors
>>:: in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
>>::
>>:: Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster
>>:: B, Seidl K,
>>:: Green AA, Talpers S.
>>::
>>: Note that this study compared very high carb diet (vegan) to high carb
>>: diet (ADA).
>>
>>It doesn't do justice to the ADA diet to call it high carb diet.
>
> I haven't calculated the energy percentages from the amounts given in
> grams, but, but if it has 55-60% carbs as Susan mentioned, it is high
> carb in my book.
>
for people WITHOUT a problem.
Vernon
>>Type II diabetes with high carb diets is quackery, despite compelling
>>evidence to the contrary, dating to the Pritikin studies of the early
>>1980s. What's below isn't new. It just adds to this body of evidence.
>>
>>
>>1: Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
>>
>>A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
>>factors
>>in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
>>
>>Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
>>Seidl K,
>>Green AA, Talpers S.
>>
> its proncipal author Neal D. Barnard is president of the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit health organization
>
Yep, a religion.
Nothing to do with science, medicine or truth.
Mr. Natural-Health
> Further, my doctor says, and I agree, that 40% carb is a high carb diet,
> given its ratio to other nutrients.
Nope! that is a moderate Carb Diet. And, I do NOT mind saying so. :)
High-carb would be 60% and over.
Vernon
"Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:4j1k1fF...@individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Juhana Harju wrote:
>
>> I was not online (I went to swim). Now that you have presented these
>> figures and defined "ADA's diet as normal or average carb diet" I can
>> agree with you.
>>
>
> But Matti was wrong in his analysis of carbs. The ADA diet is always
> described as 55% carbs, and they recommend up to 10% of that can be table
> sugar, and most of the rest of calories to come from starches.
>
AND
There is not one single recognized diet or health plan or multiple research
that places the APPROX carb intake at other than 40%.
Vernon
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:nshsp3-...@news.lumbercartel.com...
Vegans have trouble with logic.
D. C. Sessions
Weisenthal wrote:
> So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
> studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
> libitum feeding design.
There you go using the "E" word. You're losing the diet warriors.
Let's face it: almost all of the Type II research that's been done
that included serious exercise found that the diet factors faded
nearly to noise level. Unfortunately, there haven't been that
many studies on combined diet and exercise because a serious
exercise program seems to do a fine job by itself for most Type
II cases; after that you're trying to screen for the ones who
don't respond adequately to exercise alone but still keep with the
program.
Admittedly, my main interest in this is from the several months
a year I spend doing emergency medicine on the Apache reservation.
However, the anecdotal evidence there is overwhelming.
D. C. Sessions
> Pritkin studies had results that other studies have found are achieved
> with exercise alone.
If you're going to introduce exercise into a perfectly good
diet flamewar, you're going to lose everyone.
Matti Narkia
<runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Matti, your modus operandi hasn't changed. You respond to things by
>posting a blizzard of abstracts, without telling me what exactly is
>your point.
>
To present the facts in form of the recent studies about dietary
inventions in diabetics. We have to see what are the facts, before we
can go any further. Facts don't go away even if you close yout eyes
refusing to look at them.
I am not interested to babble this and that all day as you like to do.
I can't see any benefit coming from that to anyone exluding perhaps
the chance for the debaters to inflate their egos, and I have things
to do and new facts to be found.
>
>Most such studies are fatally flawed by virtue of an isocaloric study
>design and the absence of an exercise program.
>
Writes a man who as evidence uses Pritikin studies, which are as
flawed as a study can be. As I said in another message, exercise
probably makes a high carb diet more tolerable, even for diabetics, by
burning off the extra carbs. The real test for high carb diet is how
it compares with well designed low carb diet put together from healthy
ingredients in two groups of diabetics having similar regular level of
exrecise that regular people normally do.
If you want to tout the benefits of exercise + high carb regimen in
diabetes, please be honest and say so, and admit that it is that
regimen you regard as beneficial, and don't contribute its benefits to
high carb diet.
>I am completely uninterested in the "optimum" diet for the couch
>potato.
>
Too bad, majority of middle age or older people are just that. I don't
think that there's much you can do about it. It's probably easier to
get them to modify their diet than make them to do strenuous exercises
continuously. I agree that we should try to motivate people to move
more, but that doesn't seem to be so easy. Therefore I am also
interested in the optimum diet for the couch potatoes. So perhaps we
don't have much to talk about then. You approach seems rather elitist,
which I find rather uninteresting.
>As I've stated in the past, whatever arguments you wish to make about
>what diets humans evolved to eat, it is abundantly clear that humans
>evolved for vigorous exercise.
>
Probably. But they didn't evolve eating high carb diets or eating
grains. And they didn't live as long as we do now. They probably died,
when they could no longer move enough to catch or gather their food.
Now we live longer and many of us get all kind of disabilities or
injuries, which may prevent us from moving as much we wanted. There
has to be a diet also for people, who cannot move or are not
interested in exercising.
It seems that your agenda is more about exercise than about diet. Why
cannot you say it straight?
>Do you know why humans have huge gluteus maximii, relative to chimps?
>
>What is it that the gluteus maximi do?
>
>What they do, and the ONLY reason they are essential, is to keep the
>human body from falling on its face when running.
>
One reason for them is to keep the trunk in the erect posture. I don't
think chimps can do that as well and as long as humans. whatever
reason is that we have them, it is irrelevant when age or illness or
whatever prevents us from moving enough.
>Chimps can walk on two legs, but they can't run, because they'll fall
>on their face, because they lack gluteus maximi to adjust spinal
>posture to keep the body upright while running.
>
>You don't need gluts to walk; but you need them to run.
>
>Exercise, therefore, is the cornerstone of any lifestyle plan.
>
I don't disagree with that, but then we should be talking about
exercise and not about diet. Don't try to attach the benefits of the
exercise to any diet which people doing that exercise happen to
follow.
>So the only diet studies which are relevant are those in which:
>
>(1) A vigorous exercise program was included
>(2) An ad libitum feeding design was used.
>
>So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
>studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
>libitum feeding design.
>
I cannot do that for the reasons stated earlier in this message. Not
everyone can exercise and the potentieal benefits of diets are
shadowed by the benefits of exrcise. Besides, how many such studies
even are around? We could end up talking all kind of rubbish day and
night in the absence of the facts.
>In the future, I'll make it clear in my posts that my data and opinions
>only apply to the above two situations, as well.
>
Then we don't have much discuss.
>As you may remember from prior discussions, I am NOT a "believer" in
>the one-size-fits-all diet.
>
Neither am I.
>I think that choice of diet isn't an emergency.
>
Usually not.
>I'd advise a Type II diabetic to start out with an exercise program and
>thereafter to modify the diet to favor low glycemic carbs, low total
>fat, and extremely low "bad" fat.
>
I agree with the execise part and with glycemic carbs, but I think
that jury is still out about the macronutrient ratio. Based on current
evidence I would recommend restriction of carbs.
>Determine success or failure with the usual measures.
>
>If that didn't work, then, by all means, go to plan B.
>
Naturally.
>It shouldn't be all that controversial.
>
No, facts should have a dominant role in the decision making. That's
why I present them.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hi Matti, I agree with you about Barnard.
I'm glad we can agree about something ;-).
> Were this the only study of
>its type, I'd think it of only minor interest. As it is, it isn't
>anything groundbreaking; it's simply confirmatory.
>
What does it confirm? That high carb probably well designed (David
Jenkins was one of the authors, he knows how to put together a healthy
vegan diet) was better than ADA's average carb, probably inferior
diet, perhaps put together by some committee, and which most likely
contained chicken, perhaps even meat, not to mention sweet cakes and
sugar, which ADA don't seem reagard as bad, if one believes what they
say on their web site.
>As we all recognize, there is no such thing as an unbiased investigator
>in the field of nutrition.
>
True, but the degree of the bias varies.
>Do you have any global warming going on over there in Finland?
>
Yep, it's been hot and no rain for ages.
>Here in California, we seem to be having a lot of it.
>
Here too, but I'm not complaining. We get enough bad weather in the
autumn.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
>
>>I'd advise a Type II diabetic to start out with an exercise program and
>>thereafter to modify the diet to favor low glycemic carbs, low total
>>fat, and extremely low "bad" fat.
>>
>I agree with the execise part and with glycemic carbs, but I think
---
seems to be missing from "exercise". I won't bother to correct any
other typos, which unavoidably always creep in (I have both Finnish
and English spell checkers installed in my newsreader, but for some
obscure reasons the switch from Finnish to English checker doesn't
work).
--
Matti Narkia
Vernon
<runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154200924.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You are in the conversation and you don't know.
Why is that?
Vegan "religion"?
EVERY YEAR, and you are unaware of them.
Interesting.
Vernon
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> AND
>>
>> There is not one single recognized diet or health plan or multiple
>> research that places the APPROX carb intake at other than 40%.
>
>
> baseline recommendation.
>
> Susan
You said it, HIGH, carb "diet".
Vernon
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> Yep, a religion.
>> Nothing to do with science, medicine or truth.
>
> diets, and sources of protein. No agenda other than pure scientific
> investigation.
>
> Once more:
>
SURE
You said "author".
Thus Melville was an expert on sea life.
Vernon
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Comments:
>>
>> - Pritikin studies included exercise, which has beneficial effect on
>> type 2 diabetes, and may improve the tolerance to high carb diet,
>> because exercise effectively burns the extra carbs. The effects of
>> exercise cannot be differentiated from the effects of the diet, so
>> the possible effects of diet itself are unknown.
>>
>> - Pritikin studies are uncontrolled, there is no control group. This
>> is a very questiobale study design. Therefore no comparison can
>> made between Pritikin's program and some other program.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Pritkin studies had results that other studies have found are achieved
> with exercise alone.
RIIGHT ON
>
> Pritkin results were so modest that bg levels were still in the ranges
> associated with progressive complications of DM, ie: bg over 140.
>
> Susan
Vernon
> In message <j88nc29jml03k14g4...@4ax.com>, Matti Narkia
> wrote:
>
>> Apparently high carb diets can have positive effect in diabetes in
>> some comparisons. But in every study you have to pay attention to
>> which high carb diet was compared to.
>
> Considering the wild differences in conversion rates for
> "carbohydrate" foods, IMHO lumping them all together
> oversimplifies.
>
> And, of course, lumping type I and type II together also
> clouds the issue.
>
> --
It only takes knowing a few diabetics who have their test pad / machine/
reader to see what happens with carb intake and a small variation in the
length of time for the same results.
Yes, Type 1 and 2 are different.
Vernon
> In message <1154201824.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Larry
> Weisenthal wrote:
>
>> So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
>> studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
>> libitum feeding design.
>
> There you go using the "E" word. You're losing the diet warriors.
>
> Let's face it: almost all of the Type II research that's been done
> that included serious exercise found that the diet factors faded
> nearly to noise level. Unfortunately, there haven't been that
> many studies on combined diet and exercise because a serious
> exercise program seems to do a fine job by itself for most Type
> II cases; after that you're trying to screen for the ones who
> don't respond adequately to exercise alone but still keep with the
> program.
>
> Admittedly, my main interest in this is from the several months
> a year I spend doing emergency medicine on the Apache reservation.
> However, the anecdotal evidence there is overwhelming.
>
Yes, they have an inborn susceptibility (genes) and a diet that has changed
in the past century to atrocious.
If you think they have a problem, look at Navaho and Salt River.
Vernon
> In message <4j1pquF...@individual.net>, Susan wrote:
>
>> Pritkin studies had results that other studies have found are achieved
>> with exercise alone.
>
> If you're going to introduce exercise into a perfectly good
> diet flamewar, you're going to lose everyone.
>
> --
Anything but exercise.
ironj...@aol.com
Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:57:47 +0300, "Juhana Harju"> >: On 29 Jul 2006 06:26:40 -0700, "Roman Bystrianyk"
> >: <rbyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >:: Juhana Harju wrote:
> >
> >::: I have no doubts that a well planned vegan or near vegan diet works
> >::: in type
> >::: 2 diabetes. However, I have to admit that low carb diets work too,
> >::: although
> >::: I have some concerns about the long term consequencies of high
> >::: protein diets. I think that there is more to diet than HbA1C and
> >::: blood lipids. High
> >::: intake of meat can cause an accumulation of uric acid, homocysteine
> >::: and heme
> >::: iron. Poor relation of calcium to phosphorus in meat might have an
> >::: adverse
> >::: effect on bone density, and the lack of fiber in meat can cause
> >::: constipation, diverticulosis and other large bowel diseases - to name
> >::: just
> >::: few concerns.
> >::
> >:: There is no doubt that there is substantial evidence in the long term
> >:: risks of meat and dairy intake. Here is one example:
> >: I tend to agree. However, low consumption of sour milk products
> >: containg useful bacteria may be beneficial. And low and moderate
> >: carbohydrate diets can be designed so that they contain no meat and
> >: little or no dairy products.
> >
> >I think that it would be prudent to reconcile these two seemingly opposing
> >views. Reducing carbs and increasing dietary protein has clearly certain
> >benefits in controlling blood sugar and insulin levels. On the other hand
> >there are clear advantages in trying to control diabetes by a vegan diet.
>
> Vegan diet can have various amounts of carbs, it does not need to be
> high carb. If you are referring to the high carb vegan diet in the
> study, which started this thread, it depends what you compare it with.
> The high carb vegan diet in that study seems to have advantage over
> ADA's average carb diet, but what would have interested me more, is a
> comparison to a well designed low carb (say 20-30% carbs) diet
> composed from healthy ingredients, with patiens suffering from type 2
> diabetes.
>
> >think that the compromise of these opposing views would resemble the recent
> >recommendations given by the Joslin Diabetes Center, but would probably
> >include somewhat more vegetable foods.
>
> I think we need more studies.
>
>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
>recommendations given by the Joslin Diabetes Center
THESE guys said .. "Iron.. ? Iron .. ? What do you mean .. iron .. ? "
Not more than a year ago ..
They are brain dead morons ..
I hope THEY aren't involved in the diabetes / iron reduction ..
clinical trial ..
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00230087
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
Juhana Harju
: On 29 Jul 2006 12:19:11 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
: <runn...@aol.com> wrote:
:
:: Hi Matti, I agree with you about Barnard.
:
: I'm glad we can agree about something ;-).
:
:: Were this the only study of
:: its type, I'd think it of only minor interest. As it is, it isn't
:: anything groundbreaking; it's simply confirmatory.
::
: What does it confirm? That high carb probably well designed (David
: Jenkins was one of the authors, he knows how to put together a healthy
: vegan diet) was better than ADA's average carb, probably inferior
: diet, perhaps put together by some committee, and which most likely
: contained chicken, perhaps even meat, not to mention sweet cakes and
: sugar, which ADA don't seem reagard as bad, if one believes what they
: say on their web site.
You've got a wrong about the implementation of the ADA diet used in the
study. Actually it was written in the full study that the ADA diet "was
individualized, based on body weight and plasma lipid concentrations"
according to the principles set in a ADA Position Statement in Diabetes Care
26 (Suppl. 1):551-561,2003. They could not have done much better to
implement rigorously the recommendations given by ADA.
:: As we all recognize, there is no such thing as an unbiased
:: investigator in the field of nutrition.
::
: True, but the degree of the bias varies.
:
:: Do you have any global warming going on over there in Finland?
::
: Yep, it's been hot and no rain for ages.
:
:: Here in California, we seem to be having a lot of it.
::
: Here too, but I'm not complaining. We get enough bad weather in the
: autumn.
--
Juhana
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
Why is that?
Vegan "religion"?
EVERY YEAR, and you are unaware of them.
Common, Vernon. You made a direct statement which I am 100% certain is
incorrect and I am calling you on it.
You wrote that every year there are studies published showing that the
Pritikin Diet is harmful and shortens lives. This was in the context
of vituperative personal insults, which I did not deserve, as I haven't
treated you or anyone involved in the current discussion with a lack of
respect.
I'm calling you on it. Can you document your statement, or were you
just making it up?
- Larry Weisenthal
Matti Narkia
<shantig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>: On 29 Jul 2006 12:19:11 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
>: <runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>:
>:: Hi Matti, I agree with you about Barnard.
>:
>: I'm glad we can agree about something ;-).
>:
>:: Were this the only study of
>:: its type, I'd think it of only minor interest. As it is, it isn't
>:: anything groundbreaking; it's simply confirmatory.
>::
>: What does it confirm? That high carb probably well designed (David
>: Jenkins was one of the authors, he knows how to put together a healthy
>: vegan diet) was better than ADA's average carb, probably inferior
>: diet, perhaps put together by some committee, and which most likely
>: contained chicken, perhaps even meat, not to mention sweet cakes and
>: sugar, which ADA don't seem reagard as bad, if one believes what they
>: say on their web site.
>
>You've got a wrong about the implementation of the ADA diet used in the
>study. Actually it was written in the full study that the ADA diet "was
>individualized, based on body weight and plasma lipid concentrations"
>according to the principles set in a ADA Position Statement in Diabetes Care
>26 (Suppl. 1):551-561,2003. They could not have done much better to
>implement rigorously the recommendations given by ADA.
>
So? It was still ADA diet, which probably allows chicken ann perhaps
even red meat, and according to their web site also sugar:
Frequently Asked Questions about Nutrition
<http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/faqs.jsp>
"2. Can I eat foods with sugar in them?
For almost every person with diabetes, the answer is yes! "
Also, ADA does not believe in glucose-lowering herbs and does not
recommend then. On the other hand David J.A. Jenkins from Toronto, who
was in the list of authors and knows all about lipid lowering effects
of various plants, probably also knows well glucose lowering plants
such as bitter melon, onion, garlic, fenugreek, cinnamon and stevia
just to mention a few. The vegan group's LDL fell 21% percent, which
is almost exaxtly the same amount as in David Jenkin's earlier studies
with his vegetarian portfolio diet. IMHO it is very probable that in
the study at hand the differences in the result was caused by the
differences in the chemistry of the individual food items in the diets
and not by the difference in the macronutrient ratio.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
In the David Jenkin's group's study
Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A, Faulkner DA, Wong JM, de Souza
R, Emam A, Parker TL, Vidgen E, Lapsley KG, Trautwein EA, Josse RG,
Leiter LA, Connelly PW.
Effects of a dietary portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods vs
lovastatin on serum lipids and C-reactive protein.
JAMA. 2003 Jul 23;290(4):502-10.
PMID: 12876093 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/4/502>
Jenkins' vegetarian portfolio diet reduced LDL 28.6%, a bit more than
in the study at hand. Perhaps in the study at hand Jenkins had
designed the diet to contain more glucose lowering plants than
LDL-lowering plants.
--
Matti Narkia
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
Quoting me:
> >Matti, your modus operandi hasn't changed. You respond to things by
> >posting a blizzard of abstracts, without telling me what exactly is
> >your point.
Matti replies:
> To present the facts in form of the recent studies about dietary
> inventions in diabetics. We have to see what are the facts, before we
> can go any further. Facts don't go away even if you close yout eyes
> refusing to look at them.
I respond:
Matti. You don't "present facts," you just toss out an undigestable
blizzard of abstracts without explaining precisely what point you are
trying to make.
What would be helpful would be for you to actually make a point...make
a statement, and then say that this statement is supported by such and
so.
Then I could either agree with you or challenge you. But I can't do
anything at all with 27 abstracts when I don't understand what
precisely it is that you think is being proven by your barrage of
abstracts.
Matti goes on to say:
> I am not interested to babble this and that all day as you like to do.
> I can't see any benefit coming from that to anyone exluding perhaps
> the chance for the debaters to inflate their egos, and I have things
> to do and new facts to be found.
I respond.
The above statement is, number one, personally insulting, and, number
2, enormously unfair. You criticize me for actually taking the time to
compose something original, yet you just spam the newsgroup with 2
dozen abstracts, presented in a total vacuum, without explaining to the
rest of us what point you are trying to make and how, precisely, you
think that your point is supported.
Matti goes on to quote me again:
> >Most such studies are fatally flawed by virtue of an isocaloric study
> >design and the absence of an exercise program.
Matti says:
> Writes a man who as evidence uses Pritikin studies, which are as
> flawed as a study can be. As I said in another message, exercise
> probably makes a high carb diet more tolerable, even for diabetics, by
> burning off the extra carbs. The real test for high carb diet is how
> it compares with well designed low carb diet put together from healthy
> ingredients in two groups of diabetics having similar regular level of
> exrecise that regular people normally do.
No studies are perfect, but the Pritikin studies are uniquely valuable.
What they did was to take literally thousands of people and put them
on a program of 45-60 minutes per day of exercise approaching the
aerobic threshold, combined with low glycemic carbs and low total fats
and they documented levels of improvement (including in Type II
diabetics) which have not been exceeded or even matched in any other
study of exercise and diet alone in a similar sized population of
people.
I don't see the "flaw" in this. What it shows is that, if people are
willing to do this, they will, in all probability, greatly improve
their overall health. For those in the minority that do not improve
their overall health, a Plan B may be pursued. For those that can't
follow the program, a Plan B may be pursued, as well.
So what the Pritikin studies consist of is very thorough documentation
(in very large numbers of subjects, many with very serious health
problems) of a specific program. They do not purport to compare and
contrast one type of program with another (save for using study
participants as their own controls, where the baseline was the
"standard American lifestyle").
Matti says:
> If you want to tout the benefits of exercise + high carb regimen in
> diabetes, please be honest and say so, and admit that it is that
> regimen you regard as beneficial, and don't contribute its benefits to
> high carb diet.
If you re-read all of my posts, that is PRECISELY what I do! What is
this absolute poo-poo about "be[ing] honest." Good grief. I even
said, straight out, as I've said many times before, that I have no
interest whatsoever in determining what is the best diet for the couch
potato. I'm not saying that this (couch potato diet) is not important;
but I think that we have a health crisis (evidenced by explosion in
Type II diabetes among people of all ages, with enormous economic
consequences), and it is 100% evident to me that there is no
possibility of improving this with an approach based on diet, while it
is a certainty that the main reason behind the crisis is lack of
exercise and that the only way to solve the crisis is with lifestyle
modification centered on exercise.
Matti goes on to prove my point (that I WAS "honest"):
Quoting me:
> >I am completely uninterested in the "optimum" diet for the couch
> >potato.
Matti says:
> Too bad, majority of middle age or older people are just that. I don't
> think that there's much you can do about it. It's probably easier to
> get them to modify their diet than make them to do strenuous exercises
> continuously. I agree that we should try to motivate people to move
> more, but that doesn't seem to be so easy. Therefore I am also
> interested in the optimum diet for the couch potatoes. So perhaps we
> don't have much to talk about then. You approach seems rather elitist,
> which I find rather uninteresting.
>
Actually, it's not. Firstly, it doesn't necessarily take strenuous
exercise:
The root cause of our health crisis is lack of exercise more than bad
nutrition. In the presence of regular exercise, a wide range of diets
are compatible with good health. In the absence of exercise, we'll
continue to sink into a health crisis, based on everything we are now
observing. I now know lots of people who've gone on low carb diets,
weight watchers, Mediterranean diets. When they don't exercise,
whatever weight loss they get is fleeting. But people who take up
exercise and stick with it tend to do pretty well, over a range of
diets.
So, yeah, guilty as charged on exercise. It's the key to health.
Guilding the lily, I think that low glycemic carbs, low overall fat and
very low bad fat is a diet program which tends to work extremely well
in the presence of a regular exercise program, and I am completely
unaware of any data whatsoever which refutes this assertion.
Matti says:
> There
> has to be a diet also for people, who cannot move or are not
> interested in exercising.
I am perfectly content to accept the fact that your interest lies in
couch potato diets, while my interest lies in lifestyles most promotive
of health. My father is 93 years old; still swims an hour a day. He's
exercised his whole life. Me too. Wife and kids too. It can be done.
You just have to make it a priority. And the root cause of our health
crisis is lack of exercise; so "treating" this with diet alone is
treating the symptom and not the disease. You're statements that old
people can't exercise (or that large numbers of people can't exercise)
are exaggerated. The overwhelming majority of people of all ages are
perfectly capable of exercise. You don't have to be "elite" to
exercise; you simply have to care enough about yourself to do it.
Matti:
>
> It seems that your agenda is more about exercise than about diet. Why
> cannot you say it straight?
>
For the umpty-eleventh time, I'm not interested in diets for couch
potatoes. I'm interested much more in exercise, which is why, if you
google groups "runnswim" you'll find that I've posted 10 times as much
stuff to exercise groups as to nutrition groups, but I have every right
to address the issue of diet in the context of exercise as you and
others have to address the issue of diet in the absence of exercise.
Matti quotes me:
> >Do you know why humans have huge gluteus maximii, relative to chimps?
> >What is it that the gluteus maximi do?
> >
> >What they do, and the ONLY reason they are essential, is to keep the
> >human body from falling on its face when running.
> >
Matti responds:
> One reason for them is to keep the trunk in the erect posture. I don't
> think chimps can do that as well and as long as humans. whatever
> reason is that we have them, it is irrelevant when age or illness or
> whatever prevents us from moving enough.
>
The gluts are mostly quiescent during upright posture and walking, but
they go into hyperdrive (muscle fiber contraction-wise) during running.
The fact that we've got such enormous gluts attests to the importance
of running in human evolution:
Matti quotes me:
> >So the only diet studies which are relevant are those in which:
> >(1) A vigorous exercise program was included
> >(2) An ad libitum feeding design was used.
> >So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
> >studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
> >libitum feeding design.
Matti says:
> I cannot do that for the reasons stated earlier in this message. Not
> everyone can exercise and the potentieal benefits of diets are
> shadowed by the benefits of exrcise. Besides, how many such studies
> even are around? We could end up talking all kind of rubbish day and
> night in the absence of the facts.
That again points to the importance of the Pritikin studies. Thousands
of subjects in a resident program of exercise and diet. Such studies
would cost millions to reproduce, which is why they aren't being done.
But the Pritikin studies _were_ done and they remain the benchmark
lifestyle studies. If you can point to a study in which the overall
benefits of the Pritikin program were exceeded, I would be very
interested in reading it and having the opportunity to discuss it here.
And, yes, "not everyone" can exercise (e.g. quadraplegics), but the
vast majority of people of all ages _can_ exercise.
Matti quotes me:
> >In the future, I'll make it clear in my posts that my data and opinions
> >only apply to the above two situations, as well.
Matti:
> Then we don't have much discuss.
Larry:
Pity.
Quoting me:
> >I'd advise a Type II diabetic to start out with an exercise program and
> >thereafter to modify the diet to favor low glycemic carbs, low total
> >fat, and extremely low "bad" fat.
Matti replies:
> I agree with the execise part and with glycemic carbs, but I think
> that jury is still out about the macronutrient ratio. Based on current
> evidence I would recommend restriction of carbs.
One of my main points is that we don't have to wait until the jury is
in. All the "jury" will tell us is the "best" diet for the "average"
diabetic at a given exercise level. There will always be exceptions,
either for individual metabolic reasons or for something as mundane as
food preference reasons (I haven't eaten red meat since 1971 and I
don't care to eat it now; but the quality of my life would be
diminished without rice, pasta, and bread; for others, I'm sure it's
quite the opposite).
My "agenda" here is not to maintain that high carb/low fat is superior
to low carb/high fat or anything else. Yes, my own bias, based on the
sum total of the world's literature, is that most people would do very
well with vigorous exercise, NEAT, and high carb/low fat (and I'm not
an "animal rights kook"), but I'm not even arguing that
overstrenuously.
I simply want to make the point that health begins with exercise and
that high carb/low fat diets work pretty well in this setting and that
there aren't any data at all which indicate that any other type of diet
works better in this setting for the average person.
But also that diet needs to be individualized, so...
> >Determine success or failure with the usual measures.
> >If that didn't work, then, by all means, go to plan B.
With which, Matti agrees:
> Naturally.
Since Matti says he has no interest in discussing what diets are most
optimum for exercisers and I've said repeatedly that I've no interest
in discussing diets for non-exercisers, it would appear that our
dialogue with each other is at its end.
But I will be back, from time to time, as new studies emerge, as I've
been doing for the past 10 years plus on this newsgroup.
- Larry Weisenthal
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
that age was a contraindication to exercise with the example of my 93
year old father, who still swims an hour a day.
Here's a picture of me and my Dad, after an ocean swimming race. At
the time of the photo (two years ago), he was 91 and I was 57:
http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/dad_larry_post-swim.jpg
- Larry Weisenthal
Matti Narkia
<runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>P.S. In my above discussion about exercise, I refuted Matti's assertion
>that age was a contraindication to exercise with the example of my 93
>year old father, who still swims an hour a day.
>
You are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say it was
contraindication. But the ability and the interest to exercise
decrease with age. Admittedly many older people still can and want to
exercise, but their number reduces with age. We need a diet which
works also for people who cannot or for some reason don't want to
exercise regardless of the efforts of trying to motivate them to do
so.
As far as I know this thread is about diet. If you want mainly to talk
about exercise, perhaps you should start a new thread for that, in a
fitness group for example.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>Quoting me:
>
>> >Matti, your modus operandi hasn't changed. You respond to things by
>> >posting a blizzard of abstracts, without telling me what exactly is
>> >your point.
>
The point is to show that the majority of recent studies find low carb
diet more suitable than high carb diet in type 2 diabetes, and to
present factual groundwork for further discussion and interpretations.
If you have trouble dealing with them now, just leave them alone for a
while. Regard them as a reference list, which anyone participating in
the discussion can utilize, when needed.
Your point is that exercise + high carb diet could also work in type 2
diabetes. That may be true, but I think that it should be compared
with exercise + low carb diet to see which one works better in this
combination. If the exercise is very strenuous, a _very_ low carb diet
may not be suitable, because we need some carbs to exercise and
especially to recover from exercise, IMHO, but I don't have any
references at hand about that right now.
If you claim also that high carb diet alone, without a strenuous
exercise, works in type 2 diabetes, I think that it may be possible
especially then, when the diet is well designed and includes low
glycemic carbs and glucose lowering plants. But it should be compared
with a low carb diet, where carbs are also low glycemic, and which
includes glucose lowering plants. Based on the evidence of the recent
studies, which I have posted, I think that low carb diet would fare
better, but I think that we need more studies.
>Matti replies:
>
>> To present the facts in form of the recent studies about dietary
>> inventions in diabetics. We have to see what are the facts, before we
>> can go any further. Facts don't go away even if you close yout eyes
>> refusing to look at them.
>
>I respond:
>
>Matti. You don't "present facts," you just toss out an undigestable
>blizzard of abstracts without explaining precisely what point you are
>trying to make.
>
What makes you unable to digest them? If you cannot, just leave them
alone for a while, until needs arises to refer to or to interpret
them. As for my point, see above.
>What would be helpful would be for you to actually make a point...make
>a statement, and then say that this statement is supported by such and
>so.
>
>Then I could either agree with you or challenge you. But I can't do
>anything at all with 27 abstracts when I don't understand what
>precisely it is that you think is being proven by your barrage of
>abstracts.
>
27 abstracts in this thread? I think you have your math wrong, perhaps
you counted some of them twice, when they were cited in a follow-up
message.
I don't think anything is proven yet, most studies are so small, but
the majority of the recent studies I posted suggest the low carb diet
could be preferable to high carb diet in type 2 diabetes, IMHO.
>Matti goes on to say:
>
>> I am not interested to babble this and that all day as you like to do.
>> I can't see any benefit coming from that to anyone exluding perhaps
>> the chance for the debaters to inflate their egos, and I have things
>> to do and new facts to be found.
>
>I respond.
>
>The above statement is, number one, personally insulting, and, number
>2, enormously unfair.
Much worse language is used daily in the usenet and even in is thread.
If you cannot tolerate everyday usenet straight talk, I apologize, and
try to modify my language.
> You criticize me for actually taking the time to
>compose something original, yet you just spam the newsgroup with 2
>dozen abstracts, presented in a total vacuum, without explaining to the
>rest of us what point you are trying to make and how, precisely, you
>think that your point is supported.
>
You seem to like these meta-discussions about the format and style of
debaters. We oviously have different style to carry on conversation,
but I don't see much point in going any deeper in this
meta-discussion.
>Matti goes on to quote me again:
>
>> >Most such studies are fatally flawed by virtue of an isocaloric study
>> >design and the absence of an exercise program.
>
>Matti says:
>
>> Writes a man who as evidence uses Pritikin studies, which are as
>> flawed as a study can be. As I said in another message, exercise
>> probably makes a high carb diet more tolerable, even for diabetics, by
>> burning off the extra carbs. The real test for high carb diet is how
>> it compares with well designed low carb diet put together from healthy
>> ingredients in two groups of diabetics having similar regular level of
>> exrecise that regular people normally do.
>
>No studies are perfect, but the Pritikin studies are uniquely valuable.
> What they did was to take literally thousands of people and put them
>on a program of 45-60 minutes per day of exercise approaching the
>aerobic threshold, combined with low glycemic carbs and low total fats
>and they documented levels of improvement (including in Type II
>diabetics) which have not been exceeded or even matched in any other
>study of exercise and diet alone in a similar sized population of
>people.
>
They may have some value, especially regarding the effect of exercise.
in type 2 diabetes. But their design was flawed, they were
uncontrolled, there was no control group. That kind of design will be
frowned upon nowadays. And as diet studies they are even more flawed,
because the effect of exercise probably overshadowed any positive or
negative egffect the diet possibly had in type 2 diabetes
BTW, where do you get these "thousands of people"? In the Pritikin's
1982 type 2 diabetes stude there were 60 patients and in 1983 study 69
patients.
>I don't see the "flaw" in this.
That greatly susprises me.
>What it shows is that, if people are
>willing to do this, they will, in all probability, greatly improve
>their overall health.
I agree that the exercise part in Pritikin's program has that effect.
We don't know what would be the result, if the diet component would be
replaced say, with a low or moderate carb diet, which accodrding to
recent evidence may be more suitable for type 2 diabetics.
>For those in the minority that do not improve
>their overall health, a Plan B may be pursued. For those that can't
>follow the program, a Plan B may be pursued, as well.
>
Naturally. Plan B could be for example replacing the diet part in
Pritikin's program with a healthy diet containg less carbs.
>So what the Pritikin studies consist of is very thorough documentation
>(in very large numbers of subjects, many with very serious health
>problems) of a specific program.
I don't think that 60 and 69 are very large numbers. Do you?
>
>Guilding the lily, I think that low glycemic carbs, low overall fat and
>very low bad fat is a diet program which tends to work extremely well
>in the presence of a regular exercise program, and I am completely
>unaware of any data whatsoever which refutes this assertion.
>
Define "extremely well" for type 2 diabetics. I don't contest that
exercise is good for them and probably masks any undesirable effects
of high carb diet. But I think that that they could do even better by
reducing carbs. We need studies about that.
>Matti says:
>
>> There
>> has to be a diet also for people, who cannot move or are not
>> interested in exercising.
>
>I am perfectly content to accept the fact that your interest lies in
>couch potato diets, while my interest lies in lifestyles most promotive
>of health.
I'm not aware of any current evidence that "couch potato diets" would
be imcompatible with exercise.
>My father is 93 years old; still swims an hour a day. He's
>exercised his whole life. Me too. Wife and kids too. It can be done.
> You just have to make it a priority. And the root cause of our health
>crisis is lack of exercise; so "treating" this with diet alone is
>treating the symptom and not the disease. You're statements that old
>people can't exercise (or that large numbers of people can't exercise)
>are exaggerated. The overwhelming majority of people of all ages are
>perfectly capable of exercise. You don't have to be "elite" to
>exercise; you simply have to care enough about yourself to do it.
>
No big disagreement about that. But the number of people capable and
willing to exercise decreases with age.
>Matti:
>
>>
>> It seems that your agenda is more about exercise than about diet. Why
>> cannot you say it straight?
>>
>
>For the umpty-eleventh time, I'm not interested in diets for couch
>potatoes. I'm interested much more in exercise, which is why, if you
>google groups "runnswim" you'll find that I've posted 10 times as much
>stuff to exercise groups as to nutrition groups, but I have every right
>to address the issue of diet in the context of exercise as you and
>others have to address the issue of diet in the absence of exercise.
>
But we are here to discuss diet, not exercise. Exercise can overshadow
many positive or negative aspects of a diet. I'm not aware of any
healthy diet, which would be incompatible with exercise (well, perhaps
ketogenic diet could be a bit hard for people doing strenuous
exercise, but I don't have any evidence about that. So I thik that we
can safely concenrate on the diet alone.
>
>Matti quotes me:
>
>> >So the only diet studies which are relevant are those in which:
>
>> >(1) A vigorous exercise program was included
>> >(2) An ad libitum feeding design was used.
>
>> >So, in the future, when you respond to my posts, please include only
>> >studies which incorporated both a vigorous exercise program and an ad
>> >libitum feeding design.
>
>Matti says:
>
>> I cannot do that for the reasons stated earlier in this message. Not
>> everyone can exercise and the potentieal benefits of diets are
>> shadowed by the benefits of exrcise. Besides, how many such studies
>> even are around? We could end up talking all kind of rubbish day and
>> night in the absence of the facts.
>
>That again points to the importance of the Pritikin studies. Thousands
>of subjects in a resident program of exercise and diet. Such studies
>would cost millions to reproduce, which is why they aren't being done.
>But the Pritikin studies _were_ done and they remain the benchmark
>lifestyle studies. If you can point to a study in which the overall
>benefits of the Pritikin program were exceeded, I would be very
>interested in reading it and having the opportunity to discuss it here.
>
But the results of Pritikin's type 2 diabetes studies say something
only about the whole program, whose most effective component was
exercise. We cannot make any conclusions about diet except that it did
not negate the effects of the exercise.
>
>Quoting me:
>
>> >I'd advise a Type II diabetic to start out with an exercise program and
>> >thereafter to modify the diet to favor low glycemic carbs, low total
>> >fat, and extremely low "bad" fat.
>
>Matti replies:
>
>> I agree with the execise part and with glycemic carbs, but I think
>> that jury is still out about the macronutrient ratio. Based on current
>> evidence I would recommend restriction of carbs.
>
>One of my main points is that we don't have to wait until the jury is
>in. All the "jury" will tell us is the "best" diet for the "average"
>diabetic at a given exercise level.
Could you please elaborate on that?
>There will always be exceptions,
>either for individual metabolic reasons or for something as mundane as
>food preference reasons (I haven't eaten red meat since 1971 and I
>don't care to eat it now; but the quality of my life would be
>diminished without rice, pasta, and bread; for others, I'm sure it's
>quite the opposite).
>
I don't eat red or white meat either. I do eat fish and plenty of
vegetables. A coupel of years ago I left out rice, potatoes and most
of the grain products including bread replacing them mostly with
legumes, low carb vegetables and MUFA. As result my HDL rose 100% and
triglycerised were reduced, while LDL didn't change.
>My "agenda" here is not to maintain that high carb/low fat is superior
>to low carb/high fat or anything else.
I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps our differences are more or less
imaginary then :-). Still, I think that people with low HDL or high
triglycerides, should try low carb diet.
>Yes, my own bias, based on the
>sum total of the world's literature, is that most people would do very
>well with vigorous exercise, NEAT, and high carb/low fat (and I'm not
>an "animal rights kook"), but I'm not even arguing that
>overstrenuously.
>
I agree with exercise, but not necessarily with vigorous exercise. If
you emphasize too much the "vigorousness" of the exercise, you may
stop many people from starting to exercise. Even walking is much
better than doing nothing, and is probaly safer for older people than
for example running, which is hard on joints, and could even be
dangerous for people with undiagnosed coronary condition.
As for high carb/low fat part I have to disagree with. There is no
proof about its superiority and low fat diet could be harmful for
strenuous exercisers, because it can compromise their immune system.
I also think that people should get their lipid profiles checked. If
the HDL is low or trigylecerides are high, an experiment with low carb
diet is warranted, IMO. I've been exercising most of my life, even
running a maraton once, but exercise never had much effect on my low
HDL, but reduction of carbs doubled it in a very short time.
>I simply want to make the point that health begins with exercise and
>that high carb/low fat diets work pretty well in this setting and that
>there aren't any data at all which indicate that any other type of diet
>works better in this setting for the average person.
>
Ok, you have made your point about exercise, and I agree with that.
Can we now concentrate on diet? Speaking about diet, a well designed
healthy low or moderate carb diet could possibly work even better also
in the exercise setting. People should monitor their lipid profile and
reduce carbs, if HDL is too low or triglycerides are too high.
>But also that diet needs to be individualized, so...
>
Yep, see above.
>
>Since Matti says he has no interest in discussing what diets are most
>optimum for exercisers and I've said repeatedly that I've no interest
>in discussing diets for non-exercisers, it would appear that our
>dialogue with each other is at its end.
>
I didn't say that. To my knowledege there is no data showing that
diets which are good for non-exercisers wouldn't be good for
exercisers. If you have such information, please present it. Therefore
I don't see any need to carry the exercise component continuosly in
the conversation about diet. We can return to it whenever there is a
special need, for example, if a certain diet clearly is not suitable
for exercisers, or vice versa, is more suitable than other diets
discussed.
>But I will be back, from time to time, as new studies emerge, as I've
>been doing for the past 10 years plus on this newsgroup.
>
Welcome back!
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
>On 29 Jul 2006 12:37:04 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
><runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>As I've stated in the past, whatever arguments you wish to make about
>>what diets humans evolved to eat, it is abundantly clear that humans
>>evolved for vigorous exercise.
>>
>Probably. But they didn't evolve eating high carb diets or eating
>grains.
Most of the studies about preagricultural era seem to suggest that
humans have evolved on diet containg 22-40% of energy as
carbohydrates. Here some references about these studies with related
citations:
Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA,
O'Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J.
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the
21st century.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54. Review.
PMID: 15699220 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341>
"There is growing awareness that the profound changes in the
environment (eg, in diet and other lifestyle conditions) that
began with the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry
approximately 10000 y ago occurred too recently on an
evolutionary time scale for the human genome to adjust. In
conjunction with this discordance between our ancient,
genetically determined biology and the nutritional, cultural,
and activity patterns of contemporary Western populations, many
of the so-called diseases of civilization have emerged. In
particular, food staples and food-processing procedures
introduced during the Neolithic and Industrial Periods have
fundamentally altered 7 crucial nutritional characteristics of
ancestral hominin diets: 1) glycemic load, 2) fatty acid
composition, 3) macronutrient composition, 4) micronutrient
density, 5) acid-base balance, 6) sodium-potassium ratio, and
7) fiber content. The evolutionary collision of our ancient
genome with the nutritional qualities of recently introduced
foods may underlie many of the chronic diseases of Western
civilization.
[...]
Both the current US macronutrient intakes and suggested
healthful levels differ considerably from average levels
obtained from ethnographic (20) and quantitative (21) studies
of hunter gatherers in which dietary protein is
characteristically elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense
of carbohydrate (22–40% of energy) (20, 21). Although the
macronutrient compositions of hominin diets during the
Paleolithic period cannot be directly determined, recent
isotopic data from Neanderthal (117) and Upper Paleolithic
European (118) skeletons support the notion that protein
consumption may have been substantially higher than current
values."
Mann NJ.
Paleolithic nutrition: what can we learn from the past?
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S17.
PMID: 15294479 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1529447>
"Background - Anthropologists and some nutritionists have long
recognised that the diets of Paleolithic and recent
hunter-gatherers (HG) may represent a reference standard for
modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain
western lifestyle diseases.
[...]
Study of macronutrient energy proportions in the diet of HG
societies (n=229) show a relatively high protein intake 19-35%,
highly variable fat intake 28-47% and low carbohydrate level
22-40%. Conclusions - It is postulated that changes in food
staples and food processing procedures introduced during the
Neolithic and Industrial era have fundamentally altered seven
crucial nutritional characteristics of our ancestral diet: (i)
glycaemic load, (ii) fatty acid balance, (iii) macronutrient
balance, (iv) trace nutrient density, (v) acid-base balance, (vi)
sodium-potassium balance, (vii) fiber content."
Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K.
The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet
non-atherogenic.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52. Review.
PMID: 11965522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11965522>
"CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would
not have necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles
because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein
(19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary
carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58%
energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in
Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative
differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of
MUFA and PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio,
would have served to inhibit the development of CVD. Other
dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants,
fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake
may have operated synergistically with lifestyle
characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to
further deter the development of CVD."
Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.
Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations
in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92.
PMID: 10702160 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682>
"... Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was
ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts
(45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide
hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy)
of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of
these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their
subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on
animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate
content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic
macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated
(19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of
energy)."
--
Matti Narkia
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
about exercise, perhaps you should start a new thread for that, in a
fitness group for example.<<
No, Matti, my posts have not been about exercise in a vacuum; they have
been about which diets are good in the context of exercise; just as
your posts are about which diets are good in the absence of exercise.
In the past, I have cited the Pritikin studies as being supportive of
high carb/low fat diets for Type II diabetes. I have been severely
criticized in the past on this newsgroup for so asserting. It was
stated by a prominent contributor to this newsgroup that giving a high
carb diet to a Type II diabetic was quackery, or worse.
Now, I have, on the basis of existing evidence, not claimed the a
Pritikin-type diet, in the absence of exercise, should be a one size
fits all diet for everyone (I am opposed, in principle, to one size
fits all medicine; my career as a cancer physician is devoted to the
individualization of therapy, and I feel the same way about the
management of all diseases and lifestyles).
But whether or not a high carb diet (high good carbs/low fat/very low
bad fat; which is what the Pritikin diet is) is inherently "toxic" to
diabetics in the absence of a formal exercise program is a relevant
question.
The current (Barnard) study which is the topic of this thread is
relevant to this question. It is just one of a number of studies of
_ad libitum_ high carb/low fat diets which, to unstate it markedly,
fail to show detrimental effects in Type II diabetics.
Virtually all (if not all) studies purporting to show "bad" effects of
high carb/low fat diets have either failed to use "high quality"
(Pritikin-type) carbs or have used an isocaloric study design (which is
basically force feeding of the high carb group) or both. And all of
these studies have failed to include an exercise program, which is
really the cornerstone for dietary health.
Therefore, the assertion that high carb/low fat diets are inherently
deleterious (or even inferior to other diets) to Type II diabetics
cannot be supported on the basis of existing evidence.
And assertions that people can't exercise are highly exaggerated.
Exercise has been proven to be markedly beneficial to all age groups,
up to and including 93 year olds, like my father, and even beyond.
Exercise improves metabolic parameters, cardiovascular and cancer risk
factors, protects against hip fractures with an associated high degree
of lethality, and maintains cognitive function.
There is no diet in the world which has been so conclusively shown to
be associated with global health benefits as exercise.
People who primarily seek health through a dinner plate are misguided.
Reminds me of an old song:
>>looking for love in all the wrong places.
Looking for love in too many faces.
Searching their eyes, looking for traces
of what I'm dreaming of.<<
- Larry Weisenthal
Matti Narkia
>On 30 Jul 2006 04:16:54 -0700, "runn...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
><runn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Guilding the lily, I think that low glycemic carbs, low overall fat and
>>very low bad fat is a diet program which tends to work extremely well
>>in the presence of a regular exercise program, and I am completely
>>unaware of any data whatsoever which refutes this assertion.
>>
I have no data about diabetics in this regard, but the some studies
suggest that low fat diet can compromise the immnune function of
endurance athletes, for example runners. The news report and
references of these studies are included later in this message. I
don't know if these results would be valid for type 2 diabetics, but
I'm not aware of any opposite evidence.
>But we are here to discuss diet, not exercise. Exercise can overshadow
>many positive or negative aspects of a diet. I'm not aware of any
>healthy diet, which would be incompatible with exercise (well, perhaps
>ketogenic diet could be a bit hard for people doing strenuous
>exercise, but I don't have any evidence about that. So I thik that we
>can safely concenrate on the diet alone.
Exception: low fat diet could compromise the immune system of
endurance athletes as shown by news report and refernces later in this
message.
>>Yes, my own bias, based on the
>>sum total of the world's literature, is that most people would do very
>>well with vigorous exercise, NEAT, and high carb/low fat (and I'm not
>>an "animal rights kook"), but I'm not even arguing that
>>overstrenuously.
>>
>I agree with exercise, but not necessarily with vigorous exercise. If
>you emphasize too much the "vigorousness" of the exercise, you may
>stop many people from starting to exercise. Even walking is much
>better than doing nothing, and is probaly safer for older people than
>for example running, which is hard on joints, and could even be
>dangerous for people with undiagnosed coronary condition.
>
>As for high carb/low fat part I have to disagree with. There is no
>proof about its superiority and low fat diet could be harmful for
>strenuous exercisers, because it can compromise their immune system.
This is not diabetes related, but the point of the news reports and
Medline references included below is to demonstrate that low fat diet
may not always be best diet with strenuous exercise, and that in many
cases moderate or even high fat diet could be better, because several
studies seem to suggest that relatively high fat diets may improve
performance, lipid profile (raise HDL for example) and immune function
in endurance athletes, and that low fat diet may sometimes compromise
their immune function and unfavorably affect lipid profile and
athletic performance. Below a few news articles about studies
conducted at the University of Buffalo in 1994, 1997 and 1999, Medline
reference related to them, and some other related Medline references:
Trained Runners Perform Better On Diet Moderately High In Fat Than On
High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Regimen, Study Shows
October 25, 1994
<http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=30860009>
Excerpts:
"Highly trained runners hoping to improve their
performance by slashing fat from their diets may be
heading down the wrong nutritional path, a small pilot
study by University at Buffalo researchers implies.
[...]
Historically, researchers have agreed that a high-
carbohydrate, low-fat diet is preferred for maximum
endurance during moderate-to-high-intensity exercise.
Many of the studies supporting this view have used
untrained or moderately trained subjects, Leddy said.
Those results may not apply to trained runners because
trained athletes metabolize fats more efficiently that
untrained persons, he noted.
Previous studies using a high-fat diet often severely
restricted carbohydrates as well, Leddy said, while
carbohydrate levels remained at 50 percent of total
calories even on the increased-fat diet in this study.
To compare performance levels, UB researchers placed
subjects on three different diets for one week each,
and conducted exercise testing at the end of each
week. The three diets were:
Six male members of the UB track team took part in the
study. The athletes were tested on treadmills after
each week’s diet to determine maximum oxygen
consumption -- a measure of the efficiency of one’s
oxygen-transport system and an indicator of aerobic
capacity -- and endurance.
To eliminate any carry-over effect from the
carbohydrate regimen, the runners consumed and were
tested on the higher-fat diet before the high-
carbohydrate diet.
Results showed the athletes ran 20 percent longer on
the high-fat diet than on the carbohydrate diet, and
32 percent longer on the high-fat diet than on their
normal diets.
Maximum oxygen consumption was 11.4 percent higher on
the high-fat diet than on the high-carbohydrate diet,
results showed. ..."
High-Fat Diet Raises "Good Cholesterol" In Trained Runners
January 21, 1997
<http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=30850009>
An excerpt:
"Athletes training on a high-fat diet have a healthier
cholesterol profile than when they eat the traditional
low-fat, high-carbohydrate training diet and they do
not gain weight or body fat in the process, new data
from researchers at the University at Buffalo have
shown. The study, thought to be the first to show this
effect in women, has important implications for anyone
who puts in high running mileage for health purposes.
It shows they may be blunting the benefits of running
by eating a diet too low in fat.
Previous results from the same study group of athletes
showed that increasing dietary fat also improves
endurance performance.
The new results, reported in the January issue of
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, show that
trained male and female runners who consumed a diet
composed of as much as 42 percent fat had higher
levels of high-density lipoproteins (HDL) in their
blood than when on a diet of only 16 percent fat. HDL
is the form of cholesterol known to lower the risk of
coronary heart disease. LDL, or low-density
lipoproteins, is known as the "bad cholesterol"
because it has the opposite effect.
The runners, who trained at least 35 miles a week, did
not gain weight on the high-fat diet or show an
increase in any risk factors for coronary heart
disease.
[...]
Results showed that HDL levels rose as the amount of fat in the
diets increased. There was no change in weight, percent of body
fat, heart rate, blood pressure, serum triglycerides, total
cholesterol or LDL. The 42-percent-fat diet decreased risk factors
for heart disease, while the 16-percent-fat diet increased the
risk factors for coronary heart disease by lowering the levels of
HDL and the major protein component of HDL. ..."
Very-Low-Fat Diet May Compromise Immune Function, Increase Infection
Rate in
Trained Runners, UB Study Finds.
Saturday, May 22, 1999
<http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=27530009>
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990528004622.htm>
Excerpts:
"Trained runners who severely limit the amount of fat
in their diets may be suppressing their immune system
and increasing their susceptibility to infections and
inflammation, a University at Buffalo study has shown.
In findings presented here today (May 22, 1999) at the
fourth International Society for Exercise and
Immunology Symposium, lead author Jaya T. Venkatraman,
Ph.D., reported that running 40 miles per week on a
diet composed of approximately 17 percent fat
compromised the runners' immune response.
The medium and high-fat diets, composed of
approximately 32 and 41 percent fat respectively, left
the immune system intact, and enhanced certain
components, the findings showed.
"The data suggest that higher-fat diets may lower the
proinflammatory cytokines, free radicals and hormones,
and may enhance the levels of anti-inflammatory
cytokines," Venkatraman said.
[...]
"In general, moderate levels of exercise are known to
enhance the immune system," said Venkatraman. "But
high-intensity exercise and endurance exercise produce
excess levels of free radicals, which may place stress
on the immune system.
"Since we have shown that athletes perform better on a
higher-fat diet than on a low-fat diet, it was
important to determine if the higher-fat diet would
further compromise the immune system," she said. "We
found that it did not, but the very-low-fat diet did."
The study involved six female and eight male
competitive runners who trained at 40 miles a week and
were part of a larger performance study. They spent a
month on their normal diets, followed by a month each
on diets composed of approximately 17 percent, 32
percent and 41 percent fat. Protein remained stable at
15 percent and carbohydrates made up the difference.
The immune status of the runners was obtained by
analyzing concentrations of essential components of
the immune system -- leukocytes, cytokines and plasma
cortisol -- in blood samples taken before and after an
endurance exercise test. The tests were conducted at
the end of each four-week diet period.
Results showed that natural killer cells, a type of
leukocyte and one of the body's defense mechanisms
marshaled to fight infection, were more than doubled
in runners after the high-fat diet, compared to the
low-fat regimen. Levels of PGE2, inflammation-causing
prostaglandins, increased after the endurance test and
were higher when the runners were on the low-fat
diet. ... "
Related references:
1: Venkatraman JT, Feng X, Pendergast D.
Effects of dietary fat and endurance exercise on plasma cortisol,
prostaglandin E2, interferon-gamma and lipid peroxides in runners.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Oct;20(5):529-36.
PMID: 11601568 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/5/529>
"OBJECTIVE: Exercise and the neuroendocrine and oxidative
stress it elicits on immune function is modulated by dietary
fat intake. The effects of increasing dietary fat on endurance
exercise-induced alterations 80% of VO2max for 2 hours) in the
plasma levels of cortisol and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2),
interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) and lipid peroxides were
investigated. As higher levels of cortisol, PGE2 and lipid
peroxides could be immunosuppressive, the effects of different
levels of dietary fat on these measures in runners were
determined. METHODS: Healthy trained runners (males and
females) consumed serially 15% fat diet (of daily energy), 30%
fat diet and 40% fat diets for four weeks each. In the last
week of each diet period the subjects ran to exhaustion at 80%
of their VO2max and blood was drawn pre- and post-run.
Cortisol, IFN-gamma, PGE2 and lipid peroxides were determined
using standard techniques. RESULTS: Pre-exercise levels of
plasma cortisol were elevated, IFN-gamma was unchanged and PGE2
and lipid peroxides decreased on the 40%F diet compared to 30%F
and 15%F. Post-exercise levels of plasma cortisol (p < 0.004),
PGE2 (p < 0.0057) and lipid peroxide levels increased (p <
0.0001) after endurance exercise on all diets. The rates of
increase of plasma cortisol levels during exercise were similar
on all three diets. Although absolute cortisol levels were
higher in the high fat group, the rate of increase of plasma
cortisol level during exercise was similar on each diet. The
dietary fat levels did not affect IFN-gamma, however, PGE2 and
lipid peroxides decreased with increasing fat at baseline at
40%F level (p < 0.01; 30%F vs. 40% F: p < 0.002; 15%F vs. 40%F:
p < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Data from the present study suggest
that higher levels of fat in the diet, up to 40%, increase
endurance running time without adverse effects on plasma
cortisol, IFN-gamma, and lipid peroxide levels."
2: Venkatraman JT, Leddy J, Pendergast D.
Dietary fats and immune status in athletes: clinical implications.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jul;32(7 Suppl):S389-95. Review.
PMID: 10910295 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10910295&dopt=Abstract>
"Athletes are competitive, train at very high levels with
inadequate rest, consume too few calories, avoid fats, and may
be at increased risk of infections. The immune system is
sensitive to both fat intake and intense exercise, suggesting
that athletes may have suppressed immune function. It has been
reported that many athletes consume about 25% fewer calories
than the estimated expenditure, leading to low intakes of some
essential micronutrients and fats. Acute exercise has been
shown to increase inflammatory and decrease antiinflammatory
immune factors and may increase oxidant stress. Chronic
exercise appears to improve immune competence. Lipids are
powerful mediators of the immune system, and they may modulate
the immunosuppressive effects of strenuous exercise. Studies
have shown that a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (15% fat, 65%
CHO, 20% protein of total calories), typically eaten by
athletes, increases inflammatory and decreases antiinflammatory
immune factors, depresses antioxidants, and negatively affects
blood lipoprotein ratios. Increasing total caloric intake by
25% to match energy expenditure and the dietary fat intake to
32% in athletes appears to reverse the negative effects on
immune function and lipoprotein levels reported on a low-fat
diet. Increasing the dietary fat intake of athletes to 42%,
while maintaining caloric intake equal to expenditure, does not
negatively affect immune competency or blood lipoproteins,
whereas it improves endurance exercise performance at 60-80% of
VO2max in cyclists, soldiers, and runners. There is no evidence
that higher fat intakes (up to 42% of total calories), in
calorically balanced diets, increase the risk of cancer, but
studies are needed to determine whether the beneficial effects
of higher fat diets in athletes reduce their rate of
infections."
3: Horvath PJ, Eagen CK, Fisher NM, Leddy JJ, Pendergast DR.
The effects of varying dietary fat on performance and metabolism in
trained male and female runners.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Feb;19(1):52-60.
PMID: 10682876 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/52>
"Conclusion: These results suggest that runners on a low fat diet
consume fewer calories and have reduced endurance performance than
on a medium or high fat diet. A high fat diet, providing
sufficient total calories, does not compromise anaerobic power."
4: Brown RC, Cox CM.
Effects of high fat versus high carbohydrate diets on plasma lipids
and lipoproteins in endurance athletes.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 Dec;30(12):1677-83.
PMID: 9861599 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9861599&dopt=Abstract>
"PURPOSE AND METHODS: Recent research suggesting the
performance benefits of high fat diets for endurance athletes
have been viewed with caution because of the potential negative
health consequences, including increased coronary heart disease
risk. This study examined the effects of a high fat (HF: 50% of
total energy from fat, 37% carbohydrate) versus a high
carbohydrate (HC: 15% of total energy from fat, 69%
carbohydrate) diet on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in 32
endurance trained cyclists over a 3-month period. Plasma total,
low density lipoprotein (LDL), high density lipoprotein (HDL),
HDL2 and HDL3 cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A1,
and hematocrit (Hct) were measured at baseline and after weeks
4, 8, and 12. RESULTS: Changes in lipids and lipoproteins from
baseline to week 12 did not differ between the two groups
except for triglycerides, which increased significantly from
1.04 +/- 0.17 mmol.L-1 to 1.28 +/- 0.31 mmol.L-1 in HC (P =
0.012). The only significant changes that occurred within each
group from baseline to week 12 was the significant increase in
total cholesterol and triglycerides in HC. Body composition
changes did not differ between the two groups from baseline to
week 12 as measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry. CONCLUSIONS:
During periods of endurance training when energy requirements
are high, increasing the percentage of fat in the diet to
approximately 50% of total energy did not result in adverse
changes to the plasma lipoprotein profiles of this group of
athletes."
5: Venkatraman JT, Pendergast D.
Effects of the level of dietary fat intake and endurance exercise on
plasma cytokines in runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 Aug;30(8):1198-204.
PMID: 9710857 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9710857&dopt=Abstract>
"CONCLUSIONS: Data from the present study suggest that dietary fat
has differential effects on plasma cytokine levels in runners.
Increasing the level of dietary fat significantly increased
endurance run time and had no adverse effects on the level of
plasma IL-2 and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1 beta, IL-6 and
TNF-alpha in runners."
6: Venkatraman JT, Rowland JA, Denardin E, Horvath PJ, Pendergast D.
Influence of the level of dietary lipid intake and maximal exercise
on the immune status in runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997 Mar;29(3):333-44.
PMID: 9139172 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9139172&dopt=Abstract>
"Chronic exercise and high fat diets are associated with immune
suppression. This study compares cellular immune responses at
rest and after maximal exercise in runners after eating diets
comprised of 17% low fat (LF), 32% medium fat (MF), and 41%
high fat (HF) (4 wk each). VO2max increased significantly from
the 17% to 41% fat diet. The leukocyte cell counts were
significantly increased after exercise. In men, significantly
higher proliferative response to phytohemagglutinin (PHA) (P <
0.004) was observed with MF diet, while response to pokeweed
mitogen (PWM) was significantly decreased by MF and HF diets.
The number of CD8+ (suppressor) T cells was significantly
higher in men and exercise increased it significantly, while
CD4+ (helper) T cells were not affected. Natural killer cells
number was significantly increased 2.5 fold by exercise and
with increase in dietary fat. The production of IL-2 by
peripheral blood mononuclear cells was significantly higher in
men (P < 0.0001) and increasing dietary fat significantly
increased IL-2 production (P < 0.001). In men, exercise
decreased the level of the proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1,
IL-6 and TNF-alpha), whereas in women, with the exception of MF
diet for IL-6, exercise had no effect. This study indicates
that short, intense bouts of exercise in runners training 40
miles.wk-1 have mixed effects on the immune system. A high
percentage of fat intake (41%) did not have any deleterious
effects on the immune system of the well-trained runners."
7: Leddy J, Horvath P, Rowland J, Pendergast D.
Effect of a high or a low fat diet on cardiovascular risk factors in
male and female runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997 Jan;29(1):17-25.
PMID: 9000152 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9000152&dopt=Abstract>
"Dietary fat may be associated with coronary heart disease
(CHD). Studies suggest that restricting fat intake may
compromise endurance performance and that increasing fat intake
may improve endurance performance. We studied the effects of
varying dietary fat intake on CHD risk factors in runners.
Twelve male and 13 female runners increased fat from 16% to 30%
of daily calories (4 wk each). Of this group, six males and six
females increased fat to 42% of daily calories (4 wk).
Physiological and lipoprotein risk factors were measured after
each diet. Results were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA.
Increasing dietary fat from 16% to 42% of daily calories did
not change adiposity, weight, heart rate, blood pressure, serum
triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol.
Apolipoprotein B, or the Apo A1/Apo B ratio. Compared with
those eating higher fat, subjects eating 16% fat had lower HDL
cholesterol (50 +/- 3 vs 62 +/- 3 mg.dl-1, P < 0.0001) and
Apolipoprotein A1 (111 +/- 6 v. 134 +/- 6 mg/dl, P < 0.0005)
and a higher TC/HDL-C ratio (4.05 +/- 0.27 vs 3.42 +/- 0.24, P
< 0.0005). Runners who increased fat intake to 42% further
raised HDL cholesterol (64 +/- 6 to 69 +/- 5 mg.dl-1, P < 0.04)
without adversely affecting other lipoproteins. In conclusion,
a 42% fat diet maintained favorable CHD risk factors in female
and male runners whereas a 16% fat diet lowered Apo A1 and HDL-
C and raised the TC/HDL-C ratio."
8: Pendergast DR, Horvath PJ, Leddy JJ, Venkatraman JT.
The role of dietary fat on performance, metabolism, and health.
Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6 Suppl):S53-8.
PMID: 8947430 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8947430&dopt=Abstract>
"... It would appear that the fat in the diet can be increased
to a very high level without compromising the cardiovascular or
immune systems of athletes. Moreover, it can be proposed that
these data could be applied to sedentary persons, as long as
they are isocaloric. This would imply that the fat consumed in
the diet would be used in the muscle, as in the runners,
although at a lower level. Thus, the dietary intake should be
matched in both total calories and percentage of fats and
carbohydrates to calories consumed by daily activity. It should
be cautioned that if glycogen and fat stores are compromised,
protein resynthesis is inhibited and loss of muscle mass may
result. This has a negative effect on the athlete's ability to
perform at high levels."
9: Muoio DM, Leddy JJ, Horvath PJ, Awad AB, Pendergast DR. R
Effect of dietary fat on metabolic adjustments to maximal VO2 and
endurance in runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994 Jan;26(1):81-8.
PMID: 8133743 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8133743&dopt=Abstract>
"The present study examined the effects of dietary
manipulations on six trained runners. The percent energy
contributions from carbohydrate, fat, and protein were
61/24/14, 50/38/12, and 73/15/12 for the normal (N), fat (F),
and carbohydrate (C) diets, respectively. Expiratory gases and
blood responses to a maximum (VO2max) and a prolonged treadmill
run were determined following 7 d on each diet. Free fatty
acids (FFA), triglycerides, glycerol, glucose, and lactate were
measured. Dietary assessment of subjects' N diet indicated that
they were consuming approximately 700 kcal.d-1 less than
estimated daily expenditures. Running time to exhaustion was
greatest after the F diet (91.2 +/- 9.5 min, P < 0.05) as
compared with the C (75.8 +/- 7.6 min, P < 0.05) and N (69.3
+/- 7.2 min, P < 0.05) diets. VO2max was also higher on the F
diet (66.4 +/- 2.7 ml.kg-1 x min-1, P < 0.05) as compared with
the C (59.6 +/- 2.8 ml.kg-1 x min-1, P < 0.05) and N (63.7 +/-
2.6 ml.kg-1 x min-1, P < 0.05) diets. Plasma FFA levels were
higher (P < 0.05) and glycerol levels were lower (P < 0.05)
during the F diet than during the C and N diets. Other
biochemical measures did not differ significantly among diets.
These data suggest that increased availability of FFA,
consequent to the F diet, may provide for enhanced oxidative
potential as evidenced by an increase in VO2max and running
time. This implies that restriction of dietary fat may be
detrimental to endurance performance."
--
Matti Narkia
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
the majority of the recent studies I posted suggest the low carb diet
could be preferable to high carb diet in type 2 diabetes, IMHO. <<
Why don't you direct me to the three studies which you think most
clearly supports the above assertion.
Let's begin by discussing these studies; then, if it seems as if the
discussion is productive, we can move on.
Only because you cite your own experience, let me cite mine.
On a Pritikin-type diet, I had fasting triglycerides of 75, total
cholesterol of 135, and TC/HDL ratio of 5. My blood pressure was
110/65 and my weight was 163-65. I did eat salmon or halibut once or
twice a week. With respect to my immune system, I work as a physician
and the only time I ever lost any work days at all to illness was the
time I stepped on a sting ray while exiting the ocean, got a bad
marine-related vibrio infection, and had to be hospitalized. Other
than that, remarkably low incidence of colds and flu between 1971 and
the present.
When all the stuff about "good" fats came out, I started eating
unsalted, raw almonds and walnuts and using a lot more extra virgin
olive oil in my cooking.
My triglycerides remained 75. Total cholesterol increased to 175, but
TC/HDL "improved" to 3.1 (I say "improved" because there is no evidence
whatsoever that low HDLs are harmful in the setting of a very low fat
diet). But my weight increased to the high 160s to episodically 170-171
(these are pounds; may be converted to Kg by dividing by 2.2). I had
to start buying 33-34 inch waist, instead of 32. But the real "killer"
was the increase in my BP to 125-30/70.
So, for me as an individual, the lower fat diet worked better. Plus I
like bread, rice, and pasta much more than I like nuts and olive oil.
I've got my systolic BP comfortably under 115 again, which makes me
feel much better, as I've got a family history of stroke. I'm now back
to 163-165 pounds and 32 inch waist pants. (I'm 6 feet tall, just for
completeness of data).
But this doesn't prove anything, population-wise, anymore than your own
results prove anything, population-wise.
And, to be frank, it's absolutely stupid to pick out a diet plan based
on what's every so slightly better for the average person. Once again,
choice of diet isn't an emergency. It's not like choosing the right
antibiotic. Individuals have the luxury of time to do their own
self-experimentation. And that's what people should do.
But a lot of people do love rice, pasta, and bread. These people
should know that it is entirely possible that a diet most to their
liking could also be most compatible with their health. And it's easy
to find out. Just try it; as opposed to awaiting the next inconclusive
and flawed dietary study.
- Larry Weisenthal
D. C. Sessions
> I have no data about diabetics in this regard, but the some studies
> suggest that low fat diet can compromise the immnune function of
> endurance athletes, for example runners.
The relevance of competitive runners to TypeII diabetics is rather
speculative. The runners are burning so many calories that just
getting enough means, for instance, that reduction in fat amounts to
a serious increase in net intake just to break even.
There is, after all, a point reached where you *can't* get enough
calories from carbohydrates and protein; without fats (and lots of
them) you lose weight. Examples of Rocky Mountain explorers of the
19th century are a good example.
In comparison with Type II diabetics, where the fundamental problem
is far more towards the "too much intake" rather than too little.
The challenge is finding the effects of diet on those engaged in
*moderate* exercise; your chances of finding a Type II doing the
Boston Marathon are not exactly good.
--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
Diet/Exercise program have been published in "thousands" of patients.
Matti was only able to find a small number.
I refer Matti to the following recent review, the PDF of which may be
downloaded for free:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/98/1/3
In summary, the results in thousands of people have indeed been
published, just as I asserted, including nearly 1,000 in Type II
diabetes (in the above review, scroll to the section on diabetes). In
reviewing the overall results, please appreciate that these tended to
be advanced/refractory Type II diabetics, with an AVERAGE fasting blood
sugar of 185, despite the fact that most of them were on medications
and close to 300 (if memory serves; you can check it out) were on
insulin.
One thing which I do not accept in Matti's arguments is the assertion
that we are allowed to extrapolate the results of low carb diets in
non-exercisers to exercisers, in the absence of data, but we are not
allowed to extrapolate the results in exercisers to non-exercisers. In
point of fact, there are a number of studies of high carb/low fat diets
in non-exerciser diabetics. I've quoted these before (on a previous
visit to the this newsgroup), and the current study which started this
thread was also, to my knowledge, carried out in the absence of a
formal exercise program.
With respect to the studies Matti cites about so-called deleterious
effect of low fat diets on the immune system; these are next to
worthless. The study design is to measure some in vitro phenomenon and
not to look at actual incidence of infections, cancer, or whatever. I
could just as easily claim that such effects are helpful, as they imply
a potential protection from disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis,
diabetes, multiple sclerosis, collagen vascular disorders, thyroiditis,
thrombocytopenic purpura, hemolytic anemia, autoimmune hepatitis, and
so on. In truth, except for extreme situations (not present in these
studies) there are, to my knowledge, no useful predictive correlations
between such in vitro tests of immune function and clinical outcomes,
either short term or long term.
Looking forward to reviewing Matti's recommended three references.
- Larry Weisenthal
Vernon
<runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154253196.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Call all you want.
Get an education.
YOU stated that Pritikin was "safe".
Tell all of us how safe it is to reduce Omega 3,6,9.
Tell all of us how safe it is to not have meat.
Tell all of us about the "safety" of low amino acid diets.
Oh, that's right you don't know. You just take a dumb writing that is
"called" Pritikin and run with your little religion.
That's as stupid as those who never read or read only the first chapter of
Atkins.
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
You are hereby uncloaked as a fraud and a liar.
You stated that the there were more and more studies showing that the
Pritikin diet was unsafe and that it even shortened lifespan.
Now you state the following:
>>>
Call all you want.
Get an education.
YOU stated that Pritikin was "safe".
Tell all of us how safe it is to reduce Omega 3,6,9.
Tell all of us how safe it is to not have meat.
Tell all of us about the "safety" of low amino acid diets.
Oh, that's right you don't know. You just take a dumb writing that is
"called" Pritikin and run with your little religion.
That's as stupid as those who never read or read only the first chapter
of
Atkins.
<<<
The Pritikin Diet is NOT a vegetarian diet! All the Pritikin diet
books include recipes for red meat. I don't eat red meat myself
(haven't since 1971) but that's my choice.
I'm 59 now. I've been on a low fat/high carb/no red meat diet since
1971 and I've been on the Pritikin Diet since 1981. I previously
posted a picture of myself in January, 2005. Here's a link to a video
clip from February, 2006 -- two months before my 59th birthday.
http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/beach_sprints.html
I've temporarily given up rowing for a year to concentrate on Masters
Track. I'm hoping for a top 3 finish at US Nationals the summer I turn
60 (2007).
I've got anthropomorphics and serum lipids to die for; yet I've got a
strong family history of hyperlipidemia, heart disease, and stroke.
I respect Matti. He's a gentleman and a scholar. I even respect
Susan. She's a little overwrought at times, but she at least tries to
be a scholar and she doesn't lie.
You, my friend, are a bully and a fool and a liar.
You assume so much; you know so little.
Plus, you are a typical internet coward; too timid to post over your
own name. Scribble your grafitti; then crawl back into your spider
hole.
Have a nice day.
- Larry Weisenthal
Juhana Harju
: I am completely uninterested in the "optimum" diet for the couch
: potato.
:
: As I've stated in the past, whatever arguments you wish to make about
: what diets humans evolved to eat, it is abundantly clear that humans
: evolved for vigorous exercise.
While I agree that exercise is very healthy, I think that their is something
inherently intolerant and hiddenly violent to demand that everyone should
comply with such demands.
--
Juhana
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
inherently intolerant and hiddenly violent to demand that everyone
should
comply with such demands. <<
I'm no more "demanding" that people exercise than others on this
newsgroup "demand" that people eschew bread, pasta, and rice.
I have no idea what you mean by "violent." My Dad's swimming is gentle
and even graceful. And I personally don't think that people even need
to do formal athletic workouts. The concept of non-exercise activity
thermogenesis ("NEAT") has great potential. If I was going to write a
book on how to improve health it wouldn't be a diet book, and it
wouldn't be an evangelical exercise book, a la Jack LaLanne. I might
call it "The NEAT Book." It would be filled with suggestions on how to
burn an extra 500 calories a day without ever having to change into
exercise clothes or work up a sweat or take time away from a busy life.
If anyone "demands" something, it is your own body. It is crying out
to you "please exercise me; that's what I'm here for."
- Larry Weisenthal
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
him at length in the past.
True, humans didn't evolve to eat grains; but we clearly evolved to eat
carbohydrates. We make amylase in not just one place, but two places
(salivary glands and pancreatic exocrine glands). It is impossible to
saturate the amylase/starch digestion system. We have a virtually
unlimited capability to process starch. Starch is starch, whether it
comes from a legume or from grain.
Humans also didn't evolve to eat tuna. But protein is protein.
Some people may plausibly have "grain intolerance," in the same way a
great many people have lactose intolerance. I'm half Finnish and,
probably because of that, I can (and occasionally do) drink a liter of
non-fat milk plus 250 ml of non-fat yogurt per day without the
slightest problem. Were my wife to do that, she'd have considerable
distress. So we individualize our diets. Which is what everyone
should do.
But my point in bringing this up was was this -- whatever one would
claim about evolution and diet -- it is one hundred percent, abundantly
clear that humans evolved to exercise. And there is no age, from
childhood to extreme old age, where exercise is not associated with
tremendous health benefits, which are very easy to measure and which
are utterly without controversy.
- Larry Weisenthal
Juhana Harju
:Juhana Harju wrote:
:: While I agree that exercise is very healthy, I think that there is
:: something inherently intolerant and hiddenly violent to demand
:: that everyone should comply with such demands.
:
: I'm no more "demanding" that people exercise than others on this
: newsgroup "demand" that people eschew bread, pasta, and rice.
You may not be aware of it, but it sounds quite arrogant when you say that
you are "completely uninterested in the 'optimum' diet for the couch
potato."
I think that a doctor should be willing to help any person independent of
their willingness or capabilities to exercise. The capability to exercise
can also be impared by some ailment or illness. In those cases it is good to
have knowledge about the optimum diet for someone who is not able to
exercise.
: I have no idea what you mean by "violent." My Dad's swimming is
: gentle and even graceful.
Sure exercise can be gentle, graceful and even beautiful. I swim, cycle and
occasionally dance myself and these are all gentle and graceful ways to
move. What is not graceful is a contemptuous attitude towards them who do
not exercise.
: And I personally don't think that people
: even need to do formal athletic workouts. The concept of non-exercise
: activity thermogenesis ("NEAT") has great potential. If I was going
: to write a book on how to improve health it wouldn't be a diet book,
: and it wouldn't be an evangelical exercise book, a la Jack LaLanne.
: I might call it "The NEAT Book." It would be filled with suggestions
: on how to burn an extra 500 calories a day without ever having to
: change into exercise clothes or work up a sweat or take time away
: from a busy life.
I can agree with that. I walk a lot myself.
: If anyone "demands" something, it is your own body. It is crying out
: to you "please exercise me; that's what I'm here for."
Well said.
--
Juhana
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
not yet done me the favor of identifying the three studies which best
illustrate whatever it is which is your point).
I only got as far as the first one:
>>>
The Metabolic Effect of a LoBAG30 Diet in Men With Type 2 Diabetes
We recently reported that in subjects with untreated type 2 diabetes, a
5-week diet of 30:30:40 carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio resulted in a
significant decrease in 24-hour integrated glucose, total %
glycohemoglobin and total cholesterol compared to a control diet of
55:15:30 carbohydrate:protein:fat given at the beginning of the 5 week
period.
<<<
Now, the abstract alone doesn't tell me anything about the study
design. I am very suspicious that this used an isocaloric (weight
maintenance) design, in which both groups were required to consume the
same total calories. This results in a "forced feeding" situation for
the lower fat group, which is a very good way of producing the
metabolic syndrome or aggravating it. But I can't tell, because it
doesn't say so in the abstract. The only valid studies are those in
which food is consumed ad libitum, as it is in the real world. The
second point is that neither I nor anyone else who advocates
consideration of high carb/low fat diets would consider 30% fat to be
"low fat."
I do have access to full text, though my university library, but it is
a little time consuming. I'm willing to do this, but not for each and
every one of your cited studies. Which is why I respectfully request
that you provide me with a list of the three "best" studies which you
would advance to support your position
If you provide me with this list of "3 best," I will obtain full text
versions and then review and comment on them.
By the way, the above points relate to why it was that I didn't fare as
well when I substituted almonds, walnuts, and olive oil for some of my
carbs (as related in another message on this thread).
Almonds, walnuts, and olive oil are calorie dense/fiber poor, and, in
an ad libitum situation, I clearly ingested more calories when I
snacked on almonds and walnuts than when I snacked on wheatberry bread
and grapes during the day. Plus, the more liberal use of olive oil
added "stealth" calories, as well. The result was that I gained 5
pounds (2.3 kg), which, in my case (as in the case of most men)
concentrated disproportionately in my abdominal fat (hence the increase
in my girth from waist size 32 inches to 33-34 inches). I blame this
for triggering the beginnings of a possible metabolic syndrome
(increase in my systolic BP from 110 to 125-130).
Now, if, while on a lower fat/higher carb diet, you forced me to take
in more food that I wanted, in order to force me to take in as many
calories as I did on the higher fat diet, my weight would have been
168-170 pounds, as it was on the higher fat diet. I am entirely open
to the suggestion that, at the same weight (same amount of abdominal
fat), my BP would have been just as high (or even higher, for that
matter) on higher carb as it was on higher fat, but this wouldn't be
the real world situation.
Once again, my results in no way predict for the results of others,
which is precisely why diet needs to be individualized. In the
individualization of diet, it is useful to have multiple possible
"arrows" in one's "quiver;" hence it is important for people to realize
that diets which substitute "good" carbs for fats may be very
successful, as shown not simply by my experience, but also in the
"lead" study on the current thread and in the many studies summarized
in the 2005 Roberts review, full text linked in another of my messages
on this thread.
- Larry Weisenthal
runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)
You may not be aware of it, but it sounds quite arrogant when you say
that
you are "completely uninterested in the 'optimum' diet for the couch
potato."
<<
Thank you for pointing this out; yes, I see your point. I should have
been more careful in my choice of language.
- Larry Weisenthal
D. C. Sessions
> Sure exercise can be gentle, graceful and even beautiful. I swim, cycle
> and occasionally dance myself and these are all gentle and graceful ways
> to move. What is not graceful is a contemptuous attitude towards them who
> do not exercise.
It has nothing to do with contempt and everything to do with the
_fact_ that exercise is by far the most effective remedy for Type
II diabetes. Nothing else comes close.
Discussions of other methods (including diet) which start from the
presumption that the best method has been rejected may be interesting
to some, but they're not anything that a serious practitioner would
want to suggest.
Matti Narkia
<d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>In message <4j5nokF...@individual.net>, Juhana Harju wrote:
>
>> Sure exercise can be gentle, graceful and even beautiful. I swim, cycle
>> and occasionally dance myself and these are all gentle and graceful ways
>> to move. What is not graceful is a contemptuous attitude towards them who
>> do not exercise.
>
>It has nothing to do with contempt and everything to do with the
>_fact_ that exercise is by far the most effective remedy for Type
>II diabetes. Nothing else comes close.
>
>Discussions of other methods (including diet) which start from the
>presumption that the best method has been rejected may be interesting
>to some, but they're not anything that a serious practitioner would
>want to suggest.
Aerobic excercise works apparently whether it is say walking, running,
cycling etc. as long as it is regular and lasts long enough in every
exercise session. Once that has been observed and admitted, there is
not much further to discuss about it. So assuming that those who can
and want to exercise do so, there are mainly variations in the effects
of various diets left to discuss, and it is even more appropriate in
this group, whose focus is in nutrition. We don't seem have many
exercise + diet studies for diabetics, especially of those kind, where
exercise component is constant and diet components differ, so perhaps
the best we can do for the time being is to look at the diet only
studies.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:42:37 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
><d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>>In message <4j5nokF...@individual.net>, Juhana Harju wrote:
>>
>>> Sure exercise can be gentle, graceful and even beautiful. I swim, cycle
>>> and occasionally dance myself and these are all gentle and graceful ways
>>> to move. What is not graceful is a contemptuous attitude towards them who
>>> do not exercise.
>>
>>It has nothing to do with contempt and everything to do with the
>>_fact_ that exercise is by far the most effective remedy for Type
>>II diabetes. Nothing else comes close.
>>
>>Discussions of other methods (including diet) which start from the
>>presumption that the best method has been rejected may be interesting
>>to some, but they're not anything that a serious practitioner would
>>want to suggest.
>
>Aerobic excercise works apparently whether it is say walking, running,
>cycling etc. as long as it is regular and lasts long enough in every
>exercise session. Once that has been observed and admitted, there is
>not much further to discuss about it.
Well, there is perhaps at least one thing left about exercise, which
may need some clarification, namely how pulse rate effects the
results. In healthy people excercising at low pulse rates burns mainly
fat, which is good in many cases, especially, if one wants to reduce
body fat percentage, and at higher pulse rates glucose is the dominant
fuel. The question is: what pulse rates (related to maximum pulse
rate, which depends on age) are most suitable for type 2 diabetics in
execrcise? I would think that higher pulse rates, which burn more
glucose than fat, but I have no evidence about that, and I have no
time to search for it now.
--
Matti Narkia
Vernon
<runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154308967....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
60
You speak as if it were old and are proud of your possibilities.
You must feel old to say such.
ALL of my super healthy (in their mind) friends, are dead.
You have just proven that you are obsessed with yourself and have yet to
live old enough to prove anything about longevity.
I post with my own name.
Many in the medical field who also know alternatives, know me. I don't need
trash spam and those who know me already know me. I am mostly here for them
to witness the idiocy prevalent out there.
BTW, see how you feel even 5 years from now having ruined your joints and
not fed them, the 10, then , no don't bother about living to 75 or 80.
Few obsessed athletes ever do. If you care, which you don't, you can do
some research on that. No, you wont, you want me to make one or two links
which you can refute. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
Matti Narkia
wrote:
>
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>>>>It has nothing to do with contempt and everything to do with the
>>>>_fact_ that exercise is by far the most effective remedy for Type
>>>>II diabetes. Nothing else comes close.
>>>>
>>>>Discussions of other methods (including diet) which start from the
>>>>presumption that the best method has been rejected may be interesting
>>>>to some, but they're not anything that a serious practitioner would
>>>>want to suggest.
>>>
>>>Aerobic excercise works apparently whether it is say walking, running,
>>>cycling etc. as long as it is regular and lasts long enough in every
>>>exercise session. Once that has been observed and admitted, there is
>>>not much further to discuss about it.
>>
>>
>> Well, there is perhaps at least one thing left about exercise, which
>> may need some clarification, namely how pulse rate effects the
>> results. In healthy people excercising at low pulse rates burns mainly
>> fat, which is good in many cases, especially, if one wants to reduce
>> body fat percentage, and at higher pulse rates glucose is the dominant
>> fuel. The question is: what pulse rates (related to maximum pulse
>> rate, which depends on age) are most suitable for type 2 diabetics in
>> execrcise? I would think that higher pulse rates, which burn more
>> glucose than fat, but I have no evidence about that, and I have no
>> time to search for it now.
>
>for me, I've been able to keep my DM in healthy, non diabetic ranges
>just by cutting carbs even lower. Anecdotally, I know of many others
>who can do the same.
>
IMHO that's an important note. There could be times, when one cannot
exercise, and then she/he has to rely on diet alone. That's one reason
why picking the right diet is important.
>Exercise offers great benefits, but the DM can be kept under control
>without it, with more dietary discipline low carbing.
>
I'm glad to hear that.
--
Matti Narkia
Vernon
"Juhana Harju" <shantig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j5j1bF...@individual.net...
Yes, when using the word, "vigorous".
It is a word used by the obsessed.
There is little to gain (gain, but limited) to do much more than a 1 mile
walk at 2 miles per hour rate, three times a week.
Other "exercises" which stretch and keep one limber are also desirable.
Resistance (some use weights) exercise (definitely not strenuous) is good to
keep muscle vs. fat ratio in check.
Juhana Harju
: In message <4j5nokF...@individual.net>, Juhana Harju wrote:
:
:: Sure exercise can be gentle, graceful and even beautiful. I swim,
:: cycle and occasionally dance myself and these are all gentle and
:: graceful ways to move. What is not graceful is a contemptuous
:: attitude towards them who do not exercise.
:
: It has nothing to do with contempt and everything to do with the
: _fact_ that exercise is by far the most effective remedy for Type
: II diabetes. Nothing else comes close.
I agree about the role of exercise in Type II diabetes but Larry's
enthuasiasm goes way beyond diabetes management.
--
Juhana
Matti Narkia
I had similar problem as a young man, when I was training for a half
maraton. Although the race was intended for joggers and other
hobbyist, and not for professional athletes, I was obsessed with
improving my times and trained compulsively with pulse rates near the
maximum sustainable. That put too much pressure in my body and my
results got worse, not better, until I realised, that to get better
results I had to stop trying to get better results, and assume much
more relaxed attitude in training. That worked and even my results
improved, when I no longer desperately wanted to improve them. Using
that kind of very relaxed attitude I was also able to finish the only
full marathon I have ever done. Now I couldn't care less about results
and have no intention to attend any race ever again. If and when I
exercise, I do it only for pleasure, I have to enjoy what I'm doing.
The good feeling afterwards and the next day is a plus. Nowadays I
mostly walk or do some relaxed gymnastics, but I'm considering
starting to work with weights to minimize age related muscle loss.
--
Matti Narkia