Discussion Board

That is it in a nut shell. It is likely that you get a lot of protection from the quality of your diet. I am not diabetic but even so, my approach is to try to go for as safe as possible and eliminate as much uncertainty as I can. To me that means trying to keep blood sugars below 140 at all time. There is research out there...managed to dig up a list here
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php

Didi, my dr. agreed with no more Metformin when I was about 190 pounds, with 70 pounds to go. But my A1c was 5.9 and morning fastings in the upper 80's-low 90's at the time--despite some higher readings throughout the day. He was impressed, said he'd never had a patient before that reversed diabetes. When I asked why, he mentioned that few would stick to a strict plan. I told him, I'd be his first to reverse diabetes!

BTW--He's a vegetarian doctor who is familiar with McDougalling.

Jellen--good for you!!

Geoffrey, thanks for the articles. I am going to post them on the diabetes web site.

AT this point, after 20 years with diabetes, I could be harboring cancer, heart disease, kidney problems and high risk of stroke and not know it.

However, I do know that I go to a retina specialist twice a year and there is no sign of retinopathy. I also am free of neuropathy.

If I wanted to keep my sugars below 140 I could do it but it would have to be a Fuhrman diet with very few carbs and certainly no oatmeal, potatoes, rice or corn. (Even eating these starches, I only have a normal portion size at one or more of my four meals per day.) If I had to I would but even with those articles I am still unconvinced. I hope it is not from being stubborn but from still having unanswered questions. If eating 1200 calories a day is calorie restriction then I am restricting calories.

Some of the experiments were done on rats and some in petri dishes. Some of the articles seemed to say that if you had fasting blood sugars over 100 AND postprandials over 140 and didn't say only postprandials over 140. The other problem I had was that it is highly likely that the human subjects who were found to be progressing with complications even before diagnosis were eating the SAD. If you read Atkins, you will find he says to go off his diet for a week before the glucose tolerance test otherwise you will test diabetic. Once you stop eating all that fat and meat and start adding in carbs, your glucose tolerance test will register as non diabetic.

Can it be that people on the SAD who have blood sugars postprandially over 140 are very likely to become diabetic as they increase the fat and protein in their diets and gain weight? I would expect this even without the evidence of the cited studies. I do not eat that way.

Dr. Bernstein who himself is a type 1 diabetic says the ideal blood sugar is 83 or less. My own fasting average seems to be around 80. But Bernstein says that he keeps his at 83 at all times including post prandially. To do this not only would I have to give up starchy carbs but I would have to take insulin or large doses of meds.
I cannot agree or disagree with Bernstein because he is type 1 and I am type 2. I know nothing about t1 but I suspect that even the healthiest people who are slim and never in their lives will get diabetes go well above 83 after meals.

The other thing I will have to look into is fluctuating blood sugar levels and kidney problems. Exactly what is fluctuating?--High morning sugars one day and low the next? HbA1c changing from month to month. Does this include blood sugars consistently over 140 after a meal but low fasting levels?

Didi

Didi, I'm on a Furhman type diet/McDougall diet and I eat 4 fruit per day and about 3 starch servings, plus a serving of beans--so I'm getting plenty of carbs and still keeping the blood sugars in control. My triglycerides were in the normal range--even eating more fruit.

For blood sugars, I'm just careful to avoid processed grain and when eating potatoes, I eat smaller portions together with other foods. I still enjoy oats and brown rice in my overall eating plan.

Am I still diabetic? Maybe. Maybe not.

Jellen, sounds an awful lot like my own way of eating. Although I am a McDougall heretic and do eat a little bit of wild caught sockeye salmon and a little bit of minced clams for the B12. I would rather not but am not convinced that any product from an unregulated and unstandardized industry can be guaranteed to be safe. I just have to look into this more.

I also find that a couple hours a day of exercise helps keep my sugars really low.

Didi

I walk the treadmill on flat surface at speed 3.2 daily, and if I have a starch that's higher glycemic (potatoes) or use a little pure maple syrup as a sweetener, I'll get on the exercise bike for about 30 minutes and go 7 miles. Seems to be working for me.

Did, I had no idea that salmon and clams were regulated and standardized! I have no issue w/ someone eating them but they do come from polluted oceans so maybe the risk comparison between those and supplementing from a factory is a toss up?

I run into this objection against a starch based diet all of the time. I am told, "Your diet might be good for preventing heart disease, but it is not the right diet for diabetes because all of those starches make their blood sugars skyrocket, causing all kinds of problems."

I respond saying that Dr. McDougall, Jeff Novick, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Barnard have all shown that a high carbohydrate-high starch diet reverses type 2 diabetes. But I get nowhere.

There is always this mentality, "Be careful about those after meal blood sugar spikes." I have read that it is fasting blood sugar and the H1c levels that really matter. So, there!!

I don't know if this link will work. I do not know what kind of degree this guy has. What is an L. Ac? Essentially it seems to me that he has discovered the blood sugar equivalent of the sun revolving around the earth. I will have to give a lot of thought to his claims which on first reading do not make sense. There are two pages of information.

http://chriskresser.com/why-hemoglobin- ... ble-marker

Geoffrey, if I knew anything about computers I would put one of those little laughing faces here. No, I do not think salmon and clams are standardized and regulated (well maybe a bit regulated) but alaskan wild sockeye only eat plants and the water they come from is less polluted except maybe by a little crude oil. This and the clams are from areas considered safe according to some government publication I found on the net. And we all know we can trust the government. Besides, both have large amounts of B12 so I eat very very little. I have children's multi vitamins with just the right amount of B12 (but not the methyl) but everyone including Dr. McDougall has me afraid of taking vitamins. Instead of fish every now and then I take one of these multis then make a novena.

Didi

L.Ac. is Licensed Acupuncturist. Undoubtedly self-trained in things blood sugar related. He may be right, he may be wrong. Unfortunately he does not site any references for his claims and numbers so we have no idea what he is basing his recommendations on. They do fall more or less in line with a lot of things I have read but I am also guilty of not having any ready references to supply.

The thing I mostly go by for myself is, since I don't know for sure, is that I go for what is likely the safest option based on what I do know. If I can eat a well rounded and balanced diet and keep my postprandial sugars below 140 even if someday I find out it was not necessary, I have not lost much. If on the other hand I don't worry about it and allow them to hit 200 on a regular basis and then some day down the line find out I have developed some major health issue because of it, then I will have lost much ie my health. It is similar logic but not as drastic in consequences to Pascal's wager about belief in God.

Makes sense.

Didi

Geoffrey, actually he does better than give references. If you click on the links in the article he provides the actual journal articles. As a matter of fact, in one of them, although it was done in a petri dish, an experiment showed that it is the amount of time the cells are exposed to glucose that causes loss of beta cells. So I am wondering if McDougall isn't right after all about allowing sugars to go high. (For me it is a given that it has to be in the absence of fat.)

I also see low carbers on the diabetes group who eliminate more and more carbs, see higher and higher blood sugars and use more and more medicine. Yet they struggle to keep their post prandial blood sugars low. Of course they do not eliminate fat and meat in their diets.

Didi

Thank you for pointing that out Didi, I had not followed his links.

There are a lot of low carbers that do control their blood sugar that way. I did for 9 months though only was pre diabetic and not near full blown. But there are so many other potential long term negatives that it seems a no brainer at this point to "go the way of the vegetable."

Carbs seem to be always a problem for diabetics. I've been following Dr McD and Dr Barnard (reversing diabetes) for over 6mo and have been a type II Diabetic for over 25 yrs. While the low-fat Vegan diet did improve my Aic (to 6.0 and now to 6.4), I continue to take 3 shots of insulin daily (9 U 70/30 in AM, 5 U 70/30 before dinner, and 10 Lantus at bedtime). All type II's are not alike. I am not, nor ever have been overwt. As a thin type II, I had no wt to loose. There are likely several types of type II's (some more genetic, some more like late onset type I, some with more loss of beta cells). At 66 years old, I most likely have lost a considerable amt of beta cells whatever the cause. Insulin resistence in thin type II's may not be as much of a factor, so wt loss or less fat in diet and inside cells may not have that much of an effect.
I find that carbs do make a difference. After a lot of starch or carbs (no matter how oil-free or Vegan), my blood sugars do spike. Nuts are better, but the diet says not to eat many, hard to always have beans around. I supposse moderation in amount and timming of carbs is necessary (although those who take insulin will know we often have to eat NOW when we go low).
A lot of research is going on about regenerating bets cells, but that's for the future. I'm sure this is a healthy diet overall, Again, remember that the problem with all diabetics is not overweight and insulin resistance. thanks...Mike

Mike, I assume you know that dietary fat is only one component of insulin resistance. Body fat is the biggie. Many people need to be at or approaching a lowish BMI lean type body to really eliminate IR. It is quite possible you have lost enough beta cell function to require insulin for life but no way to know until you lose any extra fat that is being stored that blocks insulin receptors.

Beans are actually easy to have around, just as easy as rice etc. Cook up a big batch and refrig some and freeze the rest in portions. Or use no salt canned beans (cost more, not as tasty, but easy and portable).