Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, carolve, Heather McDougall
bounce08 wrote:1. Isn't the constant consumption of starches leading to frequently high insulin levels and therefore high inflammation and poor health?
bounce08 wrote:2. I am pre-diabetic. If starches are known for increasing blood sugar levels and insulin, how will that affect people like myself with pre-diabetic blood sugar levels?
bounce08 wrote: 3. I've read that Dr McDougall isn't keen on the concept of the Glycemic index/glycemic load and wrote it off in an article as "not yet ready for prime time". Lots of well respected organisations including most country's national health authorities mention GI/GL when giving advice about blood sugar. Has Dr McDougall changed his stance, and if not, why should I view Dr McDougall's dismissal of GI/GL with more credibility than various national health organisations?
michaelswarm wrote:There are essentially 2 different theories about what causes Diabetes (type 2, specifically the underlying insulin resistance)
1. Fat
2. Sugar
Dr McDougall and others (Dr Barnard, Cyrus Khambatta) show the science is clear that fat, and specifically fat within cells that are not designed to hold fat (Intramyocellular Lipids), those of muscles and liver, is the cause of insulin resistance and diabetes. Eliminate the insulin resistance, and even large amounts of sugar are handled quickly and efficiently without harm.
This way of eating helps the body clear the fat from within those cells by:
1. Eating foods low in fat. Can’t store what you don’t eat.
2. Eating foods high in starch. Even excess starch is difficult to convert into fat and store. High satisfaction.
3. Eating foods moderate to low in calorie density. Reduce overall calories, without hunger.
In animal models insulin resistance is achieved by feeding fat. Research going back to discovery of insulin 1920s-1930s show carbohydrate increases insulin sensitivity, and fat produces insulin resistance.
Dr David Jenkins, inventor of the glycemic index, who himself eats and recommends whole food plant based, was influenced by Dr Denis Burkitt (Dr Fiber), also one of the key influences on Dr McDougall.bounce08 wrote:1. Isn't the constant consumption of starches leading to frequently high insulin levels and therefore high inflammation and poor health?
Without Intramyocellular Lipids, consumption of starches or sugars leads only to normal insulin levels that are rapidly cleared. The McDougall Program clears intramyocellular lipids and restoring insulin sensitivity, as above.bounce08 wrote:2. I am pre-diabetic. If starches are known for increasing blood sugar levels and insulin, how will that affect people like myself with pre-diabetic blood sugar levels?
See above.bounce08 wrote: 3. I've read that Dr McDougall isn't keen on the concept of the Glycemic index/glycemic load and wrote it off in an article as "not yet ready for prime time". Lots of well respected organisations including most country's national health authorities mention GI/GL when giving advice about blood sugar. Has Dr McDougall changed his stance, and if not, why should I view Dr McDougall's dismissal of GI/GL with more credibility than various national health organisations?
Dr McDougall has been consistent for decades. For me, credibility comes from proof of remission or reversal, something the other authorities have consistently failed to show. His practice is backed up by fully referenced scientific sources.
Two reads I have found especially helpful are:
Feb 2004 Newsletter (Type 2 Diabetes: Expected Adaptation to Over-nutrition) Explains purpose of both insulin resistance (avoid becoming too fat) and sweet urine (avoid too much blood sugar).
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... abetes.htm
Diabetes Reconsidered
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61302
And of course everything here:
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/educ ... /diabetes/
By now thousands, maybe tens of thousands (millions?) around the world, have reversed diabetes (and pre-diabetes) following whole food plant based diets. The best way to know is run your own experiment. Fully commit for one month. See for yourself what happens.
KillSwitch wrote:If you fully commit for let's say one month and things don't improve or possibly deteriorate, would you then say give it more time? I have always been puzzled by the outliers sometimes. Most ppl get great results but not all ppl it seems. Is it possible that maybe some ppl have just done too much damage from too many years of unhealthy eating and there is this PONR (point of no return). IDK....just asking tho.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests