Keto Diet And High Blood Sugar

[Kelj]

Keto diet: Scientists find link to diabetes risk
Keto diet: Scientists find link to diabetes risk

This article makes claims about the healthfulness of a ketogenic diet and explains "diabetes" in ways I have come to doubt. However, they are on the right track when they recognize the link between oxidizing fat and the rise of blood glucose.
Following, are some reasons why I think the way almost everyone thinks about blood glucose is wrong:

1.

symptoms of hypoglycemia. You'll learn to spot yours.

Early symptoms include:

• Confusion
• Dizziness
• Feeling shaky
• Hunger
• Headaches
• Irritability
• Pounding heart; racing pulse
• Pale skin
• Sweating
• Trembling
• Weakness
• Anxiety

Without treatment, you might get more severe symptoms, including:

• Poor coordination
• Poor concentration
• Numbness in mouth and tongue
• Passing out
• Seizures
• Nightmares or bad dreams
• Coma

The coma can be followed by death.
Does LOW blood glucose sound like something our brain would try to protect us from? So....

2. Brain may play key role in blood sugar metabolism and diabetes development

This article admits the brain decides the blood sugar level, but peculiarly calls the interaction between brain and pancreas "the failure of both systems", rather than a rational decision on the part of the brain, which is what I think it is. I am not alone....

3. Not So Fast With the Insulin? - Diabetes Self-Management

"Now a recent report by Roger Unger, MD, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, says giving insulin is one of the worst things you can do for overweight people with Type 2......Giving more insulin to an insulin-resistant patient is akin to raising the blood pressure of a patient with high blood pressure to overcome resistance to blood flow. Instead, you would try to reduce the resistance,” Dr. Unger said.....The beta cells may “turn off” as a defense against fat. Without insulin, fat cells can’t take in more outside fat, and they will actually release fat to be used as energy. So injecting insulin might go against what the body is trying to do for itself."
Ray explains a process called Neuro glucopenia or Neuroglycopenia.

Neuroglycopenia - Wikipedia
"Neuroglycopenia is a shortage of glucose(glycopenia) in the brain, usually due to hypoglycemia. Glycopenia affects the function of neurons, and alters brain function and behavior.....A few types of specialized neurons, especially in the hypothalamus, act as glucose sensors, responding to changing levels of glucose by increasing or decreasing their firing rates. They can elicit a variety of hormonal, autonomic, and behavioral responses to neuroglycopenia. The hormonal and autonomic responses include release of counterregulatory hormones. There is some evidence that the autonomic nervous system can alter liver glucose metabolismindependently of the counterregulatory hormones."

The brain senses a need for MORE glucose and the regulatory systems make adjustments to increase the blood glucose. As Dr. Unger said, trying to lower the blood sugar is going "against what the body is trying to do."

4. The brain is trying to protect us from coma and death. The high blood sugar enables the brain and the most vital organs to keep functioning.
What prompts the brain to raise the blood glucose?
Many stresses can temporarily or for longer periods cause the brain to raise the blood glucose level. As Ray says, stress seems to be seen by the body as the need for more sugar.
When the diet is not providing enough glucose, as in a low carb or ketogenic diet, this is seen by the brain as a stress, as a need for more glucose. I believe the genesis of a state of constant high blood glucose is the start of a low carb diet or even a low calorie diet.
As the Eating Disorder Institute states:
Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Metformin, Disease Risk and You
"diabetes mellitus type 2 is not a disease— it’s a risk factor for developing disease. That means that not everyone with diabetes type 2 (treated or untreated) will ever develop any disease state that is more strongly correlated with the presence of type 2 than for those who don’t have the condition."
The reason chronic high blood sugar is seen as a risk factor in developing disease is because it is so often seen in conjunction with heart disease, retinopathy, kidney failure and poor peripheral circulation. The reason why few are getting to the root of explaining the effects of high blood glucose is they insist on seeing the whole issue backwards. High blood glucose is not the cause of the conditions it appears with. Excess weight, high blood glucose, retinopathy, kidney disease, heart disease and peripheral circulation troubles are all the results of carb starvation and low calorie diets in general. The body is degenerating and if the brain didn't adjust metabolism rate down and blood glucose up, we would break down faster and die.

5. The therapies create the so-called complications of "diabetes:
Acute intensive insulin therapy exacerbates diabetic blood-retinal barrier breakdown via hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha and VEGF. - PubMed - NCBI
This article explains the connection between insulin therapy and neuropathy.
Insulin inhibits dog vascular smooth muscle contraction and lowers Ca2+i by inhibiting Ca2+ influx. - PubMed - NCBI
This one talks about how smooth muscle is effected by insulin.
Also,
Insulin effect on body: Side effects, myths, and tips
"researchers found that the insulin therapy group had an increased risk of a range of complications, including:

• heart attack
• stroke
• eye complications
• kidney problems

Another review concluded that the risks of insulin therapy might outweigh the benefits for people with type 2 diabetes. The authors highlighted the following downsides of the therapy:

• the need to increase the dose and complexity of the treatment plan over time
• the increased risk of severe hypoglycemia
• a potentially higher risk of death
• a possible increased risk of specific cancers"

Notice the insulin therapy side-effects are some of the so-called complications of "diabetes", including death.

Low calorie and especially low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets or any other starvation like intermittent fasting is what prompts the brain to raise the blood glucose. The only rational way to encourage the brain to maintain a lower glucose is to provide plenty of carbohydrate in the diet. High-carbohydrate diets and insulin-dependent diabetics.

 

[Elie]

Found all this fascinating. Thank for posting this.

 

[CLASH]

This issue with type 2 diabetes is an inability to oxidize sugar. The insulin is elevated with the blood sugar because the body isnt using the sugar. In the absence of the ability to oxidize sugar, fat stores are mobilized so the cells have some substrate to use. Cortisol is upregulated in diabetics most likely due to the inflammation present, as I’m pretty sure the disease is a bacterial issue in the intestine. It also may be upregulated to increase gluconeogenesis due to the cells “percieved” lack of glucose. The adrenaline and glucagon are upregulated to release fatty acids for the cells to oxidize since sugar is off the table. Using exogenous insulin will probably just push the sugar into storage as you mentioned. To fix the issue, I think the bacteria have to go. All diseases have the same core etiologies: not enough likes on instagram aka toxins (pufa), microbes and nutritional deficiencies.

Hypoglycemia is always way worse than hyperglycemia, atleast acutely. The worst that happens at hyperglycemia is increased hunger, thirst and some peeing. Maybe nausea, headache and other symptoms if your real high like over 300mg/ dl. Low blood sugar, your f*cked. I’ve seen way too many patients go into a hypoglycemic coma and almost die because thier blood sugar was too low. Although some type 2 diabetics are so poor at using glucose for energy that I have seen patients be in the 30mg/dl range and not feel a single thing. In fact they say they feel great, as they continue to have a conversation with me.....

 

[Kelj]

My main argument is: the body is rational. The body is inefficiently oxidizing sugar.
"Diabetics typically have elevated lactate, which shows that glucose doesn’t have a problem getting into their cells, just getting oxidized.” -Ray Peat, PhD
But, why?
Because the use of an alternative fuel source has been encouraged by a lack of the normal glucose in the diet. And, glucose burns more efficiently than fat. The rise of cortisol is necessary for catabolism.
Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.
"In 1963, P.J. Randle clearly described the inhibition of glucose oxidation by free fatty acids. Later, when lipid emulsions came into use for intravenous feeding in hospitals, it was found that they blocked glucose oxidation, lowered the metabolic rate, suppressed immunity, and increased lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress."
I have experience of high blood glucose readings becoming chronic after a low carb or a ketogenic diet.
Gluconeogenesis is necessary to provide enough glucose to vital organs when enough glucose is not being provided in the diet. Hypoglycemia is worse, for sure, with coma and death at the end of it. That is the rational organism at work; preventing death by raising the glucose chronically. But, this is an emergency response to non-ideal conditions.
This metabolism can be turned to glucose oxidizing in an efficient way again. I have experience with this. Glucose readings of over 600 ( not causing any nausea or vomiting), being normalized after enough calories being consumed daily to fix the thyroid and raise the metabolism and enough sugar to prevent gluconeogenesis.

Ray says,


"In 1857, M. Piorry in Paris and William Budd in Bristol, England, reasoned that if a patient was losing a pound of sugar every day in 10 liters of urine, and was losing weight very rapidly, and had an intense craving for sugar, it would be reasonable to replace some of the lost sugar, simply because the quick weight loss of diabetes invariably led to death. Keeping patients from eating what they craved seemed both cruel and futile.

After Budd's detailed reports of a woman's progressive recovery over a period of several weeks when he prescribed 8 ounces of sugar every day, along with a normal diet including beef and beef broth, a London physician, Thomas Williams, wrote sarcastically about Budd's metaphysical ideas, and reported his own trial of a diet that he described as similar to Budd's. But after two or three days he decided his patients were getting worse, and stopped the experiment."
In my experience, Budd and Piorry were right.
Many stressors can raise blood sugar levels. A stressed body needs glucose. Infection is definitely one kind of stress. Here, though, is my main reason for doubting it is the reason for the growing incidence of high glucose readings:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3393109/
"Migrant Japanese populations in both the USA and Brazil have for a long time shown a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes than native Japanese, ."
And:
High Prevalence of Diabetes in Young Adult Ethiopian Immigrants to Israel
"These results indicate a high prevalence of diabetes among young adult Ethiopian immigrants of relatively short residency in Israel."
These sorts of epidemiological studies argue against a bacterial or genetic cause of high blood sugar. Though, the background of a population's habitual diet may have epigenetically predisposed them to easily turn on the protection of a raised blood glucose level, when needed.
Ray says, "doctors with an allopathathic orientation..saw fever as the essence of the sickness to be cured." The same is true of the symptom of high blood sugar, but it is nearly all doctors, allopathic or naturopathic who see it as the essence. The body chooses its blood sugar level as the best response to what is going on. Attempts to manipulate it backfire into worse health. As Ray says, "It is the intracellular absence of glucose which is problematic rather than its extracellular excess ". But the the true essence of glucose availability can be improved by eating it.

 

[haidut]

Keto diet: Scientists find link to diabetes risk
Keto diet: Scientists find link to diabetes risk

This article makes claims about the healthfulness of a ketogenic diet and explains "diabetes" in ways I have come to doubt. However, they are on the right track when they recognize the link between oxidizing fat and the rise of blood glucose.
Following, are some reasons why I think the way almost everyone thinks about blood glucose is wrong:

1.

symptoms of hypoglycemia. You'll learn to spot yours.

Early symptoms include:

• Confusion
• Dizziness
• Feeling shaky
• Hunger
• Headaches
• Irritability
• Pounding heart; racing pulse
• Pale skin
• Sweating
• Trembling
• Weakness
• Anxiety

Without treatment, you might get more severe symptoms, including:

• Poor coordination
• Poor concentration
• Numbness in mouth and tongue
• Passing out
• Seizures
• Nightmares or bad dreams
• Coma

The coma can be followed by death.
Does LOW blood glucose sound like something our brain would try to protect us from? So....

2. Brain may play key role in blood sugar metabolism and diabetes development

This article admits the brain decides the blood sugar level, but peculiarly calls the interaction between brain and pancreas "the failure of both systems", rather than a rational decision on the part of the brain, which is what I think it is. I am not alone....

3. Not So Fast With the Insulin? - Diabetes Self-Management

"Now a recent report by Roger Unger, MD, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, says giving insulin is one of the worst things you can do for overweight people with Type 2......Giving more insulin to an insulin-resistant patient is akin to raising the blood pressure of a patient with high blood pressure to overcome resistance to blood flow. Instead, you would try to reduce the resistance,” Dr. Unger said.....The beta cells may “turn off” as a defense against fat. Without insulin, fat cells can’t take in more outside fat, and they will actually release fat to be used as energy. So injecting insulin might go against what the body is trying to do for itself."
Ray explains a process called Neuro glucopenia or Neuroglycopenia.

Neuroglycopenia - Wikipedia
"Neuroglycopenia is a shortage of glucose(glycopenia) in the brain, usually due to hypoglycemia. Glycopenia affects the function of neurons, and alters brain function and behavior.....A few types of specialized neurons, especially in the hypothalamus, act as glucose sensors, responding to changing levels of glucose by increasing or decreasing their firing rates. They can elicit a variety of hormonal, autonomic, and behavioral responses to neuroglycopenia. The hormonal and autonomic responses include release of counterregulatory hormones. There is some evidence that the autonomic nervous system can alter liver glucose metabolismindependently of the counterregulatory hormones."

The brain senses a need for MORE glucose and the regulatory systems make adjustments to increase the blood glucose. As Dr. Unger said, trying to lower the blood sugar is going "against what the body is trying to do."

4. The brain is trying to protect us from coma and death. The high blood sugar enables the brain and the most vital organs to keep functioning.
What prompts the brain to raise the blood glucose?
Many stresses can temporarily or for longer periods cause the brain to raise the blood glucose level. As Ray says, stress seems to be seen by the body as the need for more sugar.
When the diet is not providing enough glucose, as in a low carb or ketogenic diet, this is seen by the brain as a stress, as a need for more glucose. I believe the genesis of a state of constant high blood glucose is the start of a low carb diet or even a low calorie diet.
As the Eating Disorder Institute states:
Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Metformin, Disease Risk and You
"diabetes mellitus type 2 is not a disease— it’s a risk factor for developing disease. That means that not everyone with diabetes type 2 (treated or untreated) will ever develop any disease state that is more strongly correlated with the presence of type 2 than for those who don’t have the condition."
The reason chronic high blood sugar is seen as a risk factor in developing disease is because it is so often seen in conjunction with heart disease, retinopathy, kidney failure and poor peripheral circulation. The reason why few are getting to the root of explaining the effects of high blood glucose is they insist on seeing the whole issue backwards. High blood glucose is not the cause of the conditions it appears with. Excess weight, high blood glucose, retinopathy, kidney disease, heart disease and peripheral circulation troubles are all the results of carb starvation and low calorie diets in general. The body is degenerating and if the brain didn't adjust metabolism rate down and blood glucose up, we would break down faster and die.

5. The therapies create the so-called complications of "diabetes:
Acute intensive insulin therapy exacerbates diabetic blood-retinal barrier breakdown via hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha and VEGF. - PubMed - NCBI
This article explains the connection between insulin therapy and neuropathy.
Insulin inhibits dog vascular smooth muscle contraction and lowers Ca2+i by inhibiting Ca2+ influx. - PubMed - NCBI
This one talks about how smooth muscle is effected by insulin.
Also,
Insulin effect on body: Side effects, myths, and tips
"researchers found that the insulin therapy group had an increased risk of a range of complications, including:

• heart attack
• stroke
• eye complications
• kidney problems

Another review concluded that the risks of insulin therapy might outweigh the benefits for people with type 2 diabetes. The authors highlighted the following downsides of the therapy:

• the need to increase the dose and complexity of the treatment plan over time
• the increased risk of severe hypoglycemia
• a potentially higher risk of death
• a possible increased risk of specific cancers"

Notice the insulin therapy side-effects are some of the so-called complications of "diabetes", including death.

Low calorie and especially low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets or any other starvation like intermittent fasting is what prompts the brain to raise the blood glucose. The only rational way to encourage the brain to maintain a lower glucose is to provide plenty of carbohydrate in the diet. High-carbohydrate diets and insulin-dependent diabetics.

Thanks for the great post! A key finding in that article on ketogenic diets in your post you did not mention is the fact that they were found to cause NAFLD/NASH, which is one of the key requirements for developing diabetes II as an "insulin resistant" (read: fat) liver cannot turn off gluconeogenesis when it is not needed. Aside form the direct role of excess fat from low-carb diets in causing, another key cause of "insulin resistance" liver is the elevated cortisol that low-carb diets also cause.
Cortisol And Fatty Liver: Researchers Find Cause Of Severe Metabolic Disorders

Low-calorie diets are not much better either, as they have almost the same effects, as I mentioned in another post. In the study's own words: "dieting is deleterious".
Ketogenic Diets And Cortisol/adrenaline

 

[Kelj]

Thanks for the great post! A key finding in that article on ketogenic diets in your post you did not mention is the fact that they were found to cause NAFLD/NASH, which is one of the key requirements for developing diabetes II as an "insulin resistant" (read: fat) liver cannot turn off gluconeogenesis when it is not needed. Aside form the direct role of excess fat from low-carb diets in causing, another key cause of "insulin resistance" liver is the elevated cortisol that low-carb diets also cause.
Cortisol And Fatty Liver: Researchers Find Cause Of Severe Metabolic Disorders

Low-calorie diets are not much better either, as they have almost the same effects, as I mentioned in another post. In the study's own words: "dieting is deleterious".
Ketogenic Diets And Cortisol/adrenaline

Thank you for this! Overturning the dogma on this subject requires overlong posts. I appreciate the help.

 

[Tarmander]

Thank you for this! Overturning the dogma on this subject requires overlong posts. I appreciate the help.

The reason it is dogma is because of direct observation. I love the reasoning in these posts about the true cause of excess blood sugar being a lack of sugar...however feed a type 2 diabetic sugar and things do not go well. There is a missing step here because if there truly was a lack, such as vitamin C in scurvy, then feeding sugar should get rid of that lack, but it does not. Feeding sugar does not resolve the high blood sugar... So then you can say, well it is because they have PUFA in their tissues...and you start on the long list of justifications why the metabolism is broken and needs years to fix if ever.

 

[Cirion]

It doesn't fix it overnight, if that's what you're expecting, no. Insulin resistance takes some time to overthrow especially if you're fat/have lots of PUFA's, have had disrupted glucose metabolism for some time. I don't think it should take years though. The faster you can purge the PUFA's and body fat and thus the FFA's causing the insulin resistance in the first place the better. Some people might need years but others might only need weeks or months. The answer certainly is not eating more fats, that's for sure. We all like to have an overnight solution to a broken metabolism but there's no such thing.

 

[Kelj]

"What determines if enhanced glycolysis causes insulin secretion alone, or both secretion and replication? We speculate that the decision is temporally controlled, such that a short pulse of glucose metabolism, as would happen after a meal, will trigger secretion but not replication, while more persistent activation of the pathway (indicating an organismal need for more β cells), will trigger replication"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413111000854
This study shows that a sustained rise in glucose causes pancreatic beta-cell proliferation.
That being so, exactly what is so difficult about any of the biological adaptations that result in higher glucose levels returning to normal? Persistant feeding of carbohydrate in the context of an abundant calorie intake will bring back normal glucose burning metabolism. The brain always chooses the blood sugar level based on available energy sources. Forcing the glucose level down "will make some problems worse", as Ray says. But, plenty of glucose in the diet for all cells is the signal the brain needs to stop gluconeogenesis. I've definitely seen it happen. But, there is definitely a period of shifting from one metabolism to another....and exactly what is going to happen?

 

[Rafe]

Great thread. I think it takes time because a stressed physiology has to, in a way, de-adapt and then re-adapt. If you haven’t changed your stressful environment then the improvements get harder to sustain.

But like Cirion said it doesn’t have to take years if you knew exactly what was needed at each moment. But you don’t always so it takes experimentation with some functional goals. And long-standing stress adaptations are stubborn.

I wouldn’t discount the risks of giving sugar to a t2d with high sugar numbers. I don’t have experience there. But in principle, how does medicine persist in getting this so wrong?

Metformin, terrible idea.

 

[Kelj]

1. Ray calls it the continuation of a " pre-scientific" notion. I have read, I don't know how many, descriptions of diabetes as a "spill over" of sugar into the blood and urine, like there is some reservoir in our bodies that can hold only so much. Really simpleton and untrue.
2. Ray says, "in artificial conditions of cell culture, the over-supply of glucose causes lactic acid to accumulate, leading to toxic effects. But, in the organism, the hyperglycemia is compensating for a sensed deficiency of glucose, a need for more energy." Note that he says the HIGH BLOOD GLUCOSE means a need for MORE glucose/energy. What alternative is there but to give it? However, it is obvious that too many scientists do not appreciate the differences between a dynamic organism and a petri dish.
3. Ray says, "the harmful effect that has been ascribed to excessive insulin (making blood vessels leaky) can be prevented by maintaining an adequate supply of glucose, (Vezu and Murakami, 1993), showing that it is the lack of glucose, rather than the excess insulin, that causes the vascular malfunction....many of the complications of diabetes are caused by increased vascular leakiness. (Simard, et. al, 2002)" Note, the absence of glucose CAUSES the complications along with the injection of insulin, as noted in the first post in this thread. But, if you only see glucose as the cause and medicine as the fix you need a 180 degree shift in perspective and some courage to buck the system.
4. Insulin was introduced into medicine in the 1920's. According to Britannica Book of the Year for 1947, page 265, "Mortality from diabetes in 1920 in the United States was 16.0 per 100,000, 14,062 deaths; but in 1944, it was 26.4 per 100,000, 34,948 deaths. Why continue with this treatment? Money. Also,
"Recent clinical studies, however, found that type 2 diabetes patients TREATED TO MAINTAIN GLYCEMIA BELOW THE DIABETES THRESHOLD (hbA1c>6.5%) STILL DEVELOP DIABETIC COMPLICATIONS. (Alexander Moraru, Janice Wiederstein, Daniel Pfaff, Aubrey K. Miller, Peter Nawroth, Aurellio A. Teleman; published March 15, 2018 in Cell Metabolism) So, why? Money.

 

[Cirion]

Excellent points, #2 in particular, something I hadn't necessarily connected the dots on before. One might think if blood sugar is high that you should not eat sugar, and indeed this is often the prevaling thought.

Leave it to medicine to destroy rather than heal health--- as always. Just like how they treat other "symptoms" like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, excess body weight, excess water weight (Dialysis), and more - without treating the causes. Once you swallow the red pill, you realize Big Medicine rarely has our interests at heart. Disgusting really.

 

[Kelj]

Excellent points, #2 in particular, something I hadn't necessarily connected the dots on before. One might think if blood sugar is high that you should not eat sugar, and indeed this is often the prevaling thought.

Leave it to medicine to destroy rather than heal health--- as always. Just like how they treat other "symptoms" like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, excess body weight, excess water weight (Dialysis), and more - without treating the causes. Once you swallow the red pill, you realize Big Medicine rarely has our interests at heart. Disgusting really.

"First, do no harm." They have a lot to answer for.

 

[artemis]

The reason it is dogma is because of direct observation. I love the reasoning in these posts about the true cause of excess blood sugar being a lack of sugar...however feed a type 2 diabetic sugar and things do not go well. There is a missing step here because if there truly was a lack, such as vitamin C in scurvy, then feeding sugar should get rid of that lack, but it does not. Feeding sugar does not resolve the high blood sugar... So then you can say, well it is because they have PUFA in their tissues...and you start on the long list of justifications why the metabolism is broken and needs years to fix if ever.

Now, Tarmander, don't go getting all real-world and practical on here. We are here to quote Ray Peat, and Ray Peat says diabetics just need MOAR SUGAR!

 

[Tarmander]

Now, Tarmander, don't go getting all real-world and practical on here. We are here to quote Ray Peat, and Ray Peat says diabetics just need MOAR SUGAR!

ha I know right. I have been around long enough here that the same conversations pop up that we had years ago. At this point it's all about practice and moving beyond the theory. I remember us talking about this subject and "figuring" things out quite thoroughly! Quite!

@Cirion I love the idea of yeah it takes awhile, maybe some years to deplete pufa, get the liver in shape, etc etc. But really what you are saying is that some people through a random/individualized set of steps that only work once that can only be applied to others in broad strokes seemed to get over their metabolic damage. Because it seems possible the reasoning we have here from Peat has some logic to it. There are people on Keto forums, carnivore forums, vegan forums, who all seem to have similar results. Some are going to get better and some worse and some things work sometimes. But the glass...well we still see through it darkly.

 

[Cirion]

ha I know right. I have been around long enough here that the same conversations pop up that we had years ago. At this point it's all about practice and moving beyond the theory. I remember us talking about this subject and "figuring" things out quite thoroughly! Quite!

@Cirion I love the idea of yeah it takes awhile, maybe some years to deplete pufa, get the liver in shape, etc etc. But really what you are saying is that some people through a random/individualized set of steps that only work once that can only be applied to others in broad strokes seemed to get over their metabolic damage. Because it seems possible the reasoning we have here from Peat has some logic to it. There are people on Keto forums, carnivore forums, vegan forums, who all seem to have similar results. Some are going to get better and some worse and some things work sometimes. But the glass...well we still see through it darkly.

I get what you're saying, but why do different strategies seem to work? There's a reason, and it's not random.

The keto diet actually can cure some diseases, but it's not better than low fat. But it can still cure some diseases, or at least alleviate some problems, because it avoids the randle cycle. I've done well on both keto, AND ultra low fat, but not a mixed diet - and it's not because of some weird voo-doo we can't explain - it's simple... randle cycle.

 

[Tarmander]

I get what you're saying, but why do different strategies seem to work? There's a reason, and it's not random.

The keto diet actually can cure some diseases, but it's not better than low fat. But it can still cure some diseases, or at least alleviate some problems, because it avoids the randle cycle. I've done well on both keto, AND ultra low fat, but not a mixed diet - and it's not because of some weird voo-doo we can't explain - it's simple... randle cycle.

You can actually get to the same place here from both a low fat and low carb perspective. Say I am mr. Low carb. Carbs are bad, insulin is bad, keep that isht out of here. But overtime my community has noticed that those doing ultra low carb don't do so well in several metrics. Their metabolisms crash, blood sugar control gets bad, etc. So we ease up and say well...you need some carbs in your diet, and it is different for everyone, experiment. Try to add some carbs here and there to keep your metabolism going.

People end up getting to the same place as they do from low fat. Some people cut out fat and get all swollen and get blood sugar problems, their metabolisms crash, their stress hormones spike. So we say add some fat in here and there, some people do better on more fat, etc etc.

Same place in both scenarios because threads like this miss the details that matter. This thread's subject matter, and Ray's thing about sugar feeding the sugarless diabetics, you can just toss that out and not think about it. It will lead you in the wrong direction as you will be focusing on things that do not matter. It IS random until we talk on the things that matter, and then it comes into focus. I will concede that the problems with low carb seem to be worse than the problems with low fat.

 

[Cirion]

I really just don't believe it's random. I will concede it is a little more complex though than just randle cycle (But that's the main key), and attention needs to paid to the finer details if you're sick. Like me for example - I have to do EVERYTHING *perfectly* to even make small health strides. But, just about all my strategies are lining up with what RP says is ideal - Low tryptophan,, very low fat and very low PUFA, non-endotoxic producing foods, very high carb and sugars. But I have found that some of RP's strategies have not worked for me - such as milk and OJ, these are a couple of the food strategies I do NOT agree with, and that's why it is complex to figure out, because RP does contradict himself in many areas, which one has to be wary of. Example - Avoid tryptophan, but drink lots of milk? Umm, no. You can't have it both ways. Milk is one of the highest tryptophan foods. Just one example. So while it's not random, I am not saying it's simple. In fact, am starting to wonder if it wasn't for the milk and OJ suggestions, that people around here might be doing a lot better. You see countless failed stories here from people on milk and OJ diets. IMO, dairy is a horrible food choice for sick people. As is ice cream.

 

[Tarmander]

I really just don't believe it's random. I will concede it is a little more complex though than just randle cycle (But that's the main key), and attention needs to paid to the finer details if you're sick. Like me for example - I have to do EVERYTHING *perfectly* to even make small health strides. But, just about all my strategies are lining up with what RP says is ideal - Low tryptophan,, very low fat and very low PUFA, non-endotoxic producing foods, very high carb and sugars. But I have found that some of RP's strategies have not worked for me - such as milk and OJ, these are a couple of the food strategies I do NOT agree with, and that's why it is complex to figure out, because RP does contradict himself in many areas, which one has to be wary of. Example - Avoid tryptophan, but drink lots of milk? Umm, no. You can't have it both ways. Milk is one of the highest tryptophan foods. Just one example. So while it's not random, I am not saying it's simple. In fact, am starting to wonder if it wasn't for the milk and OJ suggestions, that people around here might be doing a lot better. You see countless failed stories here from people on milk and OJ diets. IMO, dairy is a horrible food choice for sick people. As is ice cream.

Maybe I did not make myself clear. It IS random until you talk about the things that matter. "Until" Meaning, these things are experienced as random until the pieces fall into place, and then things make sense. I think that's another line by Peat, things dont make sense until they make perfect sense. Something like that. If you experience of something is random, then chances are you are not talking and thinking about what matters.

 

[Cirion]

Maybe I did not make myself clear. It IS random until you talk about the things that matter. "Until" Meaning, these things are experienced as random until the pieces fall into place, and then things make sense. I think that's another line by Peat, things dont make sense until they make perfect sense. Something like that. If you experience of something is random, then chances are you are not talking and thinking about what matters.

Gotcha, I mis-interpreted what you said. I agree with this.