What Happens When A Type Two Diabetic Follows Peat Ideas And Eats A Lot Of Sugar

[James IV]

Regarding caloric needs. I've definitely proven multiple times through self experimentation that the more nutrient complete my diet is, the less overall calories my body needs.
Im coming around to @Westside PUFAs idea that isolated fat sources (including saturated), should probably be limited for long term, sustained, fat loss. Yes, I've stopped drinking glasses of heavy cream! But I feel the same way about added sugar and nutrient deplete starch.
Seems to me, that nutritional deficiencies, may be a large driving factor in total hunger, and in turn, caloric "requirement."

 

[WestCoaster]

Interesting question but I think the answer is pretty clear. One first has to understand why one became Type 2 diabetic in the first place. Is it insulin resistance due to bad diet, or is it insulin resistance because of poor sleeping patterns. Insulin resistance is a cell simply being resistant to more insulin knocking at it's door trying to drive in glucose. One doesn't become more insulin sensitive (lowering Type 2), by either driving in more insulin directly, or consuming foods known to cause insulin secretion. Sugar (table sugar), is 50% glucose 50% fructose, each of these in themselves causes an issue. Glucose for obvious reasons elevates insulin directly. Fructose on the other hand cause issues via different route; it doesn't alter insulin or leptin which Leptin is causing the issue. Leptin is the satiety hormone, so something that doesn't stimulate Leptin, will cause a satiety issue creating more hunger, which drive people to eat more. The emerging role of dietary fructose in obesity and cognitive decline Most notably in there: Meals high in fructose have been shown to reduce circulating insulin and leptin levels in women. The last thing you want is reduced Leptin levels, this is very bad.

There also comes a compounded problem with this: The simple thought or even smell, or hint of a taste of food secretes insulin: Peripheral insulin in response to the sight and smell of food. - PubMed - NCBI Combine this with fructose's ability to drive hunger in people, and you have a golden combination to increase insulin resistance thus causing an excellent environment for Type 2 diabetes to develop. So I highly doubt one could fix Type 2 Diabetes via this method.

Of course someone is welcome to try it if they are feeling ballsy lol.

 

[tara]

Seems to me, that nutritional deficiencies, may be a large driving factor in total hunger, and in turn, caloric "requirement."

I wouldn't be surprised if that is sometimes the case. I figure that's probably part of what's at play for me if I get a patch of compulsively eating food that is not satisfying me.

Of course someone is welcome to try it if they are feeling ballsy lol.

I have read reports of people who have significantly reduced their fasting hyperglycemia over a period of a few months by massively increasing their carbohydrate intake and decreasing their fat intake (there may have been other factors too). There's the report by Denise Minger that shepherdgirl linked to above, and there were some on Matt Stone's site. Doesn't mean it would work for everyone.

 

[James IV]

Interesting question but I think the answer is pretty clear. One first has to understand why one became Type 2 diabetic in the first place. Is it insulin resistance due to bad diet, or is it insulin resistance because of poor sleeping patterns. Insulin resistance is a cell simply being resistant to more insulin knocking at it's door trying to drive in glucose. One doesn't become more insulin sensitive (lowering Type 2), by either driving in more insulin directly, or consuming foods known to cause insulin secretion. Sugar (table sugar), is 50% glucose 50% fructose, each of these in themselves causes an issue. Glucose for obvious reasons elevates insulin directly. Fructose on the other hand cause issues via different route; it doesn't alter insulin or leptin which Leptin is causing the issue. Leptin is the satiety hormone, so something that doesn't stimulate Leptin, will cause a satiety issue creating more hunger, which drive people to eat more. The emerging role of dietary fructose in obesity and cognitive decline Most notably in there: Meals high in fructose have been shown to reduce circulating insulin and leptin levels in women. The last thing you want is reduced Leptin levels, this is very bad.

There also comes a compounded problem with this: The simple thought or even smell, or hint of a taste of food secretes insulin: Peripheral insulin in response to the sight and smell of food. - PubMed - NCBI Combine this with fructose's ability to drive hunger in people, and you have a golden combination to increase insulin resistance thus causing an excellent environment for Type 2 diabetes to develop. So I highly doubt one could fix Type 2 Diabetes via this method.

Of course someone is welcome to try it if they are feeling ballsy lol.

I think there are quite a number of things that can cause insulin resistance these days. Poor sleep, poor light exposure, EMF, artificial foods, nutritional deficiency, stress, etc.
Those studies on fructose are done with isolated fructose, corn syrup, etc. They aren't done with fruit.
I don't believe carbohydrates alone cause insulin resistance. I do believe limiting carbohydrates can help with insulin resistance, but that doesn't mean that they caused them. If that were the case Dr. Kepner, and Dr. McDougal would have no success with diabetics, which is not the case.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I think there are two requisites. One is insulin resistance which is brought on by chronically high cortisol levels and constant free fatty acids. Oxidative phosphorylation is not happening, but glycolysis and lipolysis are the energy methods the mitochondria are using. Lots of lactic acid stimulates breathing and hyperventilation creating what Ray calls "pseudohypoxia".

I've worked with diabetics and they all have very low control pauses. Indicating hypoxia going on, very low oxygen levels reaching tissues, very low CO2.

Then the fragile Islets of Langherhans get killed eventually and the result is full on type 2 diabetes requiring insulin. These beta cells are fragile anyway, and easily destroyed, just as Ray has pointed out the thymus is easily shrunk down to almost nothing.

I have no idea what comes first in all this or what causes it, but it seems to me that high fat and high sugar meals again and again can cause it in susceptible individuals, maybe when lots of the fat is PUFA.

I don't think people eating fat<10% of caloric intake get diabetes much.

That' brings me back to the original post. If we keep fat very low, and give a diabetic high sugar, will they recover?

Doctors go by H2A1C. And they are very religious about acute blood sugar control This is the belief that AGEs are the problem, that sugar combines with protein to form toxic glycation end products that lead to neuropathy and blindness and eventual amputation.

I don't really believe this. And I see a lot of the medications being very toxic and probably creating a lot of diabetic symptoms.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I also came across a study that had diabetics lose weight and exercise a lot, and they did not get better, and they did not have a lower death rate. The interventions did no good at all.

 

[tara]

I also came across a study that had diabetics lose weight and exercise a lot, and they did not get better, and they did not have a lower death rate. The interventions did no good at all.

Looks like an illustration of the point that manipulating health 'markers' does not necessarily improve the underlying health condition.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Looks like an illustration of the point that manipulating health 'markers' does not necessarily improve the underlying health condition.

I always questioned "lose weight" as the mantra. And I really only pay attention to all-cause mortality in such studies. And this one was the same in both intervention and control groups so they stopped the study early due to "futility".

 

[tara]

I always questioned "lose weight" as the mantra. And I really only pay attention to all-cause mortality in such studies.

Yes, this is the interesting bit.

... so they stopped the study early due to "futility".

Some sense, anyway.

 

[paymanz]

What's the difference between triglyceride/fatty acids you ingest and the ones that you create when you eat excess carbs?!

I think there is no difference! By excess carbs I mean carbs you eat on top of glycogen stores.

Eating carb when your stores are full will not help you,it also can make you insulin resistant, why not?!

But I believe there is no sweet appetite when glycogen stores are filled, at least a healthy human is like that.ray also mentioned it in an email.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Where did our ancestors get sugar from?
I can't pull up the data to back this theory up, but I assume
1. Sugars were scare
2. Calories in general were scarce compared to today.
3. Life expectancy was lower, but natural causes included being killed by a bear.

Granting the above,how or why did sugar keep the body in a more optimal state?
A) is it a hold over from earlier ancestors who lived in trees?
B) Are our bodies programed to start dieing based on environmental factors ?
C) are there sources of sugar we are not eating,say tree sap or some bugs,That we are geared to consume?

WE know stress kills , but stress also forces adaptation to the new environment. Species stress and individual stress are different of course,
But individual longevity is not always what's good for the species,especially in times of caloric stress.

I admit I look at this through the filter of a long time HP LC dieter. My weight loss on hi protein low carb was radical,with calories in excess of 4000 calories a day and weight loss of .75 pounds a day for 2 months with 0 exercise. But I can't help but think the high calorie diet I did then or that I read about here is not sustainable or beneficial for the individual or the species.

Believe it or not everything else about RP I can get my head around. But the last is like a wall to me.

Sugar is so important that your body will literally break down your own muscles to turn them into sugar if you don't eat it.

Your brain optimally consumes about 120 grams of sugar daily. Sugar is the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged fasting, and even then the brain still needs a small amount of sugar. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of sugar.

If you have zero sugar in your blood, you die.

As far as ancestors, a study with 166 references:

The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution on JSTOR

"We propose that plant foods containing high quantities of starch were essential for the evolution of the human phenotype during the Pleistocene. Although previous studies have highlighted a stone tool-mediated shift from primarily plant-based to primarily meat-based diets as critical in the development of the brain and other human traits, we argue that digestible carbohydrates were also necessary to accommodate the increased metabolic demands of a growing brain. Furthermore, we acknowledge the adaptive role cooking played in improving the digestibility and palatability of key carbohydrates. We provide evidence that cooked starch, a source of preformed glucose, greatly increased energy availability to human tissues with high glucose demands, such as the brain, red blood cells, and the developing fetus. We also highlight the auxiliary role copy number variation in the salivary amylase genes may have played in increasing the importance of starch in human evolution following the origins of cooking. Salivary amylases are largely ineffective on raw crystalline starch, but cooking substantially increases both their energy-yielding potential and glycemia.Although uncertainties remain regarding the antiquity of cooking and the origins of salivary amylase gene copy number variation, the hypothesis we present makes a testable prediction that these events are correlated."

"We agree with Wrangham (2009) that the reduction in gut size is more likely to have occurred due to a gradual replacement of fibrous plants by higher energy-yielding plant foods, including starchy tubers."

"We contend that in terms of energy supplied to an increasingly large brain, as well as to other glucose-dependent tissues, consumption of increased amounts of starch may have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage to Mid-to-Late Pleistocene omnivorous hominins."

"However, we propose that high-starch plant foods would have been a plentiful, reliable, and important part of the diet."

"The rapid growth in hominin brain size during the Middle Pleistocene will have required an increased supply of preformed glucose. Such increased demands can be met through a range of biologically and culturally driven dietary adaptations. Noting that there is considerable overlap in date estimates for the origins of controlled fire use and the origins of AMY1 CNV, we hypothesize a gene-culture coadaptation scenario whereby cooking starch-rich plant foods coevolved with increased salivary amylase activity in the human lineage. Without cooking, the consumption of starch-rich plant foods is unlikely to have met the high demands for preformed glucose noted in modern humans. Likewise, the improved accessibility of starch to α-amylases through cooking would, in turn, have led to an increased advantage for high levels of salivary amylase expression, particularly in infants. Carmody and Wrangham (2009) highlight the increased speed of digestibility and consequent energy gain provided by starch that has been thermally processed; however, AMY1 expression is also required for this to be effective. In addition to the increased energy availability from starch, other advantages of the coevolution of cooking and AMY1 expression include a reduction in chewing time, increased palatability and digestibility of polyphenol-rich plant foods, and improved reproductive function; a reliable supply of glycemic carbohydrate is likely to have sustainably supported fetal growth, provided the extra caloric intake needed during lactation, and improved infant survival. The regular consumption of starchy plant foods offers a coherent explanation for the provision of energy to the developing brain during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene while the development of cooking, and a concomitant increases in salivary amylase expression, explains how the rapid increases in brain size from the Middle Pleistocene onward were energetically affordable."

Regarding caloric needs. I've definitely proven multiple times through self experimentation that the more nutrient complete my diet is, the less overall calories my body needs.
Im coming around to @Westside PUFAs idea that isolated fat sources (including saturated), should probably be limited for long term, sustained, fat loss. Yes, I've stopped drinking glasses of heavy cream! But I feel the same way about added sugar and nutrient deplete starch.
Seems to me, that nutritional deficiencies, may be a large driving factor in total hunger, and in turn, caloric "requirement."

Not all are nutrient deplete. Tubers, legumes, squashes and grains have much nutriment. Plus the starch itself must be viewed as it's own nutrient for it's own sake.

I'm surprised in what you said as you were a very passionate high fat proponent. Why are you coming around now?

.

 

[tyw]

Sugar is so important that your body will literally break down your own muscles to turn them into sugar if you don't eat it.

Your brain optimally consumes about 120 grams of sugar daily. Sugar is the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged fasting, and even then the brain still needs a small amount of sugar. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of sugar.

If you have zero sugar in your blood, you die.

What happened to your old signature .... the one that gave a constant reminder that "Blood Sugar" should really mean "Blood Glucose" (and therefore all "starch sources" are eventually glucose sources)

.....

 

[James IV]

Sugar is so important that your body will literally break down your own muscles to turn them into sugar if you don't eat it.

Your brain optimally consumes about 120 grams of sugar daily. Sugar is the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged fasting, and even then the brain still needs a small amount of sugar. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of sugar.

If you have zero sugar in your blood, you die.

As far as ancestors, a study with 166 references:

The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution on JSTOR

"We propose that plant foods containing high quantities of starch were essential for the evolution of the human phenotype during the Pleistocene. Although previous studies have highlighted a stone tool-mediated shift from primarily plant-based to primarily meat-based diets as critical in the development of the brain and other human traits, we argue that digestible carbohydrates were also necessary to accommodate the increased metabolic demands of a growing brain. Furthermore, we acknowledge the adaptive role cooking played in improving the digestibility and palatability of key carbohydrates. We provide evidence that cooked starch, a source of preformed glucose, greatly increased energy availability to human tissues with high glucose demands, such as the brain, red blood cells, and the developing fetus. We also highlight the auxiliary role copy number variation in the salivary amylase genes may have played in increasing the importance of starch in human evolution following the origins of cooking. Salivary amylases are largely ineffective on raw crystalline starch, but cooking substantially increases both their energy-yielding potential and glycemia.Although uncertainties remain regarding the antiquity of cooking and the origins of salivary amylase gene copy number variation, the hypothesis we present makes a testable prediction that these events are correlated."

"We agree with Wrangham (2009) that the reduction in gut size is more likely to have occurred due to a gradual replacement of fibrous plants by higher energy-yielding plant foods, including starchy tubers."

"We contend that in terms of energy supplied to an increasingly large brain, as well as to other glucose-dependent tissues, consumption of increased amounts of starch may have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage to Mid-to-Late Pleistocene omnivorous hominins."

"However, we propose that high-starch plant foods would have been a plentiful, reliable, and important part of the diet."

"The rapid growth in hominin brain size during the Middle Pleistocene will have required an increased supply of preformed glucose. Such increased demands can be met through a range of biologically and culturally driven dietary adaptations. Noting that there is considerable overlap in date estimates for the origins of controlled fire use and the origins of AMY1 CNV, we hypothesize a gene-culture coadaptation scenario whereby cooking starch-rich plant foods coevolved with increased salivary amylase activity in the human lineage. Without cooking, the consumption of starch-rich plant foods is unlikely to have met the high demands for preformed glucose noted in modern humans. Likewise, the improved accessibility of starch to α-amylases through cooking would, in turn, have led to an increased advantage for high levels of salivary amylase expression, particularly in infants. Carmody and Wrangham (2009) highlight the increased speed of digestibility and consequent energy gain provided by starch that has been thermally processed; however, AMY1 expression is also required for this to be effective. In addition to the increased energy availability from starch, other advantages of the coevolution of cooking and AMY1 expression include a reduction in chewing time, increased palatability and digestibility of polyphenol-rich plant foods, and improved reproductive function; a reliable supply of glycemic carbohydrate is likely to have sustainably supported fetal growth, provided the extra caloric intake needed during lactation, and improved infant survival. The regular consumption of starchy plant foods offers a coherent explanation for the provision of energy to the developing brain during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene while the development of cooking, and a concomitant increases in salivary amylase expression, explains how the rapid increases in brain size from the Middle Pleistocene onward were energetically affordable."



Not all are nutrient deplete. Tubers, legumes, squashes and grains have much nutriment. Plus the starch itself must be viewed as it's own nutrient for it's own sake.

I'm surprised in what you said as you were a very passionate high fat proponent. Why are you coming around now?

.

I wasn't implying that all starches nutrient deficient. I meant eating a large portion of your diet from low nutrient starch sources, like white rice and white flour, will probably eventually get you into trouble. Same applies to white sugar.
I'm also not saying I don't still support high fat diets, as I think they can be very useful, and therapeutic, in many situations. I myself do very well on high-fat low-carb. I have found, however, that with our modern food environment, it's more difficult to construct a proper high fat diet. I think bone broths and organ meats, are integral for making a high fat diet work long-term. And some people are just not willing, or able, to eat these foods.
That being said, I think you can run into the same pitfalls with a very low fat diet, if micro nutrition is not addressed.
Like I mentioned before, my main driving factor for trying to make high carb diet work, is money. Getting a larger portion of my diet from starch and fruit, is definitely way cheaper.
I'm still undecided if high-fat low-carb, or high carb low-fat, are really any healthier than the other, if each are done correctly. And this may boil down to the circumstances, lifestyle, and epigenetic's of the individual.
And I do think it is important, to not go too extreme in either direction for too long. I think some type of macro nutrient cycling, whether that is daily, weekly, or monthly,is probably the way to achieve and maintain good health.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

What happened to your old signature .... the one that gave a constant reminder that "Blood Sugar" should really mean "Blood Glucose" (and therefore all "starch sources" are eventually glucose sources)

.....

Ah yes, I remember this signature you speak of..

 

[RatRancher]

@Westside PUFAs ,
Thank you for that. Makes sense.

The end goal is increased lifespan,with high quality of life for as long as possible. We probably all agree that PUFAS are not conductive to those ends. But from my limited research here I have concluded that no one gets out of here alive. A affects B,which affects C. You can try D but that lowers your Z and may affect Y expression which causes X.
Obviously diet is very important,but I wonder if we are missing something in the equation for optimal health and well being. LC worked,I lost a lot of weight. Regained later. IF worked,again lost weight. But I realize the objective is not to look like what society says we should look like but to be truly healthy.
Frankly I really want this to work,and maybe it's years of being low carb and the mindset that goes with it (high carb tastes great!) that makes me gun shy.

 

[Mito]

Weirdly, I asked Ray something similar. About gastric bypass. About why gastric bypass surgery seems to favorably impact so many metabolic markers.

All he wrote was: Weight reduction causes shifts in hormone balance.

The “Magic” of Bariatric Surgery on Diabetes

"It turns out that there are multiple gut hormones and neuroresponse phenomena that follow a gastric bypass—some of them affect the satiety signals, some affect islet production of insulin,"

 

[bmoores]

Can't type two diabetes be fixed by eating sugar and being OK with blood sugar levels of 200 or 300 for a while. Doesn't do wonders for your A-1 C at least in the short term. Has anybody tried this?

I think this style of sugar consumption helped me, but over 200 is very high. A few paraphrases based on reading Peat:
- Ideal blood sugar 100-110.
- Starch makes high blood sugar worse, related to glycation, starch particles... If blood sugar is steadily high or if a person is eating increasing amounts of sugar, it might be important to go starch free for a while. If I can find the Peat quote on this I'll post it.
- Lowering cortisol is probably the most important step to lowering chronically high blood sugar that comes from gluconeogenesis breaking down amino acids and body tissue. The timing of eating mores sugar is important: with protein, first thing in the morning to turn off cortisol, etc. Pregnenolone helps normalize cortisol. Red light lowers the need for cortisol.
- Caffeine is a safer way to burn off high blood glucose, which increases CO2
- Non-stressful exercise helps lower blood sugar and decrease insulin resistance, e.g walking, weight lifting. It should feel good, not stressful, able to breathe through the nose.
- Blocking excessive glycolysis is important to lower inflammation and lactic acid. Best glycolysis inhibitors are CO2, diamox, Naloxone. Others reported to be good, which I didn't notice as much are Lipoic acid, etc. In theory lowering glycolysis can bump up blood sugar and glycogen storage because you are using glucose more efficiently to produce ATP instead of wasting it as lactic acid. Knowing this helps adjust sugar consumption.
- Peat has mentioned that a tumor is a very effective way to lower blood sugar, as it gets converted to heat and wasted in the futile cycle. Obviously we don't want to get to that point and it illustrates the need to normalize blood sugar using safe, smarter healing methods, before the body takes things into it's own hands so to speak.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Isn't inhibiting lipolysis even more important @bmoores

 

[paymanz]

In terms of digestion, intestinal uptake is always in the triglyceride (TG) form. Whether it be MCTs (which are named "Medium Chain Triglycerides" for a reason), isolated TGs through intestinal storage release, or TGs in chylomicrons ...... dietary fat is always taken into the bloodstream in the form of Triglycerides, and can be taken into adipose tissue in this form. Therefore, yes, the TGs stored in adipocytes behave in the same way as TGs in the blood.

some proportion of dietary fat gets broke down to free fatty acids in digestive tract and absorbed.

And the pancreatic lipase is responsible for it....

Fatty acid metabolism - Wikipedia

Digestion and Absorption of Fats

triglycerides, cannot be absorbed by the intestine.[22] They are broken down into mono- and di-glycerides plus free fatty acids (but no free glycerol) by pancreatic lipase

Digestion of Fats (Triacylglycerols) | Biochemistry Notes | PharmaXChange.info

These finely dispersed micelles produced from the detergent action of bile salts now have increased solubilty. They are now hydrolysed by lipase to convert the triacylglycerols to monoacylglycerols, diacylglycerols, fatty acids and glycerol. All the end products formed here get diffused through the epithelial mucosa.

 

[mujuro]

I have noticed that workouts on my lazy days (skipped meals, a lot of coffee, few carbs) are breathless, very sweaty, and produces a feeling of agitation that lingers for hours. This is in contrast to my usual workouts which are very invigorating, minimal sweat and comfortable breathing. Really does demonstrate the importance of using food to mitigate exercise stress.

EDIT - I actually forgot where I was going with this post.