Protocol For Curing Type 2 Diabetes, Anyone?

[benaoao]

I read that Denise' long blog over the weekend, which you posted. Thank you. To be honest, I wouldn't dare recommend rice to a diabetic. I would much rather go with finding pure fructose than pure glucose from rice. If I were the diabetic, I would be willing to try it, but when it's for somebody else, there's Murphy's Law

I know it sounds counter intuitive, but it's not. You want to reverse insulin resistance = you want to improve glucose metabolism.

Reducing carbs may work for most people because it kinda goes around that insulin resistance. It says "oh well your metabolism is broken, too bad too late can't fixe it. nope. have high fat instead". It's quite dangerous in my opinion and much more sustainable to slowly progress towards a very low fat diet.

It's possible that the super restrictive diet and very high fruit juice alongside rice may have been risky for some patients. There must be an easier way :) Anyways, 6 chances out of 10 to be treated in less than a month vs. medication their whole life.

 

[yerrag]

I know it sounds counter intuitive, but it's not. You want to reverse insulin resistance = you want to improve glucose metabolism.

Reducing carbs may work for most people because it kinda goes around that insulin resistance. It says "oh well your glucose metabolism is broken, too bad too late can't fixe it. nope. have high fat instead". It's quite dangerous in my opinion and much more sustainable to slowly progress towards a very low fat diet.

It's possible that the super restrictive diet and very high fruit juice alongside rice may have been risky for some patients. There must be an easier way :) Anyways, 6 chances out of 10 to be treated in less than a month vs. medication their whole life.

Rice is glucose, and we already know diabetes can't metabolize glucose. And the answer to that is more glucose in the form of rice?

The amazing thing is people are jumping on the bandwagon for rice on account of Denise Minger's article mentioning Kempner, while making less of the fact that fructose is easily metabolized notwithstanding the presence of that which blocks glucose metabolism - free fatty acids!

I lose credibility quickly when I rush out and tell my diabetic friend to "go ahead, trust me, go on a rice diet." I don't see myself being considered his friend for long.

Why can't it be we call it the "fruit and sugar diet" and leave out the rice?" It's still counter-intuitive, but at least I'm not throwing darts.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I don't think I can tell that to the person who is diabetic. I'll tell them it is very complicated. And he would have to be lucky to be part of the 63% of the people whose FBS dropped, and not be one of the 15% whose FBS rose significantly.

In Defense of Low Fat: A Call for Some Evolution of Thought (Part 1) :

In this report, Kempner analyzed 100 diabetics who’d entered the rice diet program between 1944 and 1955. All of them strictly followed the diet for at least three months (often much longer), and they were observed an average of nearly two years—with some folks monitored for up to eleven years after they’d first embarked on the carby cuisine.

The findings? Ladies and gents, place your bets…

More than half of those 100 diabetic ricers—63%—actually saw their fasting blood sugar drop by at least 20 mg/dL during the diet. Only 15% had their blood sugar go up significantly. The remaining 22 saw little to no change.

The study did show this is a step in the right direction, but there are holes to be plugged still. This study is decades ago, and since that time we have added to our store of knowledge, and applying what we learned since then would increase the odds for success.

It can take a year or two. I think pufa depletion is critical. Blood sugar may be high for awhile but metabolism is correcting. Macdougall has done some good work here. Completely contrary to today’s low carb approaches which of course do not work. Macdougall isn’t right about whole grains but...

 

[yerrag]

But anyways, elevated free fatty acids in the blood with elevated glucose causes insulin resistance; inhibiting his lipolysis would be a great first step.
Niacinamide, aspirin and vitamin E are of course good. 3g niacinamide has effectively been used in many studies (over the years) against insulin resistance.
6-9g aspirin daily replaced insulin requirements in type 1 diabetics in less than a month, although they had to restart taking insulin after a few days of quitting the aspirin; so short term high dose aspirin didn't cure them. 100IU vitamin E daily will help prevent lipid peroxidation and protect against PUFAs. So a good short term treatment could be 3g niacinamide, 3g aspirin and 100IU vitamin E for a month or two, and then the dosages can be reduced from then on.

After inhibiting lipolysis and fatty acid oxidation it would be good to restart his glucose oxidation. Vitamin B1 and biotin will help do this. 300mg vitamin B1 and 5mg biotin three times a day, preferably with a big meal. Studies show that 15mg biotin daily is very effective for diabetics. Then the other B vitamins are also very important, such as B2 (<20mg) and B6 (<10mg).

15g glycine has also been shown to be very effective (5g 3 times daily).
An optimal intake of salt and calcium is also very important. Aldosterone will waste potassium and magnesium at the expense of sodium, and will also activate parathyroid hormone. A salt deficiency will first increase renin and then angiotensin and then aldosterone; angiotensin then activates NADPH oxidase which increases reactive oxygen species, which will contribute to an increase in oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance etc.
Low calcium intake will increase parathyroid hormone, which will suppress thyroid function and also increase aldosterone. So vitamin D must also be optimal to increase the absorption of calcium.

Diabetics have an increase in endotoxins, so avoiding any gut irritating/endotoxin producing foods is very important. Activated charcoal, coconut oil/MCT oil, ginger (5-HT3 antagonist) and lysine (5-HT4 and NO antagonist) is excellent for lowering endotoxins, serotonin and nitric oxide produced in the gut. An elimination diet would work best to identify problematic foods. Improving digestion would be fundamental, so using vinegar with a meal can aid in digestion.

GABA is used to regenerate the beta-cells of the pancreas. But because he is not type I, it might not be necessary to supplement with GABA directly.
Taurine, glycine, theanine, proline, niacinamide, valerian root, magnesium, B1, etc, increase GABA. GABA will help to lower cortisol, prolactin and serotonin.

MCT is like the fructose of fats. It doesn't require transporters to enter cells and the mitochondria to be oxidized, and doesn't interfere with glucose oxidation. It increases energy expenditure, aids in fat loss, uncouples, provides ketones (even when eaten together with carbs), and helps a damaged liver. 75g of MCT oil is shown to completely reverse liver cirrhosis.

Fixing circadian rhythm will also improve glucose tolerance, but that can be hard, if not impossible, if there are still some underlying nutritional deficiencies such as vitamin D, magnesium, etc. It would also help to wake up just before the sun starts rising and then look at/in the direction of the sun for about 10 minutes (minimum) as it rises. This will provide healing red light, help to suppress melatonin and serotonin, and will also help with the circadian rhythm. Getting enough sunlight on the skin during the day (at least 30min - 1hr daily) would be optimal.

And last but not least, exercise and sweating will be great to help increase circulation and remove toxins from the body. Exercise doesn't have to be intense, and sweating can also be accomplished by sauna or just being in the sun.

All very well thought. It seems like you have experience helping someone or yourself who suffer from diabetes. As I said earlier, it is complicated but not that much.

These are very good refinements, and adding these to the "Rice Diet" of Kempner (maybe without the rice, until a later stage) would make for a good basis for a protocol for diabetes. The details would be more in dosage and in the way the treatment would be divided into stages, which you gave a glimpse of.

Use the search function!

Start with diabetes and specify user Haidut (all forum search), he has posted tons of stuff on this.

Yeah. Except I wish haidut would remove his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache. his practice of boldfacing together with underlining sentences and paragraphs. It gives me a headache.

I hope you see my point.

 

[benaoao]

Rice is glucose, and we already know diabetes can't metabolize glucose. And the answer to that is more glucose in the form of rice?

The amazing thing is people are jumping on the bandwagon for rice on account of Denise Minger's article mentioning Kempner, while making less of the fact that fructose is easily metabolized notwithstanding the presence of that which blocks glucose metabolism - free fatty acids!

I lose credibility quickly when I rush out and tell my diabetic friend to "go ahead, trust me, go on a rice diet." I don't see myself being considered his friend for long.

Why can't it be we call it the "fruit and sugar diet" and leave out the rice?" It's still counter-intuitive, but at least I'm not throwing darts.

I wouldn’t call that a bandwagon, more like a way to support biochemistry claims through real life data of patients reversing disease. Kempner or others like McDougall indeed.

I’m fully open to other ways around rice dieting. I don’t think Kempner was 150% right in everything but the principle remains; we want to improve glucose metabolism. Diabetics can’t metabolize glucose for now. I guess he was confident in his methods because he was overlooking his patients at all times. There must be ways to plan an easy enough diet that consists of 10% fat at most, 20% proteins, and fruits. I’m doing 10/30/60% but that’s because I’m a gym head

 

[CLASH]

Pretty sure type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition. Assuming this is correct I’d probably get a stool test and treat the bacterial populations in his gut. Perhaps phages would be of help (the ones ordered from russia/ georgia, not the weak sh*t we have here...) Perhaps probiotics, bifido up the butt maybe (enema)? Last resort: all raw milk diet for extended periods of time i.e the milk cure aka adult breast feeding. Or maybe do the milk cure, then take the probiotic enemas while taking the phages with maybe some biofilm disruptors.

Dietary interventions once coming off milk cure if attempted; specific types of fibers and fats i.e. only fruit and vegetable fibers, no starches and only saturated fats (beef, coconut, maybe dairy, cocoa butter). The usual peat proteins, sans the milk And eggs (opiates, prolactin, PUFA, tryptophan), i.e. beef, lamb, shrimp, scallop, cod, flounder, maybe super lean chicken or turkey breast (tastes nasty).

Nutritional support, the usual: D, K, E, C (if you believe in it as a peater), B’s, calcium, magnesium, zinc, maybe potassium, maybe bicarb, some organ meats and shellfish, preg, prog, maybe aspirin, and definetly some red light.

If this doesnt work 50 units of humalog after an overnight fast (just kidding, dont do this, it will most likely kill you).

 

[Peater Piper]

Very low fat is the key. Look up Kempner's "rice diet," which contained a lot of fruit and sugar (along with the rice) despite the name.

I think part of the reason it worked so well is because it can cause dramatic weight loss. Basically any diet that can quickly lean out the liver will cause an improvement in both beta cell function and insulin sensitivity. Also, some people simply don't seem to respond well to the high carb, low fat approach for whatever reason (glucose remains extremely elevated). Ornish is fine with an A1C under 7, which indicates the diet isn't working for some of his patients, imo (understanding A1C isn't perfect, anything over 5 should result in further investigation, both fasting and post-prandial readings). The trickier situation is managing the person with poor glucose control who is already lean.

For what it's worth, going very high fruit results in poorer glucose readings for me than mixing moderate amounts of fruit and starch. Without a glucose meter and frequent readings, it's very hard to know how the body is responding to different foods and supplements. There was a study posted here in the past that showed, regardless of glycemic index, people had very different responses to different foods. OGTTs have some use, but I think readings after real meals holds more value, although insulin can't be measured at home.

 

[benaoao]

I think what matters is fasted insulin readings. I don’t really think it matters to spike glucose high, as long as minimal insulin is required in response. Stuff consistently hits the fan when fasted insulin is high (double digits already too high imo), sensitivity declines etc.

A year ago my father and I got the same fasted blood glucose upwards of 90, but my insulin was a third of his. Means a lot

 

[yerrag]

It can take a year or two. I think pufa depletion is critical. Blood sugar may be high for awhile but metabolism is correcting. Macdougall has done some good work here. Completely contrary to today’s low carb approaches which of course do not work. Macdougall isn’t right about whole grains but...

I feel like I'm missing something. Who is MacDougall?

Pretty sure type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition. Assuming this is correct I’d probably get a stool test and treat the bacterial populations in his gut. Perhaps phages would be of help (the ones ordered from russia/ georgia, not the weak sh*t we have here...) Perhaps probiotics, bifido up the butt maybe (enema)? Last resort: all raw milk diet for extended periods of time i.e the milk cure aka adult breast feeding. Or maybe do the milk cure, then take the probiotic enemas while taking the phages with maybe some biofilm disruptors.

Dietary interventions once coming off milk cure if attempted; specific types of fibers and fats i.e. only fruit and vegetable fibers, no starches and only saturated fats (beef, coconut, maybe dairy, cocoa butter). The usual peat proteins, sans the milk And eggs (opiates, prolactin, PUFA, tryptophan), i.e. beef, lamb, shrimp, scallop, cod, flounder, maybe super lean chicken or turkey breast (tastes nasty).

Nutritional support, the usual: D, K, E, C (if you believe in it as a peater), B’s, calcium, magnesium, zinc, maybe potassium, maybe bicarb, some organ meats and shellfish, preg, prog, maybe aspirin, and definetly some red light.

If this doesnt work 50 units of humalog after an overnight fast (just kidding, dont do this, it will most likely kill you).

A humalog?

I'm hoping to make it as simple as possible for my friend, but there's a lot of stuff he needs to take. I was wondering if there's a few things that can be left off, as it would overwhelm him seeing that he to cover so many things. Thanks for your suggestions. Most of them are helpful, especially illy the need to make sure he covers his deficiencies.

I think what matters is fasted insulin readings. I don’t really think it matters to spike glucose high, as long as minimal insulin is required in response. Stuff consistently hits the fan when fasted insulin is high (double digits already too high imo), sensitivity declines etc.

A year ago my father and I got the same fasted blood glucose upwards of 90, but my insulin was a third of his. Means a lot

How do you get fasted insulin readings?

There was a study posted here in the past that showed, regardless of glycemic index, people had very different responses to different foods. OGTTs have some use, but I think readings after real meals holds more value, although insulin can't be measured at home.

How so? What readings would you be taking? Why would these be more useful that OGTTs (not sure what you mean by OGTTS but I assume it has something to do with glucose tolerance test, what's the 'O?')

 

[ecstatichamster]

Macdougall - see his youtube videos, look up rice diet kempner. He's pretty sharp for a doctor. He believes in some stupid things, but he is on the right track of a high carb, low fat diet reversing type 2 diabetes.

How I Treat Diabetes

Drug therapy has consistently failed patients with type-2 diabetes, and their well-intended doctors, making the search for an alternative treatment imperative. Since the rich Western diet is agreed to be the cause of this epidemic, should diet not be the first place to look for the prevention and the cure?24 Written reports on the benefits of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate, plant-food-based diet on type-2 diabetes date back to at least 1930.25Several published studies demonstrate how type-2 diabetics can stop insulin and get off diabetic oral medications with a change in diet.26-31 One goalpost is weight loss to the point of normal body weight, at this time the blood sugars of most patients diagnosed with type-2 diabetes will normal, and then everyone will agree that no further treatment with medications is needed.

By great good fortune, this same low-fat, no-cholesterol diet successfully used for diet-therapy for diabetes has been shown to prevent and treat heart and kidney disease, and prevent many common forms of cancer. Heart disease accounts for 70% of the deaths in diabetics, diabetes is the number one cause of kidney failure, and cancer is more common in diabetics.​

Here is a convolutedly-written study that demonstrates in terms of Hb A1C, that replacing fat with carbs LOWERS Hb A1C, and improves glycemic control. I think the results were so stunningly un-PC that the writer couched the abstract and conclusion in language that indicates the OPPOSITE of what the study actually says.

Association of high carbohydrate versus high fat diet with glycated hemoglobin in high calorie consuming type 2 diabetics

In contrast to the commonly held view, this study showed that type 2 diabetic patients on high carbohydrate and low saturated fat diet have a better blood glucose control.​

A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI

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/24 h) 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.
​

I think it was not the VEGAN part, but the HIGH CARB part that helped these diabetics improve on the vegan diet.

 

[Peater Piper]

How so? What readings would you be taking? Why would these be more useful that OGTTs (not sure what you mean by OGTTS but I assume it has something to do with glucose tolerance test, what's the 'O?')

Oral glucose tolerance test. Getting it done in a lab is nice because insulin can also be checked. However, some people experience physical distress from the test, and individual variability with different foods means you could have two people respond similarly to an OGTT, but not necessarily the same way to a serving of rice, or potatoes, or orange juice. So there's some value in the OGTT (especially with insulin also being checked), but a person at home can find out exactly how they're responding to the foods they actually eat. For example, I've read reports of people who found totally normal glucose responses to most foods, but had terrible readings with wheat, or dairy, etc. In those cases, simply eliminating the problem foods could be a major benefit. In other instances, a person may find their glucose goes sky high no matter what they eat, in which case they really need a serious intervention of some kind.

 

[yerrag]

and individual variability with different foods means you could have two people respond similarly to an OGTT, but not necessarily the same way to a serving of rice, or potatoes, or orange juice.

But that doesn't make OGTT less useful, as it is specifically testing for glucose tolerance. It actually isolates the test from confounders, which is a good thing. On the other hand, varying responses between rice and potatoes and orange juice would be expected. One can't expect to derive conclusions from an OGTT pertaining to responses to different forms of carbohydrate or sugar sources, nor should one.

But you're right. One can't just use the OGTT without considering the variation in responses to different foods, but have to take into account factors other than glucose that determine their response to different foods.

I have benefited from the 5 hr OGTT. It determined that I was hypoglycemic. For close to twenty years since, I have turned to eating brown rice from white rice. I was able to improve my health, primarily from having more stable blood glucose levels because the brown rice takes longer to digest, and so glucose, instead of surging into the blood, will trickle slowly in over a longer period of time.

About 5 years ago, I stopped all use of PUFAs, and last year, I went back to eating white rice. It's because I have become more insulin-sensitive, and I was able to handle the surge of glucose after meals.

 

[cellboy]

Bears do cure their hibernation induced diabetes by eating lots of honey but they've also must have burned lots of pufa during that time so maybe limiting pufas first while at the same time increasing sfa intake, imroving liver function(glycine, vitamin k, caffeine, high quality vitamin e, no starch, limiting environmental toxins, high calcium to phosphorus ratio,...) and then slowly adding more and more sugar(in the form of ripe fruits as they contain more fructose and necessary minerals) to the diet. Thyroid and Nicotinamide(Vitamin B3) are necessary too. And don't forget the sunlight

 

[tara]

Rice is glucose, and we already know diabetes can't metabolize glucose. And the answer to that is more glucose in the form of rice?

Depends on the severity. Maybe impaired glucose metabolism, rather than completely destroyed.
Recovery of the pancreatic insulin-producing cells probably requires some glucose, along with other things.

With diabetes, I think you have a choice between seeing if you can repair and strengthen the impaired glucose metabolism, or give up on it. If it were me, and I thought I had a chance, I'd probably be wanting to at least give a go at improving the glucose metabolism before abandoning.

Have you read about Peat saying his Dad cured himself of diabetes by basically living off brewers yeast for a bit? (I think it might have been a few weeks, not sure.)Peat has sometimes recommended hot water extract of brewers yeast. B-vits, but maybe other factor too.

As to rice, if your friend has glucose meter, what about doing some personal monitoring? Trying a low fat diet that includes lots of fruit and a variant that replaces a bit of the fruit with rice? The personal answer is more important than the hypothetical one.

[edit:]Fruit salad and rice together are delicious, don't need any fat to make it palatable. :)

 

[Peater Piper]

But that doesn't make OGTT less useful, as it is specifically testing for glucose tolerance. It actually isolates the test from confounders, which is a good thing. On the other hand, varying responses between rice and potatoes and orange juice would be expected. One can't expect to derive conclusions from an OGTT pertaining to responses to different forms of carbohydrate or sugar sources, nor should one.

I think it's a nice tool to have if you have a willing doctor, but it's a really unnatural glucose curve for most people, and without insulin readings, it doesn't tell you anything you can't learn at home with your own glucose meter. Depending on a number of factors, someone with high insulin sensitivity can have poor glucose tolerance, and vice versa. How low was your glucose falling after the OGTT?

 

[yerrag]

Depends on the severity. Maybe impaired glucose metabolism, rather than completely destroyed.
Recovery of the pancreatic insulin-producing cells probably requires some glucose, along with other things.

With diabetes, I think you have a choice between seeing if you can repair and strengthen the impaired glucose metabolism, or give up on it. If it were me, and I thought I had a chance, I'd probably be wanting to at least give a go at improving the glucose metabolism before abandoning.

The choice is a stark one, which I'm not even asking, hence this thread. Even if glucose is needed, why give rice a starring role and relegate fruits to a supporting role in the Kempner's "rice diet." Kempner is way advanced of his time in knowing how to troll, isn't he?

Not to mention that Ray Peat has talked a lot more about fructose than glucose as helpful in recovering from diabetes.

Doesn't fruit already have plenty of glucose, and also has fructose? If you can have rice and fruits, can't you just have fruits alone? And that was my point. Why lead in with rice and not fruit, much less "rice and fruit?" It's not like you're having fructose alone when eating fruit. Glucose is by fructose's side all along with fruits.

Have you read about Peat saying his Dad cured himself of diabetes by basically living off brewers yeast for a bit? (I think it might have been a few weeks, not sure.)Peat has sometimes recommended hot water extract of brewers yeast. B-vits, but maybe other factor too.

Oh yes. Ray wasn't specific about how that was done. By "basically living off brewers yeast," how is that spelled out? There are large blank spaces to fill, although an earlier post is showing some specifics, and I have to read more on it.

As to rice, if your friend has glucose meter, what about doing some personal monitoring? Trying a low fat diet that includes lots of fruit and a variant that replaces a bit of the fruit with rice? The personal answer is more important than the hypothetical one.

He has one. The hard part really is to see how I can gently break to him "You and your doctor and everyone else has got it wrong. You need to make a 180 degree turn" gently. And before I begin, I have thoughts about whether it's just going to be a waste of time. I will most certainly work my **** off trying to convince him, spend countless hours on it, and then say "It's your choice." And he will invariably say "Thank you. Have a nice day." It is a refrain I hear more often than not.

 

[yerrag]

I think it's a nice tool to have if you have a willing doctor, but it's a really unnatural glucose curve for most people, and without insulin readings, it doesn't tell you anything you can't learn at home with your own glucose meter.

Unnatural glucose curve for most people? Isn't that because most people have unstable blood sugar? I hope you're not suggesting that since that is the norm, it is to be accepted?

You can definitely do your own OGTT at home, having a blood glucose meter. I would disagree that insulin readings tell you more than what you can glean from the OGTT.

The OGTT curve can tell you if you are hypoglemic, or hyperglycemic, or have have a normal blood sugar response to glucose. If you are hypoglycemic, it can only mean that you needed to reach high insulin levels to effect lower blood glucose. The high insulin levels lead to a blood glucose that is lower than normal.

If the OGTT curve tells you that you are hyperglycemic, you are either diabetic type 1 or type 2. It's at this point where you can benefit from knowing their insulin levels. A type 2 would have high insulin readings, whereas a type I would have low insulin readings. Oh ok, you're right. Having insulin readings definitely would help.

Depending on a number of factors, someone with high insulin sensitivity can have poor glucose tolerance, and vice versa.

I'm not aware of the factors you refer to, if you could elaborate that would be great. I always thought that high insulin sensitivity equates to great glucose tolerance.

As to how low my blood glucose went, it started at 105, then 110, 91, 65, 83 ,88 each hour concluding at the 5th hour.

 

[tara]

The choice is a stark one, which I'm not even asking, hence this thread. Even if glucose is needed, why give rice a starring role and relegate fruits to a supporting role in the Kempner's "rice diet." Kempner is way advanced of his time in knowing how to troll, isn't he?

Not to mention that Ray Peat has talked a lot more about fructose than glucose as helpful in recovering from diabetes.

Doesn't fruit already have plenty of glucose, and also has fructose? If you can have rice and fruits, can't you just have fruits alone? And that was my point. Why lead in with rice and not fruit, much less "rice and fruit?" It's not like you're having fructose alone when eating fruit. Glucose is by fructose's side all along with fruits.

My point is that what Peat or Kempner found was interesting, but what your friend needs is what works for him personally. Some people seem to do really well on mostly fruit (I guess you've read Jennifer's thread). Some people don't seem to cope with that much fructose, and do better with more starch. There are examples of people improving their diabetes with both approaches. I don't know where your friend would be on that spectrum. Personally, I have not done detailed blood glucose tests, but in terms of stable energy and well-being, I seem to feel better if I have some of each. Actually, I include potatoes and other roots too, and wouldn't want to live primarily on fruit and rice at this time if I can help it. But I'm not fighting diagnosed diabetes (though there's some in the family), and if I ever do I'll have to have another think.

 

[Peater Piper]

Unnatural glucose curve for most people? Isn't that because most people have unstable blood sugar? I hope you're not suggesting that since that is the norm, it is to be accepted?

You can definitely do your own OGTT at home, having a blood glucose meter. I would disagree that insulin readings tell you more than what you can glean from the OGTT.

Unnatural in that most people aren't going to consume 75 grams of dextrose that will be in the bloodstream within 15-minutes. That places a huge burden on first phase insulin response.

Insulin sensitivity is how efficiently insulin shuttles glucose into the cells. Glucose tolerance is simply looking at the glucose levels. I think both should be looked at, but you also need a point of reference, which would be OGTT results from other people, preferably a variety of people. I looked at some results in the past, and was surprised to see some people had a healthy looking glucose curve, but their insulin was 3x the level of what it should have been (probably a good recipe to overshoot and end up hypoglycemic). There's also people with very high insulin sensitivity, but due to limited first phase insulin response, or very little insulin in general, their glucose still spiked higher than desired. It is nice to know what's happening, because in the latter instance, the person would simply need to place less initial burden on the pancreas. Slowing the influx of glucose would allow the pancreas to keep up with insulin production.

There's also the curious case of starch. Some people with higher amounts of salivary amylase may have a better insulin response than someone with less salivary amylase, but eating something sweet first may be a workaround, leading to lower postprandial glucose levels. I get better results (in terms of both glucose levels and overall well-being) by eating a combination of starch and fruit rather than mostly one or the other. Everyone needs to find what's best for them. Sometimes Sugar Is Better Than Starch

I think it's also important to note that day-to-day, and hour-to-hour, there's fluctuations in hormonal levels that will influence how we respond to what we eat. Add in some people get nervous at the doctor's office, and may not like needles, and you can see that some results could be misleading.

How is your friend's health? Are they heavy? What is their current diet like? I doubt they're willing to overhaul their lives, but maybe there's simple changes they could make.

 

[tara]

I think it's also important to note that day-to-day, and hour-to-hour, there's fluctuations in hormonal levels that will influence how we respond to what we eat.

I don't test BG, but I recognise from experience that my response to carbs has been different at depending on time of day, how much I've slept, stage of menstrual cycle, etc.