Reversing Type 2 Diabetes By Avoiding Carbs? (TEDx Talk)

[Westside PUFAs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ

100% quackery. She's spreading misinformation. She needs to read this:

“Low carb” is a nutritional buzz word. Avoiding sugar because “it’s the devil” is commonly echoed ad nauseam among both lay persons and health professionals. But does this approach having any sound backing to it when it comes to supporting health and metabolism?

Carbohydrate’s function

Stable and efficient cells have a constant supply of glucose, their preferred fuel source. We get glucose from dietary carbohydrate. Carbohydrates allows cells to produce carbon dioxide and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) via oxidative metabolism or cellular respiration. ATP is a currency of energy that is spent in order to make chemical reactions occur. Without ample energy, optimal function and structure of cells cannot be maintained. If the diet isn’t supplying adequate glucose, the body will convert its own tissues to glucose (gluconeogenesis) to supply this vital fuel if stored sugar in the form of glycogen isn’t available."

http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2010/1 ... etabolism/

 

[jyb]

Stable and efficient cells have a constant supply of glucose, their preferred fuel source. We get glucose from dietary carbohydrate. Carbohydrates allows cells to produce carbon dioxide and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) via oxidative metabolism or cellular respiration.

That's also what I used to think but I now believe this is misleading. The fact that we need constant and stable supply of glucose seems true. Some organs need some glucose, hypoglycaemia is very bad and low carb may be stressful. But such article implies that cells always prefer glucose, that saturated fat metabolism is not good at producing CO2, ATP and basically cellular respiration, which I think is not true. And any diet with more carbs will not necessarily make you run out of glycogen less often, in my experience it can do the opposite.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

That's also what I used to think but I now believe this is misleading. The fact that we need constant and stable supply of glucose seems true. Some organs need some glucose, hypoglycaemia is very bad and low carb may be stressful. But such article implies that cells always prefer glucose, that saturated fat metabolism is not good at producing CO2, ATP and basically cellular respiration, which I think is not true.

"Optimally, the energy content of fat and protein should not matter, because they are not used for energy production."

"The problem with the whole calorie thing is that this unit is used for physical energy which doesn't translate to biological energy in the form of ATP. Protein and carbohydrates have the same calorie content, but protein utilization provides less ATP than carbohydrates. Fat has more calories than carbohydrates but provides much less ATP. The ATP that glucose delivers can be greatly reduced during lactic acid fermentation, but the supposed calorie content stays the same. It doesn't make much sense to use the calorie unit in this context."

"It would take way too long to get into this, but it seems like beta-oxidation of fatty acids leads to an inefficient coupling between electron and proton fluxes. It was known for a long time that fat oxidation speeds up the respiration of cells and increases their oxygen consumption beyond necessary levels to maintain ATP production. This points toward an inefficient metabolism."

"I don't think it's that unlikely. Think about other occasions in which the cells lose their efficiency. For example, during lactic acid fermentation the cells only produce 7-20% the amount of ATP than they would during oxidation. I don't know if there's actually a study that shows how much ATP exactly is generated, so we can't be sure. But I don't think it matters anyway. There are too many things that are wrong with fat oxidation, other than the ATP production."

- Dewitt

http://beesandbutterflies.org/20877/nee ... n-calories

 

[schultz]

If you don't want to watch the video, here are 4 quotes that sum it up.

"Diabetes is a state of carbohydrate toxicity; We can't get the blood sugar into the cells."

"Insulin resistance is essentially a state of carbohydrate intolerance."

She is basically summing up the common view of diabetes which is to say that glucose itself is toxic in the blood. That is the only conclusion one can get from a quote like this because otherwise the quote is a contradiction of itself: Carbohydrate toxicity = not getting sugar into cells? Sounds like a sugar deficiency to me.

If diabetes means that cells can't absorb or metabolize glucose, then any cellular function that requires glucose will be impaired, despite the presence of glucose in the blood. It is the intracellular absence of glucose which is problematic, rather than its extracellular excess. - Ray Peat

Rays view on whether or not sugar itself is damaging...

"Tens of thousands of publications describe the pathogenic effects of sugar. To prove their point, they grow cells in a culture dish, and find that when they are exposed to excess glucose, often 5 times the normal amount, they deteriorate. In the artificial conditions of cell culture, the oversupply 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." - Ray Peat


"First, consider carbs: Here's a shocker for you, we don't need them."

A bit of an oversimplification once again. I understand she's doing this in order to reach a broader audience, but it causes a bit of confusion I think. We don't need to ingest them but we do need them to live.

"Cutting carbs is going to be good for you, even if it's not necessary."

That depends on the type of carbohydrate.

 

[NathanK]

See, this is the s*** I would have believed years ago. LC proponents alway talk to audiences like theyre pre diabetic patients. How did she even get on TED? She doesnt say anything real from her practice and nothing that I didnt read on Mark Sissons blog back in 2009.

Proof is in the pudding. Low carb I saw my fasting glucose rise to a one time high of 103. Started peating: consistent avg of 85. Never higher than 87. LC, I couldnt get it below 93.

I know others probably wont see this, but for me, i really dont know how sugar is fattening either. Calorie count or not. I can eat simple and lighter complex carbs all day long as long as its not bundled with major or bad fats amd I wont gain weight. More importantly, Ill have higher energy and wont feel bloated from inflammation.

In summation: annoying

 

[mujuro]

How did she even get on TED?

This is TEDx. It's an independently organized shindig, more of a foot-in-the-door event for smaller speakers. There is no shortage of overenthusiastic fringe speakers under the TEDx name.

 

[Such_Saturation]

This is actually pretty average TED quality that we've learned to expect from that fake-progressive establishment

 

[XPlus]

fake-progressive establishment

Half of my facebook feed is all TED Talk Vids that I never watch.
Tell more about fake and progressive

 

[Such_Saturation]

fake-progressive establishment

Half of my facebook feed is all TED Talk Vids that I never watch.
Tell more about fake and progressive

Plenty of those "the illuminati are stealing our serotonin" kinda news websites

 

[kineticz]

"Insulin resistance is essentially a state of carbohydrate intolerance."

I don't see anything wrong with this statement in Peat terms

 

[Westside PUFAs]

"Insulin resistance is essentially a state of carbohydrate intolerance."

I don't see anything wrong with this statement in Peat terms

Free fatty acids?

Using the world "intolerance" here means nothing. T2D is caused by insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is caused by a deficiency of energy metabolism, and intramyocellular lipids:

"Insulin resistance (IR) is a common feature of the metabolic syndrome and an important factor in the cause of type 2 diabetes. There is abundant evidence that increased levels of plasma lipids, predominantly free fatty acids (FFAs) and triglycerides, are causally involved in IR" - An excerpt

Also, Peat context:

"Because carbohydrates are richer in oxygen, burning them generates about 30 percent more carbon dioxide per calorie than burning fat, and low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to lower blood levels of carbon dioxide" —Dr. Chris Masterjohn

 

[kineticz]

Well, cells are intolerant to glucose, hence glucose remains extracellular. This is diabetes.

It isn't 'sugar is bad' it's 'low intracellular sugar is bad'. Adding sugar to the outer membrane of cells doesn't make sense even by Ray Peat standards.

You need to reduce PUFA liberation, reduce serotonin/prolactin/cortisol, and balance estrogen, before taking sugar too seriously. Strategic intake of the right kinds of sugar will enhance this but too much sugar will cause weight gain and adrenal problems. Excess sugar increases triglycerides.

Glucose tolerance takes a long time after fat oxidation for the cells to respire with pure glucose. They will remain intolerant but it is the suppression of stress hormones that enhances the process, rather than mitochondrial respiration in the early stages.

You WILL get fat if you consume excess sugar that isn't metabolised. Fatty deposits promote a lower metabolism.

If cells don't respire, ATP and C02 are a red herring. You can't force feed them sugar. You have to realign the collapsed adaptive mechanisms first.

Also, a lot of people with low metabolism who struggle with weight will mostly be relying on adrenal stress hormones for oxidative metabolism. Further downregulating this ACTH-mediated response will cause fat to accumulate if the thyroid isn't tended to.

In my opinion carbohydrate intolerance is a very adequate sum of the dysfunction.

 

[XPlus]

fake-progressive establishment

Half of my facebook feed is all TED Talk Vids that I never watch.
Tell more about fake and progressive

Plenty of those "the illuminati are stealing our serotonin" kinda news websites

I see.
It's probably this sort of thing you get when you have people like this lady on the show who basically fixed her customer's car gasket problem by installing a couple of donkeys at front of the car to pull the car forward. And then emptied the coolant reservoir and made it a pee hole for the donkeys.

"Uh-Uh. No more petrol for you. Or you'll be getting those gasket problems again."

I mean, it's definitely some innovative engineering but I'm unsure whether donkey's provide more efficient natural aspiration.

 

[Such_Saturation]

fake-progressive establishment

Half of my facebook feed is all TED Talk Vids that I never watch.
Tell more about fake and progressive

Plenty of those "the illuminati are stealing our serotonin" kinda news websites

I see.
It's probably this sort of thing you get when you have people like this lady on the show who basically fixed her customer's car gasket problem by installing a couple of donkeys at front of the car to pull the car forward. And then emptied the coolant reservoir and made it a pee hole for the donkeys.

"Uh-Uh. No more petrol for you. Or you'll be getting those gasket problems again."

I mean, it's definitely some innovative engineering but I'm unsure whether donkey's provide more efficient natural aspiration.

You mean ketosis? Isn't that technically super diabetes?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Well, cells are intolerant to glucose, hence glucose remains extracellular. This is diabetes

Cells are not intolerant to glucose. They are intolerant to insulin. T2 Diabetes is insulin resistance. There are insulin receptors on every cell. Insulin is the key that unlocks the receptors. By your logic, type 1 diabetics don't need to inject insulin because its glucose that is the problem and not insulin. T1 diabetics would first start to lose their limbs and then go blind from the damage from prolonged high blood glucose without insulin injections. The insulin is the key factor out of it all.

White sugar increases sensitivity to insulin: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 3112841004

 

[kineticz]

Well, cells are intolerant to glucose, hence glucose remains extracellular. This is diabetes

Cells are not intolerant to glucose. They are intolerant to insulin. T2 Diabetes is insulin resistance. There are insulin receptors on every cell. Insulin is the key that unlocks the receptors. By your logic, type 1 diabetics don't need to inject insulin because its glucose that is the problem and not insulin. T1 diabetics would first start to lose their limbs and then go blind from the damage from prolonged high blood glucose without insulin injections. The insulin is the key factor out of it all.

White sugar increases sensitivity to insulin: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 3112841004

Insulin carries glucose.

I feel like we are arguing the same point here just swapping insulin for glucose.

When I said cells are intolerant of glucose, I mean in reference to diabetes, not their preferred pathway. A cell will not accept glucose, not because of low insulin, but because the cell is damaged.

Insulin intolerance is due to fat oxidation, which is what I said. I agree with Dr Peat.

You said carbohydrate intolerance is useless, I said it's a good way to sum up the problem. It's just two ways to make the same point.

Cells cannot accept glucose due to insulin intolerance caused by, as I already advised, high PUFA and stress hormone content.

Insulin is not a macronutrient, it is a hormone.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

A cell will not accept glucose, not because of low insulin, but because the cell is damaged.

I never said low insulin was the problem. For T1D it is (well, not "low," more like "no") but not T2D.

You said carbohydrate intolerance is useless, I said it's a good way to sum up the problem. It's just two ways to make the same point.

Cells cannot accept glucose due to insulin intolerance caused by, as I already advised, high PUFA and stress hormone content.

Insulin is not a macronutrient, it is a hormone.

Let's back up a bit.

Insulin transports sugar and protein in your blood and helps store it where it needs to go. Insulin is one of the most important hormones. Without it, we die. Insulin is an anabolic hormone. That's why bodybuilders inject it.

Food is consumed, the beta cells of the pancreas sense sugar and protein in the blood so they release insulin.

The sugar and protein is stored where it needs to go and everything is great.

Type one diabetes: The pancreas can not produce insulin. For whatever reason, the beta cells are destroyed from birth or afterwards and the person must inject insulin every single day.

Here is a real type one diabetic in the flesh. He talks about his daily insulin injections:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gWdn6NEVaQ

Next, type one and a half diabetes or "double diabetes:"

A mix of both no insulin production and insulin resistance.

Next, type two diabetes, what you and I are talking about here: The pancreas works just fine. It produces all the insulin you need. The problem is you're not storing sugar efficently in your cells and have high blood sugar. Insulin can't do it's job.

You said it was "because the cell is damaged." Do lean people get T2D? If they do, then yes, it would be something to do with what you said. But that is extremely rare. I haven't seen too much on it besides a Chris Kresser article, and, that guy sells supplements.

Overweight people get T2D and not really anyone else. So if T1D is very rare, and it is also very rare for lean people to get T2D, then who are all the people getting T2D with the epidemic? Overweight people.

Sugar is supposed to get stored inside the muscle tissue.

Look at the person on the left:

If you have that much adipose tissue on your body, well, insulin's going to have a hard time getting sugar into your muscles. That is type 2 diabetes.

Now, seeing as your body fat stores are representative of the type of fat you eat (although that is a bit of a misnomer because we're always eating a mix of all three fats in a general sense) when you say PUFA is the problem here and "damaged cells", that doesn't really apply here for what we're talking about. One can gain excess body fat by eating nothing but saturated cream all day long, and then eventually become a T2D as they gain more body fat that is saturated. The same thing for olive oil or MUFA. It doesn't really matter at that point. Once you have excess body fat, insulin resistance will start to happen.

Of course the other problems with PUFA are in a different context here: heart disease from PUFA breakdown products and immflamation etc. I don't think saturated fat causes heart disease, because we are warm blooded animals and saturated fats are protective. But the overconsumption of them will lead to fat gain and thus T2D overtime if the person gains too much body fat. The weird thing here is that most people are not nutrition nerds like we are and they will never gain weight in the way I just said because they will never eat SAFA only while strictly avoiding PUFA because the masses gain weight by eating both, in the form of pufa, cheese, and flour (i.e. pizza, cake, burgers, nachos, donuts etc.)

Overweight people who actually lose their body fat cure their T2D. Those same people can lose fat while still not eating the best foods and being under some stress. So is T2D caused by damaged cells, high PUFA and stress hormones or is it caused by being overweight? High PUFA, high stress hormones certainly don't help, but the main cause is being overweight in the first place.

"Adiposity and insulin resistance in humans: the role of the different tissue and cellular lipid depots"

"Human adiposity has long been associated with insulin resistance and increased cardiovascular risk, and abdominal adiposity is considered particularly adverse. Intra-abdominal fat is associated with insulin resistance, possibly mediated by greater lipolytic activity, lower adiponectin levels, resistance to leptin, and increased inflammatory cytokines, although the latter contribution is less clear. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550081

Dynamics of fat cell turnover in humans.

"Obesity is increasing in an epidemic manner in most countries and constitutes a public health problem by enhancing the risk for cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes. Owing to the increase in obesity, life expectancy may start to decrease in developed countries for the first time in recent history."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454136

"Rat muscle studies suggest competition between free fatty acids (FFA) and glucose for oxidation, resulting in glucose-6-phosphate accumulation. However, FFA decrease glucose-6-phosphate in human skeletal muscle, indicating direct inhibition of glucose transport/phosphorylation. This mechanism could redirect glucose from muscle to brain during fasting and explain the insulin resistance associated with high-lipid diets and obesity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15143200
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17346204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14693970

 

[kineticz]

When I was a lot slimmer than now, I had diabetic reactions to sugar. The reduction in weight was caused by my higher metabolism and high ACTH, but I still lost weight, just couldn't handle sugar.

I have put on over 15kg and much of it is fat. I can handle sugar fine.


However, you clearly know about this area more than I do. :)

My area is the adrenals and pregnenolone.

 

[Suikerbuik]

So is T2D caused by damaged cells, high PUFA and stress hormones or is it caused by being overweight? High PUFA, high stress hormones certainly don't help, but the main cause is being overweight in the first place.

A few months I had a discussion with someone, and it was in the news too. But he told me that the number of immigrants here in The Netherlands suffering T2D is huge and rapidly on the rise, and not necessarily in obese - in fact most were lean. Catecholamines release FFA so that is what you're saying, but you certainly don't have to be overweight. Also, don't neglect the effect of certain cytokines.

 

[mujuro]

One of the countries with the greatest incidence of T2D per capita is Bangladesh and they certainly don't have an obesity problem. They do however have a groundwater contamination problem, with high levels of arsenic and other metals.

EDIT - I did a quick search on my phone as best I can, the incidence per capita is not that high, but it's still a significant number of people (8.4million, 10% of population) given that most Bangaldeshis don't come anywhere close to the typical overweight, processed food-consuming diabetic we are accustomed to imagining. India and China are next highest number of diabetics, at 60million and 90million respectively, a surprising % of them being in rural areas. Both countries possess booming industry and unrestrained emission of pollutants. Author and Dr Mark Hyman lived in Beijing for a long duration and came away with a mercury problem.