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

Nicholas

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
666
i can't help but desire to simplify all of this.......ANY imbalance causes dysfunction. you can destroy your metabolism going high on any macronutrient. high is person-specific. free fatty acids are probably where more of the damage is in leading towards diabetes, as Peat & Rob Turner would agree. but if you're feeding yourself well, ffa are less damaging.

also, resistant starch is showing lots of healing potential in diabetes.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
Suikerbuik said:
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.

I concur.
I know of quite few type 2 diabteics who are beautifully lean.
There's a tendency for the newly modernised nations to have higher incidence of diabetes.

The relationship of excess weight and diabetes is more of an association rather than causation.


Ray Peat said:
Originally, diabetes was understood to be a wasting disease, but as it became common for doctors to measure glucose, obese people were often found to have hyperglycemia, so the name diabetes has been extended to them, as type 2 diabetes. High blood sugar is often seen along with high blood pressure and obesity in Cushing's syndrome, with excess cortisol, and these features are also used to define the newer metabolic syndrome.

Ray Peat said:
Following the old reasoning about the sugar disease, the newer kind of obese diabetes is commonly blamed on eating too much sugar. Obesity, especially a fat waist, and all its associated health problems, are said by some doctors to be the result of eating too much sugar, especially fructose. (Starch is the only common carbohydrate that contains no fructose.) Obesity is associated not only with diabetes or insulin resistance, but also with atheroslcerosis and heart disease, high blood pressure, generalized inflammation, arthritis, depression, risk of dementia, and cancer.

Ray Peat said:
The degenerative diseases that are associated with hyperglycemia and commonly called diabetes, are only indirectly related to insulin

Ray Peat said:
There is general agreement about the problems commonly associated with obesity, but not about the causes or the way to prevent or cure obesity and the associated conditions.

Ray Peat said:
Obesity, like diabetes, seems to involve a cellular energy deficiency, resulting from the inability to metabolize sugar.

So diabetes is part of the common scheme of degenerative health problems and is usually accompanied by obesity. However, obesity own its own isn't the cause.


Let's review some of your other arguments.


Westside PUFA said:
Insulin is one of the most important hormones. Without it, we die.
Ray Peat said:
Insulin is important in the regulation of blood sugar, but its importance has been exaggerated because of the diabetes/insulin industry. Insulin itself has been found to account for only about 8% of the "insulin-like activity" of the blood, with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar.

Ray Peat said:
Since the work of Cushing and Houssay, it has been understood that blood sugar is controlled by antagonistic hormones: Remove the pituitary along with the pancreas, and the lack of insulin doesn't cause hyperglycemia. If something increases cortisol a little, the body can maintain normal blood sugar by secreting more insulin, but that tends to increase cortisol production. A certain degree of glycemia is produced by a particular balance between opposing hormones.

Which brings me to the point. Stress is what causes insulin resistance.
Long-term diet inefficiencies and environmental stressors lead to chronically elevated levels of stress hormones, representing a competition against the ideal state of sugar oxidation .


Ray Peat said:
Since insulin lowers blood sugar as it disposes of amino acids, eating a large amount of protein without carbohydrate can cause a sharp decrease in blood sugar. This leads to the release of adrenalin and cortisol, which raise the blood sugar. Adrenalin causes fatty acids to be drawn into the blood from fat stores, especially if the liver's glycogen stores are depleted, and cortisol causes tissue protein to be broken down into amino acids, some of which are used in place of carbohydrate. Unsaturated fatty acids, adrenaline, and cortisol cause insulin resistance.

Ray explains further:
Ray Peat said:
When sugar isn't available in the diet, stored glycogen will provide some glucose (usually for a few hours, up to a day), but as that is depleted, protein will be metabolized to provide sugar. If protein is eaten without carbohydrate, it will stimulate insulin secretion, lowering blood sugar and activating the stress response, leading to the secretion of adrenalin, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, and other hormones. The adrenalin will mobilize glycogen from the liver, and (along with other hormones) will mobilize fatty acids, mainly from fat cells. Cortisol will activate the conversion of protein to amino acids, and then to fat and sugar, for use as energy. (If the diet doesn't contain enough protein to maintain the essential organs, especially the heart, lungs, and brain, they are supplied with protein from the skeletal muscles. Because of the amino acid composition of the muscle proteins, their destruction stimulates the formation of additional cortisol, to accelerate the movement of amino acids from the less important tissues to the essential ones.)

Ray Peat said:
When glucose can't be oxidized, for any reason, there is a stress reaction, that mobiles free fatty acids. Drugs that oppose the hormones (such as adrenalin or growth hormone) that liberate free fatty acids have been used to treat diabetes, because lowering free fatty acids can restore glucose oxidation.

Thus, in obesity, the abundance of fatty acids is only a risk when they are released as free fatty acids by stress hormones. It's the stress reaction that's the real problem.

Westside PUFA said:
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.

Blood vessels are directly connected to areas where delivery is required (e.g. muscles). Adipose tissue doesn't prevent blood supply from reaching the cells. Blood pressure could be a valid problem in obesity but even then it's not a problem with resistance, it's rather a problem of limitation.

Ray Peat said:
Many people are still committed to the various old theories of diabetes, though a few are showing ways in which multiple causes can lead to diabetes. Increasingly, old age itself is seen to be "like diabetes (Meneilly, et al.; Smith, et al.), and the situation is ripe for a recentering of our understanding of diabetes around some of the general facts about aging and stress.

To escape the tendency to reduce problems to a very simplistic single causative factors, let's see what Ray has to say about other things.

Tryptophan and serotonin
Ray Peat said:
Tryptophan, from dietary protein or from the catabolism of muscles, is turned into serotonin which activates the pituitary stress hormones, increasing cortisol, and intensifying catabolism, which releases more tryptophan. It suppresses thyroid function, which leads to an increased need for the stress hormones. Serotonin impairs glucose oxidation, and contributes to many of the problems associated with diabetes.

PUFA
Ray Peat said:
The free fatty acids released by the stress hormones serve as supplemental fuel, and increase the consumption of oxygen and the production of heat. (This increased oxygen demand is a problem for the heart when it is forced to oxidize fatty acids. [A. Grynberg, 2001]) But if the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.

A repeated small stress, or overstimulation of insulin secretion, gradually tends to become amplified by the effects of tryptophan and the polyunsaturated fatty acids, with these fats increasing the formation of serotonin, and serotonin increasing the liberation of the fats.

Excess estrogen
Ray Peat said:
When the oral contraceptive pill was new (Enovid), it was found to produce signs of diabetes, including decreased glucose tolerance. Spellacy and Carlson (1966) suggested that an elevation of circulating free fatty acids might be responsible, and remarked that "Free fatty acids can block the Krebs cycle, with relative insulin action resistance resulting." "The potential danger of the oral contraceptives is one of prolonged pancreatic stimulation." Recent papers are reporting that the estrogen used to "treat menopause" causes an increase in free fatty acids. Spellacy and Carlson suggested that estrogen's effect was mediated by growth hormone, and that is now the consensus. Women are much more likely than men to develop diabetes.

One might argue that fat cells in themselves are estrogenic but estrogen dominance is not only limited to those who have excess fat.
Also, induced (as opposed to produced) estrogen in itself is potential initiator of both obesity and diabetes.

Something interesting
Ray Peat said:
(And we seldom hear the idea that "diabetes" might have a positive side [Robinson and Johnston], for example that it reduces the symptoms of asthma [Vianna and Garcialeme], which get worse when insulin is given. Normal pregnancy can be considered "diabetic" by some definitions based on blood sugar. I got interested in this when I talked to a healthy "diabetic" woman who had a two year old child whose IQ must have been over 200, judging by his spontaneous precocious hobbies. Old gynecologists told me that it was common knowledge that "diabetic" women had intellectually precocious children.)

How is obesity associated with diabetes
Ray Peat said:
Recently, a high safflower oil diet was found to cause diabetes (Ikemoto, et al.), and obesity itself is thought to be a factor in developing diabetes. The hormone patterns associated with obesity can be seen as either cause or effect of the obesity (or both cause and effect), since, for example, low thyroid can increase both estrogen and cortisol, which support the formation of fat, and the fat cells can become a chronic source of estrogen synthesis.

To sum up
Ray Peat said:
The picture that I think explains many of the features of diabetes is that an energy deficit produces an alarm state, causing increased production of adrenalin and cortisol.

Further reading
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
XPlus said:
Suikerbuik said:
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.

I concur.
I know of quite few type 2 diabteics who are beautifully lean.
There's a tendency for the newly modernised nations to have higher incidence of diabetes.

The relationship of excess weight and diabetes are more of an association rather than causation.
I agree that lean diabetes is not so rare.
I would expect that undereating could also result in chronically elevated cortisol, and I think that may be one factor potentially promoting a tendency to diabetic metabolism in some lean people. Maybe some of the immigrants have difficulty with sugar metabolism based on prior malnutrition, as well as more recent large exposure to PUFAs etc?

I know a small number of diabetics (maybe more that I don't know about). Two of them are lean with adult-onset. (And some are round.) Neither are immigrants from pre-modern countries. I don't know how the diagnoses were made, but I know they included hyperglycemia. I'm a lot more concerned about wasting than obesity in both cases now.

One of them has always been lean, as far as I know, regularly expresses fat-phobia and judgements about other people's fat, used to do endurance exercise when young, is now insulin-dependent, and has suffered severe diabetes-related damage.

The other has had times of being probably at the upper end of 'ideal' BMI or maybe the lower end of 'overweight', but never obese. The latter had diabetes diagnosed after a period with some other severe health issues. This one manages blood sugar without insulin supplements.
 
OP
Westside PUFAs
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
You posted a bunch of Peat quotes that I agree with so I'm not sure what your argument is.

T2D isn't really a disease in the true sense. It's a symptom of a failing energy producing organism, from a Peat POV, with being overweight the first factor to start the downfall. That should be quite obvious.

XPlus said:
I know of quite few type 2 diabteics who are beautifully lean.

You’re a lucky person to know such people because the data isn’t there. :|

XPlus said:
There's a tendency for the newly modernised nations to have higher incidence of diabetes.

Yes, because of their increased fat intake.

From that Kresser article I mentioned:

“You might even be surprised to learn that skinny people can and do get T2DM. They are rarely mentioned in the media, and there isn’t much written about them in the scientific literature.” - Chris Kresser

https://chriskresser.com/think-skinny-p ... ink-again/

Yea, I’m not seeing it. Where’s the data? His article and like one other one are the only ones on the internet. Where’s the clinical research?

"There are many risk factors for type 2 diabetes such as age, race, pregnancy, stress, certain medications, genetics or family history, high cholesterol and obesity. However, the single best predictor of type 2 diabetes is overweight or obesity. Almost 90% of people living with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity. People who are overweight or have obesity have added pressure on their body's ability to use insulin to properly control blood sugar levels, and are therefore more likely to develop diabetes. The number of diabetes cases among American adults increased by a third during the 1990s, and additional increases are expected. This rapid increase in the occurrence of diabetes is mostly attributed to the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States."

"Type 2 diabetes is largely preventable. Studies have found that lifestyle changes and small amounts of weight loss in the range of 5-10% can prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes among high-risk adults."

http://www.obesity.org/resources-for/yo ... abetes.htm

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/

Read the statistics:

2aesg01.jpg


vfxojc.jpg


If you think T2D is not a excess body fat issue then I don't know what to say.

Now, as far as people who are fat and T2D as it relates to energy and stress, it should be quite obvious that from a Peat POV, being overweight in the first place is a sign of an energy deficency and hypothyroidism. The overweight factor is a stress on the organism itself, which leads to the problems.

XPlus said:
"Adipose tissue doesn't prevent blood supply from reaching the cells. Blood pressure could be a valid problem in obesity but even then it's not a problem with resistance, it's rather a problem of limitation."

Ever hear of subcutaneous fat? Right by the intestine? Ever hear of "the spillover effect" from excess body fat? Why do people who lose body fat cure themselves if the fat isn't the problem?

XPlus said:
"with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar."

Which is why oranges (fruit) and potatoes (starch) are so high in potassium.

XPlus said:
"Thus, in obesity, the abundance of fatty acids is only a risk when they are released as free fatty acids by stress hormones. It's the stress reaction that's the real problem."

Which happens because of being overweight. Where do you think the FFA come from? Liberated adipose tissue.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Westside PUFAs said:
Overweight people who actually lose their body fat cure their T2D.

Do you mean they lower their hyperglycemia readings? I believe this sometimes/often occurs. Is this what you/the studies mean by curing diabetes?

Or do you mean they re-establish their ability to usefully metabolise large amounts of carbohydrates? I believe this sometimes happens too, and perhaps you may be one of them, and maybe tbp? And I've read other such stories on Matt Stone's site. I think this counts as curing diabetes, and I think it's a good thing.

I think there also seem to be a number of people who reduce their weight and fat by eating less and exercising more, so they bring their energy intake down and maybe increase their energy output, but don't restore their ability to metabolise carbohydrates well, and don't restore a healthy metabolism - rather just adapt as best they can to the low one they already had. Do the studies count this as 'cure' or 'improvement' in diabetes?

There is also the risk that some methods of losing body fat and weight can result in degradation of other organs, possibly including the pancreas. I think there are a few people here who have lost weight and fat by various methods but also got worsened ability to manage blood sugars. High stress hormones may feature in reducing pancreatic function, and some weight (and fat) loss diets can increase stress hormones a lot. Some of them also can result in very rapid release of PUFAs, which may be worse for the pancreas than slow release.

Most people who eat to appetite and are obese are in reasonable precise energy balance - they consume (absorb) as much as they burn, as evidenced by remaining at a stable weight. So depending on what they are eating and no doubt other factors, they may not always have as much FFAs in the blood as someone who is restricting to lose fat.

I agree with you that for most people, eating lots of fat usually means eating more than a desirable amount of PUFA, and that this can be problematic.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I think higher intra-abdominal fat can be the result of prior restrictive dieting or malnutrition - one of the the normal early responses of the body after a period of semi-starvation is to increase fat deposits round the vital internal organs. In such cases, it could be that the period of deprivation caused both increased abdominal fat and damage to the metabolism that increases the risk of diabetes. This could be part of the explanation for the correlation.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
tara said:
I would expect that undereating could also result in chronically elevated cortisol, and I think that may be one factor potentially promoting a tendency to diabetic metabolism in some lean people. Maybe some of the immigrants have difficulty with sugar metabolism based on prior malnutrition, as well as more recent large exposure to PUFAs etc?


Yeah, I guess cortisol is a valid culprit which brings us to Estrogen (and serotonin)
RP said:
Excessive serotonin and estrogen cause a relatively uncontrolled production of cortisol.
I had the thought that diabetes in lean people is probably the result of autoimmunity but Peat's views in this regard seem a bit skeptical. I think it's because he considers autoimmunity as a prolonged onset of inflammation.

One scenario I can think of of lean people developing type 2 diabetes is undergoing an intensive medical procedure that takes care of weakening their adrenals and then going on a period of malnutrition. The lack of resources will trigger cortisol in action as you suggested to compensate for inadequate sugar. The body will start wasting its tissues. As the stress extends further to liver function, a weakened liver will have trouble storing glycogen and detoxifying estrogen. Lack of glycogen will call for the release of more adrenaline to release FAs from store and the excess estrogen will call for the production of more control.
This prolonged wasting of tissues and the stress hormones represent a vicious cycle that eventually lead to "autoimmune" diabetes.

This is likely to be sudden as its induced by a stressful event. In contrast, the sugar issues accompanied by obesity are likely to develop gradually. It's probably the result of PUFA damage to beta cells and long-term toll of estogen along with the reliance on stressful fuel.
I think the obese who exercise and calorie restrict are at more risk to develop the problem faster.

As for the prevalence of diabetes in developing nations, I believe it has to do with the socio-economic prospects of the nation. There's a tendency for the resource poor countries (i.e. nature and agriculture) especially to develop diabetes.
They are likely to come from a relatively stressed (i.e. malnourished) state. As the nation becomes modernized and their economic prospects improve things change a little too quickly.
The shelves are filled with highly processed commercial foods like the vegetable oils.
To poor and hardly educated people, these foods are valued because not only they provide variety but a convenient and cost effective option.
People lose touch with their traditional food-centered lifestyle (e.g. hunting, fishing, agriculture)
Once families start shift their focus to education and job stability, reliance on fast food develops gradually.
In areas where the environment is poor better food options will be very limited. Better options usually has to be imported, are very expensive and lose their quality in transit. Also, coming from a scarcity background, people will always consider cheapest foods options anyway.
All these aspects push into one direction: disease.

Take - for example - African immigrants in France.
Specifically, those who rely on a diet rich in starch and fat traditionally .
Although France is country abundant in good quality food choices, African immigrants are more likely to make bad choices. Their limited economic prospects will to incline them to buy the cheapest foods available. Things like vegetable oil and highly processed starchy foods.
In comparison, the French in general are likely to stick their traditional diets that provide relatively better food options (e.g. more SFA vs. PUFA). They are likely to be more educated in general and thus are more health conscious.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
Westside PUFAs said:
You posted a bunch of Peat quotes that I agree with so I'm not sure what your argument is.
My argument basically is that the relationship between obesity and diabetes is a form of correlation.
In other words, they happen to happen together but diabetes isn't simply caused by eating more fat or storing extra fat. Both could be involved as a part of the same degenerative process. (1)

The first few quotes I provided were intended to show that Peat is always careful to refer to the relationship between obesity and diabetes as association. He doesn’t mention anywhere that obesity is the main causative factor in diabetes. If it was the cause, he would mention it. Ray is always direct.
Whenever he talks about obesity and diabetes in one context, the phrase “associated with” is the common theme.

Westside PUFAs said:
T2D isn't really a disease in the true sense. It's a symptom of a failing energy producing organism, from a Peat POV.
Westside PUFAs said:
Now, as far as people who are fat and T2D as it relates to energy and stress, it should be quite obvious that from a Peat POV, being overweight in the first place is a sign of an energy deficency and hypothyroidism. The overweight factor is a stress on the organism itself, which leads to the problems.

Yes, I agree with your first quote and that obesity contributes to the stress.
We know that fat cells are estrogenic and inflammatory. However, this is only a small part of the overall picture.
Both conditions happen to be highly correlated that's why you perceive them as a cause and effect.
The initiators of both conditions happen to be the same: excess serotonin, estogen and PUFA. That's the reason they're correlated.


Westside PUFAs said:
You’re a lucky person to know such people because the data isn’t there.
Westside PUFAs said:
“You might even be surprised to learn that skinny people can and do get T2DM. They are rarely mentioned in the media, and there isn’t much written about them in the scientific literature." - Chris Kresser

https://chriskresser.com/think-skinny-p ... ink-again/
Yea, I’m not seeing it. Where’s the data? His article and like one other one are the only ones on the internet. Where’s the clinical research?
I'm unsure whether you're using this as a counter argument to prove it doesn't exist or you're just acknowledging the fact that there isn't enough data.


Westside PUFAs said:
Yes, because of their increased fat intake.
Westside PUFAs said:
If you think T2D is not a excess body fat issue then I don't know what to say.
Westside PUFAs said:
XPlus wrote:"Thus, in obesity, the abundance of fatty acids is only a risk when they are released as free fatty acids by stress hormones. It's the stress reaction that's the real problem."

Which happens because of being overweight. Where do you think the FFA come from? Liberated adipose tissue.

Now you suggest obesity as the causative factor for diabetes, as if obesity in itself is the start point.
Shouldn't we evaluate what causes obesity in the first place and then evaluate how does that relate to diabetes.
How does the hormonal state of the mother play in. Contraceptive pills for example provide an ample of prenatal estrogen to interfere with proper hormonal development of the baby. Continuous exposure to environmental estrogens in childhood and later in life - how does it count in. The PUFA intake from formulas and junk food. What's the aggregate affect from these stressors on cortisol production. How does cortisol interfere with sugar metabolism (2)

Adipose tissue even of those leanest (i.e. 6% and 14% body fat for men and women, respectively) will always carry enough fat to interfere with glucose oxidation. People on average can have up to 24-31% body fat and that would be normal.
Ideal-Body-Fat-Percentage-Chart1.jpg


So, if a 75kg guy has 10% body fat (i.e. very lean), they'd have about 7.5kgs fat as a fuel in reserves. Now we know that 1 kg of pure fat = 7,700 calories.
Even if one hypothetically happens to completely rely on fat for fuel, they'll have enough fuel to purely run on fat for plenty of time.
In reality, there’s a time and cycle limitations to how much fat a person burns off during a given period.
Therefore, the amount of fat stored is only of slight significance when lean people and fat are compared. (3)
The body fat % doesn't seem to explain the likeliness of developing diabetes.

Again, the problem is a chronically elevated levels of stress hormones that interferes with glucose metabolism.
Accordingly, the burning of fat is a function of stress hormones not the amount of fat stored.


Westside PUFAs said:
Why do people who lose body fat cure themselves if the fat isn't the problem?


It's likely another form of correlation. If both diabetes and obesity are associated (and are caused by the same factors ) anything that takes care of one is likely to take care of the other. (4)
In other words, when the stress reaction that is causative of both obesity and diabetes disappears, the problem ceases to exist.

Someone who starts eating better foods and lowering the stress is likely to function better.
This is especially true for young people who have been "diagnosed" with sugar problems.

Also, having been evaluated by the medical establishment to either having or not having sugar problems doesn't necessarily reflect reality. (5)
This is exactly what that lady in your video did with her patient.



Westside PUFAs said:
Ever hear of subcutaneous fat? Right by the intestine? Ever hear of "the spillover effect" from excess body fat?
No, I haven’t but thanks to you now I know.
I'd use the same arguments above for the subcutaneous fat. It's stored fat.

As for the the spillover effect, I don’t see it evolving past a theory really.
From the sound of it, it's something that will make me subscribe to the conventional theory of cell membranes.
The propositions don't add up. They're built on the assumption that the elasticity of the fat cells are very limited. If that was true, obese people will just burst out at some point in their obesity.
Also, one would imagine fat cells as buckets floating in a sea of blood using that description.
If the system is not in complete control of the release of FFAs using stress hormones, and the spillover effect forces fats constantly into the bloodstream, we'd expect the obese to never be able to oxidise sugar until they've burnt all the fat. Thus, making it very easy and quick to become lean (and very sick maybe).
The reality is even with excessive exercise and calorie restriction fat loss isn't the top priority.
I'd not completely disregard the idea but it's a very questionable one

For now, all I’m confident of is that stored fat is released by adrenaline, maybe serotonin - or liposuction.

Summary from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:
Both diabetes and obesity are the result of the same degenerative processes.
The aggregate affect of stressors on the development of the organism is similar in both diabetes and obesity.
Given the time and cycle (i.e. glucose vs. FFA) limitations of how much fat a person burns off during periods of stress, the amount of fat stored isn't of much significance (i.e. there's always enough fat to burn at a given time regardless of weight). It's the trigger of the stress reaction/hormones that's the real problem.
Since both diabetes and obesity are correlated, things that takes care of one condition is likely to take care of the other.
The diabetes evaluation of medical establishment isn't a reliable measure of the problem or lack of it.
 

Nicholas

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
666
implying that people not be overweight or that their fat is causing diabetes (implying to LOSE it!) is actually equally as dangerous as this TED talk. Let's not forget the ********hormonal chaos********* that ensues when people adopt diets mindlessly. Low carbers can get diabetes just as easily as high carbers just as easily as high fatters. "High" means that your body has not defined what you are feeding it as accurate. There is rarely an aggressive treatment that works - and to even pursue such treatment (like high carb or weight loss) is very risky because you don't know if it will cause the miracle you are hoping for. In the end, it could derange your metabolism even more. You can derange your metabolism under chronic stress (physical and mental), under rapid weight loss techniques (release FFAs), etc. as you have alreay mentioned......but what does this all lead us to? The minute you try to manipulate one variable, it affects another variable. Thinking in terms of trying to manipulate hormones is not accurate....and it's the antithesis of what Peat is (very cryptically) stating. It's not exactly accurate that you need to drop certain foods or add certain foods. This mindset detaches one from the intelligence of the body. Do you really think that your body is stupid? Your body can be deranged, but there's still intelligent programming dealing with that derangement. Really think about that because it's a pretty revolutionary way of looking at the body....and it's the core of what i get from Peat and others without him outright saying it. So if your body is deranged in any area, it has a ripple effect over many areas. This means that trying to target problems in very concerted microprecise efforts is stupid, harmful, confusing, temporary. Do we really think that we know better than our cells - that we are smarter than our cells and everything they do in *every* system of the body? That is the answer. We don't use nutrition and lifestyle to heal our problems, we use nutrition and lifestyle to give our cells confidence. Confidence to let go of that less than optimal use of its energy, confidence to let go of its emergency state. If a cell needs water, is the answer to take a firehose at it? No, because that creates another emergency. WE are not the cell's hands and feet....it doesn't like it when we tell it where to go....and it probably laughs at us because it will find a way to still get free or rally its friends to make up for its absence.....we are simply caretakers. We don't eat or take supplements or make any other decision in our life to do the actual labor of healing - we do all of these things as cell stewards.

i will add that i don't actually know if Peat realizes what his research points to....because now that i think about it.....his promotion of hormone supplements, aspirin, etc. counter the conclusion that i reached (and others?). what we need more than all of his and other's research is a practical new philosophy for the masses.....a takeaway from all of it that is practical and clear. You can't start a revolution with 75k and cryptic books/researchers talking about their passions (as fresh and new as it may be).
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Nicholas said:
You can't start a revolution with 75k and cryptic books/researchers talking about their passions (as fresh and new as it may be).

I take it you know this from experience?
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
[ moderator edit: threads merged, video posted before ]



7:58

Like we need more experts telling us we've been following the wrong experts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
This is exactly what's wrong with our system. People push bad science and ideology with such confidence and professionalism, however it's often times horribly misguided ideals. We are still prescribing SSRI's despite it being essentiallyour a poison. I know many doctors who have witnessed first hand the hell SSRI's can inflict on their patients and yet they are so encouraged to push such meds that they do without question. This is just yet another example of the scientific dogma that haunts us.
 

ATP

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
279
Simple fact of the matter is just because she has a certificate from university doesn't mean she knows what she's talking about. Evidently by this talk, she lacks basic knowledge of how a cell functions by saying there isn't necessity for carbohydrates in the human diet. Even the most hard core keto advocates still schedule in carb days. Hmmm I wonder why....
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
These types of people also have a bad habit of forming strong opinions without actually doing extensive research and experiments. Her entire argument can be obliterated by a quick search on pubmed. Here's just the first study I checked, took me 30 seconds to find this: Impaired glucose tolerance in rats fed low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. - PubMed - NCBI . Reduced carbohydrates results in insulin resistance... etc...bad things. I just don't know how someone can be confident enough to talk about a subject on TedX but at the same time lack any glimmer of knowledge. What's worse is that she may be considered a professional by some. Makes one suspicious of authoritative resources.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I can't imagine how we would survive without our forum. Thanks to those who set up and manage this forum. And thanks to Ray Peat, for bringing to light studies and findings and rediscovering old wisdom that otherwise would have buried by a deceptive system of obfuscation meant to make us sub-human. Sub-human and dependent on the false assurances of a healhcare system built on lies.
 

AJC

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
196
implying that people not be overweight or that their fat is causing diabetes (implying to LOSE it!) is actually equally as dangerous as this TED talk. Let's not forget the ********hormonal chaos********* that ensues when people adopt diets mindlessly. Low carbers can get diabetes just as easily as high carbers just as easily as high fatters. "High" means that your body has not defined what you are feeding it as accurate. There is rarely an aggressive treatment that works - and to even pursue such treatment (like high carb or weight loss) is very risky because you don't know if it will cause the miracle you are hoping for. In the end, it could derange your metabolism even more. You can derange your metabolism under chronic stress (physical and mental), under rapid weight loss techniques (release FFAs), etc. as you have alreay mentioned......but what does this all lead us to? The minute you try to manipulate one variable, it affects another variable. Thinking in terms of trying to manipulate hormones is not accurate....and it's the antithesis of what Peat is (very cryptically) stating. It's not exactly accurate that you need to drop certain foods or add certain foods. This mindset detaches one from the intelligence of the body. Do you really think that your body is stupid? Your body can be deranged, but there's still intelligent programming dealing with that derangement. Really think about that because it's a pretty revolutionary way of looking at the body....and it's the core of what i get from Peat and others without him outright saying it. So if your body is deranged in any area, it has a ripple effect over many areas. This means that trying to target problems in very concerted microprecise efforts is stupid, harmful, confusing, temporary. Do we really think that we know better than our cells - that we are smarter than our cells and everything they do in *every* system of the body? That is the answer. We don't use nutrition and lifestyle to heal our problems, we use nutrition and lifestyle to give our cells confidence. Confidence to let go of that less than optimal use of its energy, confidence to let go of its emergency state. If a cell needs water, is the answer to take a firehose at it? No, because that creates another emergency. WE are not the cell's hands and feet....it doesn't like it when we tell it where to go....and it probably laughs at us because it will find a way to still get free or rally its friends to make up for its absence.....we are simply caretakers. We don't eat or take supplements or make any other decision in our life to do the actual labor of healing - we do all of these things as cell stewards.

i will add that i don't actually know if Peat realizes what his research points to....because now that i think about it.....his promotion of hormone supplements, aspirin, etc. counter the conclusion that i reached (and others?). what we need more than all of his and other's research is a practical new philosophy for the masses.....a takeaway from all of it that is practical and clear. You can't start a revolution with 75k and cryptic books/researchers talking about their passions (as fresh and new as it may be).


So how do you make this practical?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom