J
j.
Guest
You shouldn't eat liver every day, too much can slow thyroid function. I think the recommendation is between 1 and 4 times a month, although I'm not sure if being diabetic changes that.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
The Peat Diet And Diabetes. Advice Please
- Thread starter Alibaba
- Start date
Hey Alibaba!
Don't know if anyone mentioned it yet,
but there is a good Peat discussion of diabetes
in the interview called "Sugar II."
The whole interview is pertinent, but go to about the 16 minute mark and thereafter.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22195338/WBM- Sugar II .mp3
Don't know if anyone mentioned it yet,
but there is a good Peat discussion of diabetes
in the interview called "Sugar II."
The whole interview is pertinent, but go to about the 16 minute mark and thereafter.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22195338/WBM- Sugar II .mp3
Thanks all. I will check out the link to the protocol thank you.
I don't know if the raw carrot will spike my BG as I haven't tried it yet. I want to get my head around the protocol before I embark on it.
Earlier in the post when I mentioned I sometimes have ham for lunch, someone said that maybe I was eating too much of it!
This is why I need to understand it myself.....
I will try the raw carrot tomorrow, and I might get some oranges and try some squeezed juice too. I squeezed one for someone else recently and so, so, so wanted some. I licked the inside of the peel....it was heavenly.
If I could have some fruit, I could manage very well without the nuts....they were taken more because of deprivation issues I think.
Ali.
I don't know if the raw carrot will spike my BG as I haven't tried it yet. I want to get my head around the protocol before I embark on it.
Earlier in the post when I mentioned I sometimes have ham for lunch, someone said that maybe I was eating too much of it!
This is why I need to understand it myself.....
I will try the raw carrot tomorrow, and I might get some oranges and try some squeezed juice too. I squeezed one for someone else recently and so, so, so wanted some. I licked the inside of the peel....it was heavenly.
If I could have some fruit, I could manage very well without the nuts....they were taken more because of deprivation issues I think.
Ali.
J
j.
Guest
There is no written protocol. We read his articles and try to create a diet consistent with the sum of all his ideas and recommendations.
J
j.
Guest
Just to mention something about PUFA, its benefits come a long time after stopping consumption, because it takes 4 years for the body to change its fats. It took me 3 months of PUFA avoidance before I saw benefits. I was having a bunch of problems related to hypothyroidism that started going away then.
Diabetes is not something that is much on my radar,
so I haven't been very active in focusing on Peat's take on it
and am a bit dim on it generally.
But in the radio show I mentioned above
he discussed some diabetes related stuff that stuck in my head.
Generally, he said that all these different forms of purported diabetes, today,
are being named as different kind of diabetes,
but in his view they are not really diabetes.
One instance he talked about was the so-called "gestational diabetes."
As I recall, he said that babies which came from mother's who had a lot of sugar stores
were born with larger brains and higher IQs.
He said he talked to a pregnant woman who had had such a baby
presumably in part because she consumed significant sugar sources during her first pregnancy.
With her second pregnancy another doctor looked at her sugar levels
and said they were high and that he thought she had gestational diabetes
and should lower her sugars intake.
Peat talked about how it is normal, because of the pregnancy,
for mothers to reflect a higher sugar level (provided they eat enough),
but that doctors at some point started seeing this as a "disease"
and named it gestational diabetes.
(I may be off a little in some of the finer points, but I think that is essentially fairly accurate, from memory.)
I think he said something like this:
that it has come to regarded as "normal" for mothers' sugar reserves
to fall after the 6th month.
So doctor's want to see that.
Really, he said, what they should want to see is that the sugar levels will continue to be high--
better for the baby's development.
Relatedly, Peat also discussed an experiment with eggs and baby chicks.
Again, as I recall, he said that measures were taken from the fluids in eggs as the chicks grew.
At some point before "birth," it was common to see the sugar levels used up.
Some eggs were treated as follows:
a small chip or hole was made in the shell,
and some form of sugar was injected.
In those eggs, the chicks were born with exceedingly large heads and were very healthy--
presumably indicating big brains and capacity for high intelligence.
So a lot of the discussion of diabetes revolved around the theme of
doctors viewing a natural phenomenon as diseased,
and labeling it as a form of diabetes.
PUFA has been mentioned already, and I'm sure that's complicit,
but my mind is foggy on what Peat said about its relation to diabetes in the interview.
But I do remember that he focused upon the role of starches.
I remember this because something Peat said along those lines clicked in my brain.
I work sometimes at a place where there are a lot of young, poor, Afro-American women students.
I've been struck, there, by how many of these young women are diabetic (or perhaps "diabetic.")
Some are already on insulin pumps.
Really...it seems like an epidemic! (and perhaps it is.)
When I notice what those young students are EATING
the thing I notice is the huge amounts of starches they eat,
especially white bread type stuff--Hardee's biscuits, pizza, subs, etc.
All the while "watching their weight" with diet soft drinks.
Peat discussed the role of such starches in diabetes, and that struck me.
In a more general way, he talked about the disease historically
and said that, if I recall, it was first treated by restricting sugar
(I think, he said, because doctors back then smelled or even tasted the excess sugar in the urine)
back in the 1800's.
But he said that, even in that era, at least one doctor
treated the problem by adding sugar to the diet,
and the symptoms quickly went away.
But that instance and treatment was not given credence.
(Here too my memory is sketchy, so I might have some of the finer points not quite right.)
so I haven't been very active in focusing on Peat's take on it
and am a bit dim on it generally.
But in the radio show I mentioned above
he discussed some diabetes related stuff that stuck in my head.
Generally, he said that all these different forms of purported diabetes, today,
are being named as different kind of diabetes,
but in his view they are not really diabetes.
One instance he talked about was the so-called "gestational diabetes."
As I recall, he said that babies which came from mother's who had a lot of sugar stores
were born with larger brains and higher IQs.
He said he talked to a pregnant woman who had had such a baby
presumably in part because she consumed significant sugar sources during her first pregnancy.
With her second pregnancy another doctor looked at her sugar levels
and said they were high and that he thought she had gestational diabetes
and should lower her sugars intake.
Peat talked about how it is normal, because of the pregnancy,
for mothers to reflect a higher sugar level (provided they eat enough),
but that doctors at some point started seeing this as a "disease"
and named it gestational diabetes.
(I may be off a little in some of the finer points, but I think that is essentially fairly accurate, from memory.)
I think he said something like this:
that it has come to regarded as "normal" for mothers' sugar reserves
to fall after the 6th month.
So doctor's want to see that.
Really, he said, what they should want to see is that the sugar levels will continue to be high--
better for the baby's development.
Relatedly, Peat also discussed an experiment with eggs and baby chicks.
Again, as I recall, he said that measures were taken from the fluids in eggs as the chicks grew.
At some point before "birth," it was common to see the sugar levels used up.
Some eggs were treated as follows:
a small chip or hole was made in the shell,
and some form of sugar was injected.
In those eggs, the chicks were born with exceedingly large heads and were very healthy--
presumably indicating big brains and capacity for high intelligence.
So a lot of the discussion of diabetes revolved around the theme of
doctors viewing a natural phenomenon as diseased,
and labeling it as a form of diabetes.
PUFA has been mentioned already, and I'm sure that's complicit,
but my mind is foggy on what Peat said about its relation to diabetes in the interview.
But I do remember that he focused upon the role of starches.
I remember this because something Peat said along those lines clicked in my brain.
I work sometimes at a place where there are a lot of young, poor, Afro-American women students.
I've been struck, there, by how many of these young women are diabetic (or perhaps "diabetic.")
Some are already on insulin pumps.
Really...it seems like an epidemic! (and perhaps it is.)
When I notice what those young students are EATING
the thing I notice is the huge amounts of starches they eat,
especially white bread type stuff--Hardee's biscuits, pizza, subs, etc.
All the while "watching their weight" with diet soft drinks.
Peat discussed the role of such starches in diabetes, and that struck me.
In a more general way, he talked about the disease historically
and said that, if I recall, it was first treated by restricting sugar
(I think, he said, because doctors back then smelled or even tasted the excess sugar in the urine)
back in the 1800's.
But he said that, even in that era, at least one doctor
treated the problem by adding sugar to the diet,
and the symptoms quickly went away.
But that instance and treatment was not given credence.
(Here too my memory is sketchy, so I might have some of the finer points not quite right.)
I would recommend getting a hormonal panel blood test done. Check your thyroid, estrogen, prolactin, progesterone, testosterone, adrenaline. This may help you figure out the problem.
Epson salts with carbonated water helps my feet after a long day of work. It probably also plays a role in the excitatory state that causes Restless legs syndrome.
I think that the sugar inability to oxidize into cellular respiration is the what is happening in diabetes, but the cause is usually the toxin that creates the inability to produce the insulin .
By the sound of your characteristics you seem to had hypothyroid from a very young age and it escalated into diabetes. My advice is to study ray peat articles. ( read from the articles itself, not from people who use his work. They dont always use his stuff in context)
Epson salts with carbonated water helps my feet after a long day of work. It probably also plays a role in the excitatory state that causes Restless legs syndrome.
I think that the sugar inability to oxidize into cellular respiration is the what is happening in diabetes, but the cause is usually the toxin that creates the inability to produce the insulin .
By the sound of your characteristics you seem to had hypothyroid from a very young age and it escalated into diabetes. My advice is to study ray peat articles. ( read from the articles itself, not from people who use his work. They dont always use his stuff in context)
J
j.
Guest
jag2594 said:
How does that work? Do you put the epson salts in a bucket with water and then rest your feet there?
I know that the restless legs were (and still are if I ingest it) caused by gluten - and are digestive-oriented. I suspect that as the gluten food went through areas of my damaged gut it would trigger neurological reactions. The nerves going down to the feet go past the gut on their way. Restless leg syndrome is a form of ataxia (uncontrolled movements) - in my case 'gluten ataxia'.
I am convinced that being unable to process gluten is largely a nutritional one. People who cannot process it or who are intolerant are very likely lacking certain nutrients that help the body digest it. Modern wheat has been very highly hybridized and does contain a lot of proteins that are 'foreign' to the body, and a much higher amount of gluten and that puts a far higher nutritional burden on the body - one that the nutritional intake probably cannot keep up with.
My husband is also very gluten intolerant - it affects him mentally with acute brain-fog and depression, but he can eat my slow-rise wheat bread without any problems. Probably because the longer ferment gives the yeast time to convert (pre-digest) all the extra gluten, and the fermentation process draws out a lot more nutrition than fast-processed bread - typically around 50% more, especially of B vitamins, vitamin K2, magnesium, etc. I can understand Ray Peat considering 'probiotics' to be pointless, but as some kind of fermented food has been traditionally consumed in most indigenous diets, I believe that is not because of the bacteria, but for the added nutrition they release/produce. Corn has traditionally been soaked in an alkaline medium to release niacin and prevent pellagra, and I believe that fermenting foods does a similar thing.
Our ancestors weren't so stupid after all....
Most wheat now is unfermented or very rapidly fermented (cheap supermarket pap is often churned out within 45 minutes!) and that, and the sheer quantity that is eaten every day in virtually every processed foodstuff that is purchased, is triggering an awful lot of damage and malnutrition. It's taken me 5 years to rebuild my digestion to a point that I can now eat most things (apart from wheat) without too much difficulty. At one point my diet was reduced to about 5 foods and everything I did eat was going straight through. Removing gluten stopped that within hours!
It may look like food. It may taste like food. But is it really food???
I am convinced that being unable to process gluten is largely a nutritional one. People who cannot process it or who are intolerant are very likely lacking certain nutrients that help the body digest it. Modern wheat has been very highly hybridized and does contain a lot of proteins that are 'foreign' to the body, and a much higher amount of gluten and that puts a far higher nutritional burden on the body - one that the nutritional intake probably cannot keep up with.
My husband is also very gluten intolerant - it affects him mentally with acute brain-fog and depression, but he can eat my slow-rise wheat bread without any problems. Probably because the longer ferment gives the yeast time to convert (pre-digest) all the extra gluten, and the fermentation process draws out a lot more nutrition than fast-processed bread - typically around 50% more, especially of B vitamins, vitamin K2, magnesium, etc. I can understand Ray Peat considering 'probiotics' to be pointless, but as some kind of fermented food has been traditionally consumed in most indigenous diets, I believe that is not because of the bacteria, but for the added nutrition they release/produce. Corn has traditionally been soaked in an alkaline medium to release niacin and prevent pellagra, and I believe that fermenting foods does a similar thing.
Our ancestors weren't so stupid after all....
Most wheat now is unfermented or very rapidly fermented (cheap supermarket pap is often churned out within 45 minutes!) and that, and the sheer quantity that is eaten every day in virtually every processed foodstuff that is purchased, is triggering an awful lot of damage and malnutrition. It's taken me 5 years to rebuild my digestion to a point that I can now eat most things (apart from wheat) without too much difficulty. At one point my diet was reduced to about 5 foods and everything I did eat was going straight through. Removing gluten stopped that within hours!
It may look like food. It may taste like food. But is it really food???
Swandattur
Member
I only have what my doctor called,"a little diabetes." I have found that when I completely avoid any starch within a few days my blood sugar readings go down for fruit or sugar. While eating starch all carbs raise my blood sugar quite a bit. So far I am doing much better on no starch at all other than incidental amounts in pills or whatever might be in apples or something like that. I am not on any meds, although my doctor had prescribed Metformin. I realize you have to have a much more severe problem than I have, but I thought I would mention this. I can eat a normal amount of fruit, even with sugar, in one sitting with no problem. I used to be on a very low carb diet for about a year and a half. I have been doing much better since changing over to a more Ray Peat way of eating. So far, I seem to have some sort of a problem with most dairy and gelatin. So, I'm having to work around that. PS no starchy nuts either.
Swandattur
Member
I was looking at this again, and I would think it would be best to eat a little fruit at a time every few hours all day long. That way the blood sugar shouldn't get too high, although if I stay off starches and off allergens my blood sugar stays normal even if I eat a bunch of fruit and sugar at a time. It may be that cocoa can cause a problem that way. I don't eat it, because almost every time I do, I feel bad the next day.
Gabriel
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 229
There is one big problem with longstanding type-2 diabetes (which is probably what you have - but check again with your doctor what type exactly): The disease is a result of a year- even decade-long period of an imbalanced lifestyle characterized by wrong diet and insufficient physical activity that led to insulin resistance. Chronic insulin resistance (meaning the body chronically producing a lot of insulin to get blood sugar into the cells which are less responsive to it) leads to chronic inflammation in the beta-cells and will eventually tire them out. Hence, a drug-free strategy will only really work and prevent progression of beta-cell death in the early stage of the stage. If done correctly (right diet plus more physical activity) and early, the remaining beta-cells will recover, insulin resistance will go down and the diabetes will disappear. In most patients by doing that they can delay onset of medical treatment for several years if not for life. However, it is important to understand that when the diabetes is usually diagnosed, in most cases it has already existed for years meaning it already had years time to slowly destroy beta-cell function.
In the late stage however, most of the beta-cells are already dead and can not recover from the chronic damage. Given that you are diagnosed with diabetes since 10 years and given the diabetes persisted all that time, it is very likely that your beta-cells are pretty much run down already. It is however never too late to try your best saving/healing the remaining ones, if there are any left.
On external insulin, your goal should focus on improving insulin resistance to reduce your need for insulin. Best way to do it is by far to increase physical activity doing cardiac and weight training. This will strongly improve muscle insulin sensitivity and reduce your need for insulin. Second should be a proper diet (I still dont know which diet is optimal for diabetics but the RP-diet may be good candidate, if done correctly). Dietary change is important, but increasing physical activity to a good lever (not too little, not too much) really should be the primary goal.
Regarding dietary change, you should focus on healing your gut to reduce endotoxinemia and other strategies to reduce systemic inflammation (stop smoking, remove toxins from environment and diet). Both may be a big etiologic factor in your diabetes pathogenesis.
[mod]This post contains alternatives to Ray Peat's views that are best discussed in the Ray Peat Debate or the Non Ray Peat area. To post in those areas you may click here and here. To see an explanation of this policy click here.[/mod]
In the late stage however, most of the beta-cells are already dead and can not recover from the chronic damage. Given that you are diagnosed with diabetes since 10 years and given the diabetes persisted all that time, it is very likely that your beta-cells are pretty much run down already. It is however never too late to try your best saving/healing the remaining ones, if there are any left.
On external insulin, your goal should focus on improving insulin resistance to reduce your need for insulin. Best way to do it is by far to increase physical activity doing cardiac and weight training. This will strongly improve muscle insulin sensitivity and reduce your need for insulin. Second should be a proper diet (I still dont know which diet is optimal for diabetics but the RP-diet may be good candidate, if done correctly). Dietary change is important, but increasing physical activity to a good lever (not too little, not too much) really should be the primary goal.
Regarding dietary change, you should focus on healing your gut to reduce endotoxinemia and other strategies to reduce systemic inflammation (stop smoking, remove toxins from environment and diet). Both may be a big etiologic factor in your diabetes pathogenesis.
[mod]This post contains alternatives to Ray Peat's views that are best discussed in the Ray Peat Debate or the Non Ray Peat area. To post in those areas you may click here and here. To see an explanation of this policy click here.[/mod]
often times type2 diabetes symptoms are simply a chromium deficiency, coupled with lower than optimum magnesium (very typical of standard American diet), and can be drastically lessened within a few days. I bet that has a lot to do with why coffee drinkers have less diabetes
Chromium allows insulin to shuttle the sugar into the cells (so a deficiency would literally, directly be insulin resistance)
Magnesium helps keep ATP in cells (smoothes out blood sugar / energy release by allowing cells to retain more energy)
Chromium allows insulin to shuttle the sugar into the cells (so a deficiency would literally, directly be insulin resistance)
Magnesium helps keep ATP in cells (smoothes out blood sugar / energy release by allowing cells to retain more energy)
Swandattur
Member
The two of you, pboy and Gabriel state these things as fact, but you don't give studies or experience to back it up. I'm not trying to dispute what you say, but I would like to know why you think it is true. Or is this some weird Internet Avatar personality thing? This is confusing!
Swandattur said:
I dont' have anything specific to back it up...its good that you question things too...its based on everything I've read about the minerals, and the nutritional content of the foods people generally eat. Just google chromium diabetes and you'll likely get specific studies, and also a ton of info (I'm sorry I don't save specific studies I've read and in general respond based off memory of what I've read...but don't say anything I'm not confident in based on lots of different sources of information). I don't think restoring chromium for example will 'cure diabetes', I just said it would drastically reduce the symptoms. I think a lot of the things we put direct labels on like 'you have diabetes' are really just dynamic states, a collection of unpleasant symptoms that people are feeling that are influenced by a lot of different factors, and improving any one of those factors would reduce the symptoms overall
Swandattur
Member
Thank you for your reply! My sister has mentioned chromium picolinate. I think I tried it a while back, but thought it might have given me a bad mood reaction. It might not have been the chromium, but mood problems are scary to me. So, if I think something might have caused a pretty severe one, I am reluctant to try again.
That's fine to me if people report what they feel is true, because it does give other people ideas of things to try or research themselves and try.
Yes, medical people don't know what causes 'diabetes'. Most cases (or all?) seem to be part of a metabolic disfunction that, from what Ray Peat implies, could be fixable. I suppose they consider diabetes to be when the Beta cells stop producing enough insulin to keep blood sugar down to normal levels. It seems that starch (maybe in part through endotoxin) causes blood sugar problems for me. Or maybe it is just as I think Peat says, that fructose in fruit helps keep blood sugar down. Guess I need to reread some of his articles about that. Yep, need to read some more.:) Refresh memory. :)
That's fine to me if people report what they feel is true, because it does give other people ideas of things to try or research themselves and try.
Yes, medical people don't know what causes 'diabetes'. Most cases (or all?) seem to be part of a metabolic disfunction that, from what Ray Peat implies, could be fixable. I suppose they consider diabetes to be when the Beta cells stop producing enough insulin to keep blood sugar down to normal levels. It seems that starch (maybe in part through endotoxin) causes blood sugar problems for me. Or maybe it is just as I think Peat says, that fructose in fruit helps keep blood sugar down. Guess I need to reread some of his articles about that. Yep, need to read some more.:) Refresh memory. :)
Gabriel
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 229
Beneficial effects of exercise on glycemic control and insulin resistance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098771
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065697
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12453982
Elevated weight (especially body fat) is by far the biggest risk factor of diabetes:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.de/20 ... w-can.html
A weight loss and increased exercise program is more effective than metformin in reducing the incidence of diabetes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832527
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11333990
I think regardless of what you eat, even the Ray Peat Diet, if you overgorge on it in such a way that you gain significant weight, your risk of T2D increases. No food can counterbalance the deleterious effects of eating more than your metabolism can use.
The vast majority of diabetics are too heavy and too sedentary and have eaten too much throughout their whole life, and especially too much of the wrong (SAD) stuff. T2D is the result of a decadelong wrong lifestyle and this decadelong development (like artheroscleosis, dementia or other chronic disorders) is very hard to revert once it has caused disease (tip of the iceberg). Prevention is really the key.
Wow, this is quite an ignorant statement. Who are "medical people"? None of them knows anything? All of them are wrong? It's like if, I, as an European say "Americans are dumb ignorant egocentricals that destroy ancient cultures and way of living one by one, by replacing it with their stupid dietary SAD lifestyle". Would you like to hear that as an American?
Yes, there are indeed elements of dietary/lifestyle advice guidelines that are just plain wrong (such as satfat = bad, unsatfat = good). But other elements have pretty good and convincing evidence. That alone cannot explain why so many fail getting glycemic control/loosing weight. A huge factor, that is often overlooked (especially by patients), is that many are continusly deceiving themselves and the doctors ("c'mon I have this burger, I have been dieting all week") and are non-compliant when it comes to useful evidence based advice.
The problem is more complex than just doctors/pharma = bad, people = good.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098771
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065697
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12453982
Elevated weight (especially body fat) is by far the biggest risk factor of diabetes:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.de/20 ... w-can.html
A weight loss and increased exercise program is more effective than metformin in reducing the incidence of diabetes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832527
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11333990
I think regardless of what you eat, even the Ray Peat Diet, if you overgorge on it in such a way that you gain significant weight, your risk of T2D increases. No food can counterbalance the deleterious effects of eating more than your metabolism can use.
The vast majority of diabetics are too heavy and too sedentary and have eaten too much throughout their whole life, and especially too much of the wrong (SAD) stuff. T2D is the result of a decadelong wrong lifestyle and this decadelong development (like artheroscleosis, dementia or other chronic disorders) is very hard to revert once it has caused disease (tip of the iceberg). Prevention is really the key.
Wow, this is quite an ignorant statement. Who are "medical people"? None of them knows anything? All of them are wrong? It's like if, I, as an European say "Americans are dumb ignorant egocentricals that destroy ancient cultures and way of living one by one, by replacing it with their stupid dietary SAD lifestyle". Would you like to hear that as an American?
Yes, there are indeed elements of dietary/lifestyle advice guidelines that are just plain wrong (such as satfat = bad, unsatfat = good). But other elements have pretty good and convincing evidence. That alone cannot explain why so many fail getting glycemic control/loosing weight. A huge factor, that is often overlooked (especially by patients), is that many are continusly deceiving themselves and the doctors ("c'mon I have this burger, I have been dieting all week") and are non-compliant when it comes to useful evidence based advice.
The problem is more complex than just doctors/pharma = bad, people = good.
@Gabriel
You are saying all the things my endocrinologist told me to control my blood sugar. I did follow her advice and saw some improvement in the beginning and then it was a slow decline. (I did not take all the med she prescribed). It seems very clear to me that you are not familiar with RP's view of health and diabetes. I do not exercise anymore, i live a sedentary life and i eat way more than i was eating while following that hospital diatitian. There are thousands of articles showing how wonderful whole grain is for diabetics and all those scientific evidence supporting their recommendations . My sugar is totally in control following a RP diet. Like swandattur i got the best result when i gave up starch completely and eating tons of sugar, 200-300 grams from milk oj honey table sugar. I have the same weight i had during diabetic diagnosis and no exercise. I think it is quite confusing for new comers here to get non-peatian views on diabetes. We all have our doctors to give advice on exercise, fish oil, veg oil and whole grains.
You are saying all the things my endocrinologist told me to control my blood sugar. I did follow her advice and saw some improvement in the beginning and then it was a slow decline. (I did not take all the med she prescribed). It seems very clear to me that you are not familiar with RP's view of health and diabetes. I do not exercise anymore, i live a sedentary life and i eat way more than i was eating while following that hospital diatitian. There are thousands of articles showing how wonderful whole grain is for diabetics and all those scientific evidence supporting their recommendations . My sugar is totally in control following a RP diet. Like swandattur i got the best result when i gave up starch completely and eating tons of sugar, 200-300 grams from milk oj honey table sugar. I have the same weight i had during diabetic diagnosis and no exercise. I think it is quite confusing for new comers here to get non-peatian views on diabetes. We all have our doctors to give advice on exercise, fish oil, veg oil and whole grains.
Gabriel
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 229
It is interesting that as soon as people here in this board are trying to defend some parts of conventional medicine, they are immediately labeled "not familiar with RP". Nowhere did I defend anything in medicine that I myself regard harming to health (and Yes, there are way too many things in medicine that are indeed causing more harm than benefit). I am very familiar with RP and a huge supporter of his diet. But of course, as RP is always right, then the scientific establishment must be always wrong. That is a sense of argument that I find very questionable.
While a RP diet may be very successful in treating chronic disorders like T2D for many people (and I am totally accepting and appreciating that!), some people still have trouble. Just like some of the people writing in this thread who couldn't cure their T2D by RP alone. What shall they do now? Stick their head in the sand and start digging around? For them, it might be worthwhile going back to mainstream advice and picking some of the cherries out there. Increasing physical activity to a modest level may be one of the elements and this is all what I suggested. The second argument of my message was that as soon as disorders have developed it is sometimes very hard to revert them due to the nature of the disorders (running chronically for decades until recognized). Sometimes even a RP diet cannot revert whatever damage had been caused for a long time. This has nothing to do with pessimism but with realistic expectations.
I find it kind of sad that everything "non-Peat" is immediately ridiculed here in this forum while there may be quite a bunch of non-Peat things that may be very helpful for some.
And you are right we have to be clear to new comers, so I'll some it up: Dump the veg oil, dump the fish oil, dump the whole grain, consider the beneficial effects of modest physical activity.
While a RP diet may be very successful in treating chronic disorders like T2D for many people (and I am totally accepting and appreciating that!), some people still have trouble. Just like some of the people writing in this thread who couldn't cure their T2D by RP alone. What shall they do now? Stick their head in the sand and start digging around? For them, it might be worthwhile going back to mainstream advice and picking some of the cherries out there. Increasing physical activity to a modest level may be one of the elements and this is all what I suggested. The second argument of my message was that as soon as disorders have developed it is sometimes very hard to revert them due to the nature of the disorders (running chronically for decades until recognized). Sometimes even a RP diet cannot revert whatever damage had been caused for a long time. This has nothing to do with pessimism but with realistic expectations.
I find it kind of sad that everything "non-Peat" is immediately ridiculed here in this forum while there may be quite a bunch of non-Peat things that may be very helpful for some.
And you are right we have to be clear to new comers, so I'll some it up: Dump the veg oil, dump the fish oil, dump the whole grain, consider the beneficial effects of modest physical activity.
J
j.
Guest
Ray Peat thinks that increasing physical activity can provoke hypothyroidism, so he advises to postpone exercise until one has eliminated PUFA from one's body and increased metabolic rate, if one wants to exercise.
Broda Barnes never advised his patients to exercise, because he found that when they improved thyroid function, they exercised by their own initiative.
Much of this discussion belong to the "Debate" section of the forum. The title of this thread is The Peat diet and Diabetes, not non-Ray Peat diet and Diabetes.
Broda Barnes never advised his patients to exercise, because he found that when they improved thyroid function, they exercised by their own initiative.
Much of this discussion belong to the "Debate" section of the forum. The title of this thread is The Peat diet and Diabetes, not non-Ray Peat diet and Diabetes.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
