Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So close! Yet so far away... "Why Carbohydrates Are So Important in Diabetes"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So close! Yet so far away... "Why Carbohydrates Are So Important in Diabetes"

    Just spotted this article:
    http://www.health.com/health/conditi...kw=outbrain-ha
    "Why Carbohydrates Are So Important in Diabetes"

    Aside from the percent of calories bit, everything it says seems to jive with the primal concept, but they stop just short of actually defining things here:
    "Some carbs are better than others
    The goal is now to maximize intake of the good stuff—vitamins, minerals, and fiber—and minimize carbohydrates that boost blood sugar too much, offer few nutritional benefits, or are packed with fat and calories."

    In other words, when you do eat carbs... eat carbs with max with vitamins and minerals and fiber (vegetables and fruit) and minimize those that offer few nutritional benefits (grains!)

    But do they SAY the bits in parentheses there? No. Argh.
    "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

  • #2
    kind of ironic that they have an advertisement just to the left of the article selling a book called, "The carb lovers diet" with a pizza on the cover

    Comment


    • #3
      You would think that people trying to manage a serious disease would pay more attention to the available research. I wonder what they have to say about Cordain's paper on grain/legume toxins and diabetes http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/201...dotoxemia.html
      Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

      Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stabby View Post
        You would think that people trying to manage a serious disease would pay more attention to the available research. I wonder what they have to say about Cordain's paper on grain/legume toxins and diabetes http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/201...dotoxemia.html
        1. What makes you think they (I should say "we") don't?
        2. What makes you think it's easy to find and understand?
        3. What makes you think there aren't a slew of contradictory studies out there?
        4. I trust my doctor. He's very conventional. Thankfully, he's so conventional that he figures most people will eat what they decide to eat and his efforts are better spent doing what conventional doctors do (quite true), and has not as yet tried to influence my diet. Would you suggest that people trying to manage a serious disease ignore their doctors, who have presumably sifted through the difficult and conflicting information?

        I'm not saying people shouldn't do their research; they should; some don't try; some give up; some trust the wrong research for good reasons; and the research is not complete, and there are volumes of it, and there is more every day.

        What I am saying is that you might want to watch your assumptions about people trying to manage a serious disease.

        (I am wondering if you would take the same tone if the disease in question were one considered "blameless" by society, for example, breast cancer.)

        Comment


        • #5
          It is easy to find and understand, it just takes a little honesty and intellectual integrity. When someone is dying they should have all the time and effort in the world to find a solution and to find the best solution. There is contradictory information, but the key is of course learning how to discern a good argument from a bad one, recognizing a fallacy, learning the science etc (although if they have a neuro-degenerative disease I give them a pass!) It takes a while but especially in the case of medical practitioners and highly educated people it should be apparent. People should do their own research, too, regardless of what their doctor says. It's really not hard and people should, like, be smarter. People should be more skeptical and less complacent and trusting, they should challenge everything and then challenge their challenge for good measure. They should seek out every angle of a debate and give all sources equal weight and never quit learning and revising their positions. They should research their asses off and if they don't then they are fools. It's not hard; anyone can get to the heart of any of these degenerative diseases, it just takes an openness to new information and basic reasoning skills that should be fundamental to everyone, although they often aren't and that is a good debate to have - whether people are culpable for their own ignorance. If they're doing the low fat grain thing then they should be seeking out the opposition's claims too. I did the low fat grain/bean thing for a while and thought it was balls, especially when I started reading Dr. Mercola and watching Sean Croxton. And then I thought that some of what they say was balls, and now I think that some of what Mark and Gary Taubes says is balls too. It is about skepticism first and foremost and if we are always challenging our current conception of truth then we will tend to move closer to truth.

          And breast cancer isn't blameless. No cancer is blameless unless you get massive chemical toxicity. Cancer is basically nutrient deficiencies, eicosanoids, insulin levels + carcinogens, free radicals and some other stuff, and it is all on pubmed somewhere.
          Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

          Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stabby View Post
            It is easy to find and understand, it just takes a little honesty and intellectual integrity. When someone is dying they should have all the time and effort in the world to find a solution and to find the best solution. There is contradictory information, but the key is of course learning how to discern a good argument from a bad one, recognizing a fallacy, learning the science etc (although if they have a neuro-degenerative disease I give them a pass!) It takes a while but especially in the case of medical practitioners and highly educated people it should be apparent. People should do their own research, too, regardless of what their doctor says. It's really not hard and people should, like, be smarter. People should be more skeptical and less complacent and trusting, they should challenge everything and then challenge their challenge for good measure. They should seek out every angle of a debate and give all sources equal weight and never quit learning and revising their positions. They should research their asses off and if they don't then they are fools. It's not hard; anyone can get to the heart of any of these degenerative diseases, it just takes an openness to new information and basic reasoning skills that should be fundamental to everyone, although they often aren't and that is a good debate to have - whether people are culpable for their own ignorance. If they're doing the low fat grain thing then they should be seeking out the opposition's claims too. I did the low fat grain/bean thing for a while and thought it was balls, especially when I started reading Dr. Mercola and watching Sean Croxton. And then I thought that some of what they say was balls, and now I think that some of what Mark and Gary Taubes says is balls too. It is about skepticism first and foremost and if we are always challenging our current conception of truth then we will tend to move closer to truth.

            And breast cancer isn't blameless. No cancer is blameless unless you get massive chemical toxicity. Cancer is basically nutrient deficiencies, eicosanoids, insulin levels + carcinogens, free radicals and some other stuff, and it is all on pubmed somewhere.
            Wow.

            Hopefully your arrogance and self-righteousness will carry you through any crises you may meet with in life.

            Good luck to you.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with most of what Stabby said? I'd say it's pretty smart in general to research these things yourself when it comes to your health and a serious illness. If changing your diet is how you manage a disease it's pretty prudent to do so. Just because a doctor figures no one will actually do this doesn't mean they shouldn't attempt to get a person to change if it'll help them. Many people do eat themselves to Type II diabetes and certainly obesity among other illnesses. Should a doctor not even discuss diet as a possible solution because a patient will just refuse to change his habits? That's ridiculous. It might not be quite as easy to understand as he makes it out to be when reading studies, but it's certainly a starting place. Most of us here have had experiences where we know a doctor isn't up on current research or is completely misinformed. That's why a good number of people don't always take what a doctor has to say at face value.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by leonardotmnt View Post
                I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with most of what Stabby said? I'd say it's pretty smart in general to research these things yourself when it comes to your health and a serious illness. If changing your diet is how you manage a disease it's pretty prudent to do so. Just because a doctor figures no one will actually do this doesn't mean they shouldn't attempt to get a person to change if it'll help them. Many people do eat themselves to Type II diabetes and certainly obesity among other illnesses. Should a doctor not even discuss diet as a possible solution because a patient will just refuse to change his habits? That's ridiculous. It might not be quite as easy to understand as he makes it out to be when reading studies, but it's certainly a starting place. Most of us here have had experiences where we know a doctor isn't up on current research or is completely misinformed. That's why a good number of people don't always take what a doctor has to say at face value.
                Thank God I have a doctor that doesn't tell me what to eat anymore. For 30 years all they did was make me fat.

                Nothing wrong and everything right about researching. But to think it's easy and that diabetics as a class of people just don't give a shit or have no sense or are ignoring research is to a tad... well...

                I think I've said my peace.

                I'll let ya'll go back to your business of being better than everyone else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Adjusting the diet was the FIRST thing my wife's doctor did when she became pre diabetic, and I think highly of him for it. Also, it worked.
                  She is now insulin dependant because of a number of factors, including reversion to old eating habits / no exercise, and a minor emergency clinic hitting her with TWO steroidal medications at the same time, both known to elevate blood glucose.
                  Giving someone a pill or shot is a treatment, education is the prevention and potential cure.
                  A doctor who doesn't try to get his patients to make lifestyle changes because they seldom do is not, in my opinion, a good doctor, because he is only treating the symptoms, rather than trying to heal the underlying cause
                  Of course, it's not entirely the Doctor's fualt, either, as the medical schools in this country are controlled by big pharma, who is only interested in selling more drugs.
                  Thank god my wife's doctor sent her to an educator that wasn't a CW tool, and told her (mostly) the truth about diet and it's effects on the endocrine system.
                  Your Doc telling you how to eat isn't a bad thing, provided he knows WTF he's talking about. Sadly, some of the Doctors she's had since DR Whited had no clue or were CW mouthpieces. We fired them, of course
                  sigpicI'm not old, I'm Vintage!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And breast cancer isn't blameless. No cancer is blameless unless you get massive chemical toxicity. Cancer is basically nutrient deficiencies, eicosanoids, insulin levels + carcinogens, free radicals and some other stuff, and it is all on pubmed somewhere.
                    Wow, your ignorance is stunning.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Uh, yeah, I am sure someone out there is doing everything right and also ends up getting cancer.

                      ... The whole "should we blame cancer victims?" or "should we blame victims in general?" questions are just a bit off-topic, regardless.
                      "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Of course I didn't mean we blame them like "bad! bad cancer patient! Hang your head!" just that there is a ton of stuff that people can do to prevent it. If someone gets a disease and aren't doing everything they can to prevent disease, especially in 2010 with not awesome research coming out then they can certainly blame themselves somewhat.

                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469262

                        High GI carbs and body fat.

                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826834

                        Vitamin d

                        Inflammation from poor polyunsaturate balance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17640394

                        Iodine and selenium http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12927031 Some people think that they should eat less salt, fish, and eggs and don't think that they need these nutrients. What's up with that?

                        Anyway maybe I was a bit harsh, but now, maybe not 20 years ago, the information is mostly there. Bascially: eat primal.
                        Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                        Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well sure, I do agree that the information is there for primal. The worst folks in my opinion are not the ones who innocently _think_ they're doing everything right as they follow CW... it's really the ones who hear about primal directly from someone they know who's found success on it, listen eagerly to all the success stories... and then as soon as they get details, go "ZOMG cholesterol bad" or "What, no pasta?? I would die!" and then just dismiss it out of hand...

                          I always think... uh yeah, you are gonna die. Wouldn't you rather it be later? And be active and have fun and eat yummy meanwhile?

                          The whole "no salt" thing is from advice given to folks who already have hypertension. But as my doctor told me, those are the only people who really have concerns about salt. (I asked because I have massive salt cravings, like unnaturally high... and low blood pressure. The doctor theorizes that my body actually needs the extra salt, and that the cravings go down if my blood pressure goes up. This seems to hold true.)

                          And as for eggs, well, eggs were pretty well demonized in the late 80s. Even with the super-conservative American Heart Association saying people can eat a half-dozen eggs a week, a lot of folks still have them on their No list.

                          And fish, the oh-no-mercury factor seems to cloud people's minds...

                          But in all these cases, it's based more on outdated urban health legends than on the most recent research. I don't expect everybody to go out and read scientific papers, but at least pay attention to more modern articles trying to repair the reputation of eggs, etc...

                          Oh and even while avoiding all those things, people still happily chow down on Doritos and soda. Argh.
                          "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I work in the transplant field. A large proportion of patients ate/drank their way into organ failure/imminent death. You'd be surprised (or maybe not!) at the number of people who LITERALLY cannot change their eating habits to save their life -- all they have to do is lose 20 lbs to get on the waiting list, and they end up gaining.

                            Add up those who CAN'T understand the information (remember, half the population has below average intelligence ), those who "know they should" but just can't be bothered or who can't break the addiction, and those who don't really understand WHY we are so mean as to not help them (when not willing to lift a finger to help themselves) ... it's depressing, really.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh, wow. That does sound like a very depressing field! And I'm sure the "why are you so mean" group doesn't understand at ALL that the weight limits etc. are there in order to try and ensure the extremely limited supply of viable organs doesn't go to waste. You have to portion it out according to who's least likely to reject the organ, after all, right?

                              To draw an analogy... it sounds like, in a room with four corners and a door, a good chunk of the population will still manage to paint themselves into a corner.
                              "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X