If you want to reverse diabetes you need at least some fasting. Keto can do a heck of a lot to help, however the incretin effect will cause insulin levels to increase during mealtimes sabotaging the necessary reduction in insulin resistance for your liver and pancreas.
Dr. Jason Fung, a kidney specialist, runs an intensive dietary management program in Canada and has written a book called "The Diabetes Code" that describes the methods they use to reverse Type 2. I would recommend that anyone with Type 2 diabetes read at least that book and maybe also his other book called "The Obesity Code."
Agreed. I've read his book on diabetes and intermittent fasting. I have a problem with anybody who makes the claim that there is more to weight loss than "calories in calories out". There isn't.
Why must the body adhere to a reductionist calories-in/calories-out model as if it’s a simple furnace, when it’s clearly vastly different from a furnace?
Why the need to ignore the involvement of neurotransmitters, hormones, enzymes, organ function, emotions, microbiotas, inflammation, and countless other inter-related components and processes that would easily explain why metabolism differs so much from one person to another, as distinct from furnaces that all combust in the same way?
I mean, sure, calories-in/calories-out is ultimately right when you reduce everything down, but why the need to wave away the influence of the above factors on the flow of calories in and calories out?
Presumably (and I'm partially speculating here, since it's not my expertise) because all of the neurotransmitters, hormones, etc. pay heed to the same laws of thermodynamics that everything else does.
Your genes may influence how many calories you burn, the foods you eat may influence how full you feel, your hormones may influence where fat develops and disappears -- but thermodynamics require that if you expend more energy than you take in, the difference will have to come from somewhere, and that's ultimately how weight loss works.
Yep, I acknowledged that in the last sentence of my comment.
My point is it's not at all simple, and it's certainly not as simple as the "calories-in/calories-out" mob claim. If it were so simple, obesity, diabetes and other metabolic disorders wouldn't be the widespread and profound problems that they are.
And my larger point is that the "calories-in/calories-out" call is a euphemistic way of trolling people who suffer these conditions.
Hi foxyv, I'm the co-founder of Nutrita and wanted to say your comment is spot on. Dr.Fung and his IDM clinic are getting amazing results. We're big fans of theirs
If you need a good source of real facts about nutrition, I highly recommend nutritionfacts.org which is non profit and lead by a real expert in lifestyle medicine.
How can a post that recommends bacon as a "healthy source of fat" be taken serious, when the WHO is warning us about the carcinogenic effects of processed meat?
You have to give Dr. Greger credit for the sheer volume of material he goes through and how jam-packed his videos are with citations. He does a better job at performing credibility than any other diet doctor out there.
Just for the sake of clarity, the article recommends bacon as a "source of healthy fat" (not a "healthy source of fat"), where they specifically define "healthy fat".
'Reverse' is quite a strong term to use in this context. I do not find 'reverse' in the medical dictionary, but when medical articles talk about reversing alzheimer's, for example, that means undoing the damage that it has already done to the central nervous system. Can a keto diet undo the damage that diabetes has already done to someone's blood vessels, nerves, eyes, kidneys, etc? Better verb for what diet can do for T2 diabetes would be 'treat' or 'control;' If 'reverse' means something more than 'treat' or 'control', what is the bonus extra? Is there any reason to think that additional damage does not accumulate atop that previously done when blood glucose increases because treatment is discontinued or control by diet is otherwise insufficient.
I see what you mean but I didn't have a problem with the non-technical usage of 'reverse' taking it to mean 'reverse the progression' of type-2 diabetes. Perhaps 'neutralize' would be a better choice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto has 910,000 subscribers who will give you mountains of anecdotal evidence backed up by their lab work and tales of their doctor's astonishment.
15 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 48.8 ms ] threadDr. Jason Fung, a kidney specialist, runs an intensive dietary management program in Canada and has written a book called "The Diabetes Code" that describes the methods they use to reverse Type 2. I would recommend that anyone with Type 2 diabetes read at least that book and maybe also his other book called "The Obesity Code."
Why must the body adhere to a reductionist calories-in/calories-out model as if it’s a simple furnace, when it’s clearly vastly different from a furnace?
Why the need to ignore the involvement of neurotransmitters, hormones, enzymes, organ function, emotions, microbiotas, inflammation, and countless other inter-related components and processes that would easily explain why metabolism differs so much from one person to another, as distinct from furnaces that all combust in the same way?
I mean, sure, calories-in/calories-out is ultimately right when you reduce everything down, but why the need to wave away the influence of the above factors on the flow of calories in and calories out?
Your genes may influence how many calories you burn, the foods you eat may influence how full you feel, your hormones may influence where fat develops and disappears -- but thermodynamics require that if you expend more energy than you take in, the difference will have to come from somewhere, and that's ultimately how weight loss works.
My point is it's not at all simple, and it's certainly not as simple as the "calories-in/calories-out" mob claim. If it were so simple, obesity, diabetes and other metabolic disorders wouldn't be the widespread and profound problems that they are.
And my larger point is that the "calories-in/calories-out" call is a euphemistic way of trolling people who suffer these conditions.
Regarding this topic checkout https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/22/how-a-low-carb-diet-is...
How can a post that recommends bacon as a "healthy source of fat" be taken serious, when the WHO is warning us about the carcinogenic effects of processed meat?
That dude cherry picks studies just as much as the people he criticizes.
If you aren't a DIY type, this medical services startup doing it professionally... https://www.virtahealth.com/
Keto's not for everyone and not everyone needs it, but a substantial about of people in the sugar-addicted USA would benefit.
It solves a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues from joints to plantar fasciitis to skin problems.