Anybody had luck with a High Carb Plant based diet - Page 3

#81 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

bittersweet wrote:
> Overall:
> vegan group:
> baseline A1c: 9.08 +/- 2.95
> 22 weeks A1c: 7.11 +/- 1.97
> change: -1.97 +/-2.68
> ADA group:
> baseline A1c: 8.90 +/- 2.26
> 22 weeks A1c: 6.98 +/- 1.91
> change: -1.92 +/-2.48

So both groups went from terrible to terrible. Not much incentive
for those of us already doing much better than either group to
change our lifestyle.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes(t) = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

#82 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

Ozgirl wrote:
> 22 weeks is an awfully long time to not show more significant A1c
> reductions. So it doesn't list actual foods? Only percentages? And thanks by
> the way.

At my diagnosis, A1c was 12.6%.

Eight weeks later, it was 8.2% and less than a year
from diagnosis, it was 4.9%.

I stayed close to 5% for a few years, but the past
18 months have slowly crept up to 6%. It's not
conclusive, but there does appear to be a correlation
to carb intake. The first few years, I severely restricted
carbs; the past eighteen months I have gradually become more
lenient.

Whatever the true cause, the lifestyle that got me from 12.6
to 4.9 in considerably less than a year would be hard to reject
for either of the ones that got folks from 9 to 7 in about the
same time.

--
Wes Groleau
Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

#83 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

randy@val.com wrote:
> Here's the full study with the details:
>
> http://www.nealbarnard.org/pdfs/Diabetes-Care.pdf

Thanks. I'll read it on lunch break tomorrow.
(screen too small at home and printer out of ink.)

In defense (or attack) of some others:
I notice Kurt was quoted as saying folks will
you instead of addressing your cites. Of course
that's true--this is Usenet. However, if you
take a look through Google archives you will
find that the two people warning you against
that seems to have a lot of practice at doing
just that.

As for the PCRM, well, the article at first glance
looks legit, but the PCRM does have an agenda
that is more important to them than the truth.

Just take a look at the spin they put on Atkin's
death: While in a coma, he gained a lot of weight
due to edema. These clowns gleefully spread the
news that "meat pusher Atkins died grossly overweight."

(And calling him a 'meat pusher' was another lie that
people who never read his books helped spread.)

I hope you can forgive us being cautious, cynical,
and skeptical about anything PCRM or PETA has to say.

In my mind, they belong in a class with Rush Limbaugh
and Michael Moore. Actually, let's put them in a boat.

Here's a picture of the boat, with Moore and Limbaugh
already in it:

http://groleau.freeshell.org/Mauldin.shtml

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

#84 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

<randy@val.com> wrote in message
news:1177793656.238848.64110@q75g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
On Apr 26, 8:15 am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@planet.nl> wrote:
> <r...@val.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177381210.768175.284730@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Has anyone had success with a High Carb Low Fat plant based diet.
>
> > There's alot of research showing this works, but almost everything I
> > read of real people in the real world practice just the opposite.(low
> > carb higher fat with a fair amount of meat)
>
> > This contradiction is quite odd and I wonder if there is something to
> > be learned from it.
>
> > Any insight would be appreciated.

<snipped some of the previuous discussion>

>Thanks so much for your detailed response to my post.
>Your results are inspiring. Congradulations, big time!!

Thanks

>I am familiar with success reported in the literature using low card
>diets and your fine references reinforce that point.
>
>I still think it worth noting that in the most recent report on the
>High Carb Low Fat approach, A1C levels decreased >3 times the levels
>of the ADA group. And this was done by eating 75% carbs.

Yes , this strikes me too

>What strikes me as remarkable is that this folks greatly reduced their
>A1C levels while eating tons of Carbs.

Now the "tons" are actually relative tons....see below

>The results in the studies you provided showed improved A1C levels,
>but carbs had to be avoided.
>This indicates the the High Carb folks were in an important sense
>"better", because they had both great result and could tolerate high
>amounts of carbs, whereas the low carb group had great results but had
>to AVOID carbs.

In a sense.... but there is no "free lunch"...see below

<snipped the reference to the article , but see the pdf Randy posted a
number of times in this thread>

>BTW - I have no ideological interest Veganism or PETA. In fact I
>perfer a high meat and starch diet. I only interested in what the says
>has to say.

Hi Randy F,
well personally I have no problem at all with people who have an ideological
interest . On the contrary , I like it in a person if he/she stands for
something in life ; most of the time these are the people who make a
"difference".I agree with you when you said (some where else in this thread)
that it is the argument that matters.Sorry for the delay , it took me a few
days to read the article.It was a nice sunny day , I went for a ride on my
bike and red your article at a break.

Ok
YMMV
Meaning : Your Mileage May Vary
As they say here

Or every body is different

I personally like the idea of a "flight envelope" (FE) better
Some planes can do movements other planes can't , and if they do they crash

All research starts with a study of the literature.No one wants to re-invent
the wheel.Research is "standing on the shoulders of giants".

Ok
So I consider the author of this article to be the expert on the effect of a
vegan diet on diabetes II.In his reference list there are
1,2,3,4,22,23,24,27 = 8 references on the connection between the vegan diet
and diabetes. Of these 2,22 =2 are not from this research group.It is not
uncommon to find 50 references , so 10 is very few and only 2 from outside
is _very_ few.I'm very intrigued by this concept so I spent a few hours to
see if I could find some more literature.I did not.If you have more , or
newer , literature I would be very gratefull if you would share it here.

Ok
So the concept seems rather new.There used to be a poster here by the name
of "Anil".He (I'm not sure if it is a "he" , sorry if you are a "she" Anil)
had some very good recipes for vegan food.His concept was to use the
sprouted version of all kinds of seeds.I tried it myself and it did not
spike me at all.So the sprouting technique of Anil is within my FE.I'm 61 ,
lean , muscular and got enough beta cells left.The sprouted things have more
protein and mico nutrients so I like it for myself.I also like the concept
that it does not harm a living creature or the existense of the earth
itself.

Ok
Here is a quote:

"The vegan diet (10% of energy from fat, 15% protein, and 75% carbohydrate)
consisted of vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes. Participants were
asked to avoid animal products and added fats and to favor low-glycemic
index foods, such as beans and green vegetables."

Now , if I may compare this to my diet , this is what I do except I like to
add more protein.My FE would definitely alow me this diet.I would like to
add more nuts and beans and go easy on the grain.So for me this would mean
more energy from fat (nuts) and protein (nuts and beans).Only because I like
the concept of more muscle is more GLUT4 transporters = lower bloodglucose ,
because a moving muscle does not need insulin.And more muscle = more
protein.

We must also realise that this diet is high , or even very high , in
fiber.If you don't panic by the first high bg reading and keep doing this
diet for a few days than the indigestible fiber will cause the growth of
friendly bacteria in your intestines.They will digest the fiber for you.In
the process they will produce short chain fatty acids.These will stimulate
the l-cells in your intestine to produce GLP-1 , the incretin hormone . This
is the natuaral feedback signal for insuline.Or to make it more blunt : more
of this vegan diet will lower your bg by incretins.If this vegan diet or a
high fiber diet is for some reason not in your FE , than you can use the
more powerfull pharmaceutical incretin mimetics like Byetta or
Sitagliptin.Or if that does not help maybe even barriatic surgery.....

Here is another quote :

"Both groups reduced energy intake .Vegan 1759 to 1425 kcal/day ADA 1846 to
1391 kcal/ day "

(I left out the statistics) If you look on the ADA website they recommend
2800 kcal/day for men so this is about half...The "ton" of carb is just a
relative "ton" In absolute amounts it is just a little bit

Now I
personally think that this is a very good feature of the diet.I think , and
a have lots of literature on this , that calorie restriction is good . You
will even live longer.The question is of course : can you really do it ????
Also eating less in itself very good for you if you are an over weight T2.It
will cause you to loose adipose tissue.Belly fat.This fat is actually a
hormone producing organ.It produces adiponectin , visfatin , grehlin , TNF
and other inflamation signals.Less fat = very good indeed . The author
himself admits that the calorie restriction maybe responsible for a large
part of the effect : page 1782 :

"First, because such diets are low in fat and high in fiber, they typically
cause associated reductions in dietary energy density and energy intake,
which are not fully compensated for by increased food intake (16,17). Our
data suggest that the weight-reducing effect of the vegan diet (4) is
responsible for a substantial portion of its effect on A1C."

No for the effect ( see table 2 on page 1780 , only for the vegan and my
diet as I posted before)

Vegan A1c from 8.0 to 7.1 = 0.9 %

My A1c from 10.3 to 5.0 = 5.3 %

Vegan body weight 97 to 91 = 6 kg
My body weight 117 to 74 = 43 kg

Vegan Fasting bg 9.1 to 7.1 = 2.0 mmol/l
My Fasting bg 15.3 to 4.6 = 10.7 mmol/l

To be honest I'm not impressed by the effect of the diet.To be honest an A1c
of 7.1 is still rather high and a body weight change of 6 kg is not what
most people here would consider worth while talking about.A body mass index
of 31.8 will still leave you in the danger zone.

The article does not state what exactly was eaten.It does state that no
meals were dictated.You could e-mail the author to ask him if he has any
comments on that.Seems important to me if you would like to give it a try.If
you do a radical change from your high meat and starch diet to vegan than I
hope you will let us know how it worked for you.

To summarize :
the diet is no mystery to me .It is high in carb , but this is compensated
by the fact that it is very high in fiber (incretin effect) , low glycemic
and calorie restricted (good for weight loss and loss of adipose tissue).I
believe that it produces the (mild) effects the authors are reporting.

I think this diet is in my FE . I personally like the same amount of fiber ,
but a bit more protein and fat.The fiber will stop the hunger.The protein
will build more muscle and is very effective in stopping the hunger.The
(mono unsaturated) fat will give me a bit more energy and more
palatability.So .... I'm still thinking about a change to vegetarian.For me
this would mean no more meat but more nuts and beans and thus not a diet
high in carbs but a diet high in fiber and fat , moderate in protein and
still low in carbs.

Nice to see that the thread came back to live

hth
Gys

#85 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

randy@val.com <randy@val.com> wrote:

> Jim Wrote:

>> When analyzing a study, ALWAYS look at who funded it. When the study
>> strongly substantiates the premise of the funding body or the principal
>> researcher, that should cause serious skepticism. Just because a
>> study gets cataloged by MEDLINE doesn't give it credibility.

> Well sure ofcourse, but one of the functions of Medline is too only
> make available publicatons that meet certain criteria for ojectivity.
> Ofcourse its not perfect but all sorts of checks and balances are put
> in place.

Not by Medline. They assume that their chosen sources are doing the
job they're supposed to be doing. As any number of research studies
over the years and decades have shown this is not always the
case. It's rather like street crime. You can reduce it by tougher
policing, but never remove it. It's also a matter of deliberate
policy on their part to be inclusive rather than exclusive. It's
therefore a necessary part of evaluating a research paper to consider
the historical record of the journal and the provenance of the
researchers and their institutions.

> Thats incorrect the average of all after 22 weeks was 7%, but some of
> this those had meds reduced.

The problems of getting down into the 7%s are very different to the
problems of getting down into the 5%s. For example there are diets
which will reduce someone from 9% to 7% and at the same time will
increase someone from 6% to 7%. If you're trying to do better than 7%
it's not a good idea to take advice from people who aren't.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

#86 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

Wes,
Thanks for your response.

Wes Wrote:
> As for the PCRM, well, the article at first glance
> looks legit, but the PCRM does have an agenda
> that is more important to them than the truth.

Randy Reply:
The study is a not connected with PCRM in anyway (and neither am I).
I can understand your distaste for this organization, but it has no
bearing on the study.

Ofcourse if you can site some real reasons to doubt the validity of
the study results that's a different matter.
>From my vantage point its seems the necessary controls were in place
to trust their findings.
The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the National
Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy data to for an agenda.

Ofcourse I could be wrong, but unless you or someone else can supply
proof the to show a conspricy, I must accept the data as valid. If we
can't get past this point I have no interest in posting.

Besides there are enough weaknesses in the study to attack on its own.

And more on that very shortly.

Best Regards
Randy F

#87 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

randy@val.com wrote:
> Wes,
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Wes Wrote:
>> As for the PCRM, well, the article at first glance
>> looks legit, but the PCRM does have an agenda
>> that is more important to them than the truth.
>
>
> Randy Reply:
> The study is a not connected with PCRM in anyway (and neither am I).
> I can understand your distaste for this organization, but it has no
> bearing on the study.
>
> Ofcourse if you can site some real reasons to doubt the validity of
> the study results that's a different matter.
>>From my vantage point its seems the necessary controls were in place
> to trust their findings.
> The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
> University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
> Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the National
> Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
> would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy data to for an agenda.
>
A little research on the Diabetes Action Research & Education Foundation
shows that somebody named Neal Barnard, M.D, Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, happens to be on their Medical Advisory Board.
What an interesting coincidence!

> Ofcourse I could be wrong, but unless you or someone else can supply
> proof the to show a conspricy, I must accept the data as valid. If we
> can't get past this point I have no interest in posting.
>
> Besides there are enough weaknesses in the study to attack on its own.
>
> And more on that very shortly.
>
> Best Regards
> Randy F
>
>

#88 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

On Apr 29, 3:13ï¿½pm, "rk" <p_haha_med...@gmail.com> wrote:
> r...@val.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177825018.370410.273260@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:55 pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 28 Apr 2007 19:42:12 -0700, "r...@val.com"
>
> >> <r...@val.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> What exactly constituted the low fat vegan diet? *carb numbers,
> >> >> protein,
> >> >> etc. *was it actually higher in carbs than the ADA diet, which shul,
> >> >> itself, have been low fat, as tht is wht they preach.
>
> >> >> Wendy
>
> >> >Hi Wendy,
>
> >> >The High Carb group averaged about 100KCALS MORE than the ADA group.
> >> >Here's a line to the complete study:
>
> >> >http://www.nealbarnard.org/pdfs/Diabetes-Care.pdf
>
> >> >Regards
> >> >Randy F
>
> >> Hi All
>
> >> Despite this twit's earlier protestations, Neal Barnard is a
> >> frontman for PCRM and PETA.
>
> >> Do some googling on him and those organisations. For me,
> >> Randy just joined ABChung in the kf.
>
> >> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> >> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
> >> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
> >> --http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
> >> latest: Athens and The Adriatic- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Not only is Neal Barnard a front man for PCRM, he founded the
> > organization.
> > SO F****** ing!!! what????
> > I'm not concerned about his professional or organization afffilations.
> > I'm not a fan of these organizations either.
>
> > Is that how you evaluate the merit of PUB MED studies, *by the
> > ideological beliefs of the authors. Or maybe you determine truth by
> > the color of the researchers eye are how tall his wife is. In anycase
> > the only thing that matters is the data and methodology of the study.
> > If you are saying he biased, far enough. Show how he lied about the
> > data. Or
> > show a fault in his methodology or data collection.
>
> > BTW, the study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and
> > Digestion and Kidney Disease and the Diabetes Action Research
> > Foundation. Why don't you write them and let them know the study is
> > worthless because Neil Barnard is a member of PETA. I'm sure they will
> > immediately retract the study and publish an apology. The *US Congress
> > will probably issue you a gold star and officially proclaim you as an
> > international authority. You can then put that proclaimation next to
> > your own "self" proclaimation.
>
> > I initially posted data that presented a conundrum to the prevalent
> > view. My feeling was that conflicting data can often led clarity when
> > resolved. I invited opions. Most of the posts were respectfull and
> > usefull. A few from you and a couple others just resorted to name
> > calling. I didn't mind the other names but "Twit" set me off. My post
> > were respectful and my questions reasonable. Your name calling is
> > intentional, unjustified desrespect.
>
> > Well you've earned my JUSTIFIED intentional disrespect, TWIT BRAIN.
>
> > My applogizies to others on the list that I might have offended and
> > thanks to those that provided responses.
>
> > Randy F
>
> I suppose I shouldn't bother posting in this thread, but I think it's only
> fair. *Randy, you must understand that you aren't a long time poster in
> here. *You've come in with "valid" information which totally upsets some'
> of the spazmatic ultra LC T2's. *You should feel flattered if anything,
> they've
> actually continued to attack you and not turned you into your ISP. LOL
>
> You're going to continue to be name called, told you're wrong, simply
> because
> it doesn't sit well with the way they THINK things should run in their
> feble little
> minds. *If you haven't figured it out.. many of those attacking you haven't
> been
> here more then 2-3yrs, thats the time they've been diabetic as well..
> anyhow,
> they apparently know far more then ANYONE else who's treated all types of
> DM for the past 20yrs and the hundreds of researchers. *Which they object
> to
> as well because it's "corporate" sponsored. LOL
>
> Then there are a few who post who in the true medical sense aren't even
> Diabetic and perhaps not even "pre-diabetic" at best... but they like the
> attention
> so they continue to "claim" they are diabetic. *A few even have stated
> "THEY"
> told their doctor they were diabetic.. gee what a stupid doctor eh? <g>
>
> Just wanted to let you know.... this is the norm around here.
>
> RK

True dat. Word. And word up.

Kurt
"I wish I was little bit taller,
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl who looked good
I would call her
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
and a '64 Impala" - Skee-Lo

#89 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

On Apr 29, 9:42ï¿½pm, "r...@val.com" <r...@val.com> wrote:
> Wes,
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Wes *Wrote:
>
> > As for the PCRM, well, the article at first glance
> > looks legit, but the PCRM does have an agenda
> > that is more important to them than the truth.
>
> Randy Reply:
> The study is a not connected with PCRM in anyway (and neither am I).
> I can understand your distaste for this organization, but it has no
> bearing on the study.
>
> Ofcourse if you can site some real reasons to doubt the validity of
> the study results that's a different matter.>From my vantage point its seems the necessary controls were in place
>
> to trust their findings.
> The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
> University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
> Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the National
> Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
> would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy data to for an agenda.
>
> Ofcourse I could be wrong, but unless you or someone else can supply
> proof the to show a conspricy, I must accept the data as valid. If we
> can't get past this point I have no interest in posting.

Randy,

This place is chock full of conspiracy theorists. But you will soon
find that out for yourself. If you post something that goes against
low carbing then the usual suspects will attack it like sharks in a
feeding frenzy. Now if you can find a study that says low carbing is
the only way to go... well then you will be lauded as a Saint and the
study will go unquestioned. Okay, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but it
will at least seem that way.

Kurt

#90 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

On Apr 29, 1:17ï¿½pm, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177869415.256054.95370@l77g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> > > There are alsways two sides, the side that works and the side that
> >doesn't.
>
> > This is why some in here lose all credibility. *Given that everyone
> > really is different in terms of what they need to be an in control
> > diabetic, how can it be as black and white as "one side works and the
> > other doesn't"? *The truth is that there are no "sides" only what will
> > work best for the individual.
>
> That is true, it was a joke statement.

Not so sure about it being a joke, but I did find what you said
laughable.

Kurt

#91 04-30-2007, 09:56 AM

On 29 Apr 2007 23:18:07 -0700, Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Randy,
>
>This place is chock full of conspiracy theorists. But you will soon
>find that out for yourself. If you post something that goes against
>low carbing then the usual suspects will attack it like sharks in a
>feeding frenzy. Now if you can find a study that says low carbing is
>the only way to go... well then you will be lauded as a Saint and the
>study will go unquestioned. Okay, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but it
>will at least seem that way.

>
>Kurt

Hi Kurt

Try to put aside your antipathy to me for a moment. I know
you work on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle,
but stop and pause for a moment.

Do you really want to be seen as a spokesperson supporting
Barnard, PETA and PCRM? Because that's how it is starting to
appear. There is a vast gap between their position and your
favourite ADA guidelines.

You may find it illuminating to do a little personal
research on those organisations before you post in this
thread again. In fact, it is even possible that you would
find us both in agreement on the nature of PCRM and PETA if
you do the research. The next supporting post will be tacit
agreement with those organisations. Be sure before you
choose.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Athens and The Adriatic

#92 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

bittersweet <bittersweet@spamless.invalid> wrote:
: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:32:30 +1000, "Ozgirl"
: <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:

: >
: >I cannot open that pdf for some reason but judging by the comments of those
: >who have, it doesn't state specific foods, only ratios, it doesn't give A1c
: >results only referring to decreases. Perhaps you or someone could provide
: >those details. What someone calls an improvement is not necessarily close to
: >ideal. If these A1c's have only reduced to 8% for example I would pooh hoo
: >the entire study. Excellent diabetic control is the best chance we have of
: >avoiding complications. I would see no point in compromising my health and
: >future chances for the sake of a few extra carbs.
: >

: Hi Ozgirl --

: Here are some of the details about A1c changes listed in the document.

: From the text on page 3 (lists decreases only):

: Overall:
: vegan group's A1c dropped by 0.96;
: ADA group's A1c dropped by 0.56.

: Of the particpants whose meds did not change
: during the study (49% of the vegans and 66%
: of the ADA'ers):
: vegan group's A1c dropped by 1.23;
: ADA group's A1c dropped by 0.38.

: Of the participants who adhered to the given
: dietary restrictions (67% of the vegans and 44%
: of the ADA'ers):
: vegan group's A1c dropped by 1.20;
: ADA group's A1c dropped by 0.88.

: From the table on page 4 (lists actual starting and ending values):

: Overall:
: vegan group:
: baseline A1c: 9.08 +/- 2.95
: 22 weeks A1c: 7.11 +/- 1.97
: change: -1.97 +/-2.68
: ADA group:
: baseline A1c: 8.90 +/- 2.26
: 22 weeks A1c: 6.98 +/- 1.91
: change: -1.92 +/-2.48

: (puzzled note from bittersweet: the almost-identical
: changes beween the two groups listed above don't match
: up at all with the significantly different changes listed in
: the text on page 3. I must be missing something.)

: Of the particpants whose meds did not change
: during the study:
: vegan group:
: baseline A1c: 8.07 +/- 1.24
: 22 weeks A1c: 6.84 +/- 0.84
: change: -1.23 +/-1.38
: ADA group:
: baseline A1c: 7.88 +/- 0.93
: 22 weeks A1c: 7.50 +/- 1.03
: change: -0.38 +/-2.48

: (bittersweet again: the changes listed for this subgroup
: DO match the ones in the text on page 3.)

: (there was no detailed start/stop/change chart for the
: third subgroup mentioned in the text on page 3 -- the
: participants who actually adhered to the dietary
: restrictions of their respective groups.)

: .................

: Apologies if I copied any of this down wrong -- the chart is displayed
: sideways, and if there's a way to rotate it on the screen, I didn't
: see it. (and I was too lazy to print it.)

: -- bittersweet

hanks for this information. Were there any listings of the typical or
recommended actual diet? I am trying to chase fiber here.

Wendy

#93 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

randy@val.com <randy@val.com> wrote:

: The study listed exactly what the subject ate. The Vegan diet was 75%
: Carb 15% Protein and 10% Protein and no animal products.
: It also listed exactly what the control group ate.

What ws the fiber content of that carb abmount? Was the fiber content
subtracted from the carb coount or in addition to it, in which case it is
absent from the % caculations. If you are eating only vegetable carbs, as
opposed to dair ones, there should be a fairly high perdcent of fiber in
there, unless the food was all processed white foods, like pasta and white
bread, etc.

Wendy

#94 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

On 28 Apr 2007 22:36:58 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:

>On Apr 28, 10:55 pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2007 19:42:12 -0700, "r...@val.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <r...@val.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What exactly constituted the low fat vegan diet? carb numbers, protein,
>> >> etc. was it actually higher in carbs than the ADA diet, which shul,
>> >> itself, have been low fat, as tht is wht they preach.
>>
>> >> Wendy
>>
>> >Hi Wendy,
>>
>> >The High Carb group averaged about 100KCALS MORE than the ADA group.
>> >Here's a line to the complete study:
>>
>> >http://www.nealbarnard.org/pdfs/Diabetes-Care.pdf
>>
>> >Regards
>> >Randy F
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Despite this twit's earlier protestations, Neal Barnard is a
>> frontman for PCRM and PETA.
>>
>> Do some googling on him and those organisations. For me,
>> Randy just joined ABChung in the kf.
>>
>> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
>> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
>> --http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
>> latest: Athens and The Adriatic- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Not only is Neal Barnard a front man for PCRM, he founded the
>organization.
>SO F****** ing!!! what????
>I'm not concerned about his professional or organization afffilations.
>I'm not a fan of these organizations either.
>
>Is that how you evaluate the merit of PUB MED studies, by the
>ideological beliefs of the authors. Or maybe you determine truth by

if it's a real pub med study then it will be on pub med and not on the
neal barnard web site only.

--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

#95 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

On 28 Apr 2007 22:39:57 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:

>On Apr 29, 12:24 am, Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>> r...@val.com wrote:
>> > I quoted a results of a peer reviewed scientitic study. You countered
>> > with an opinion piece.
>> > If you've got a criticism counter with evidence or a critic of the
>> > data.
>>
>> > This study showed that a 75% carb diet resulted in 3X decrease in A1C
>> > (-1.3 vs .38) compared to the ADA diet.
>>
>> 75% of what was carb? Calories? Total weight? Items on the wish list?
>> What percent of those carbs were fiber? I haven't read the article, but
>> the abstract does not mention carbs at all. "Vegan" is not clear:
>> potatoes have carbs, celery does not (except fiber).
>>
>> Nor is it clear _which_ ADA guidelines were followed.
>>
>> --
>> Wes Groleau
>>
>> You always have time for what you do first.
>
>Here's the full study with the details:
>

you said it was a pub med study, give us a pub med link.

--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

#96 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:31:16 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wbaker@panix.com> wrote:

>
>hanks for this information. Were there any listings of the typical or
>recommended actual diet? I am trying to chase fiber here.
>
>Wendy

Hi Wendy --

This is what they say aboue the two diets:

"The vegan diet (~10% of energy from fat, 15% protein, and 75%
carbohydrate) consisted of vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes.
Participants were asked to avoid animal products and added fats and to
favor low glycemic-index foods, such as beans and greens vegetables.
Portion sizes, energy intake, and carbohydrate intake were
unrestricted.

"The ADA diet (15-20% protein, <7% saturated fat, 60-70%
carbohydrate and monounstaurated fats, and cholesterol <= 200 mg/day)
was individualized, based on body weight and plasma lipid
concentrations. ADA group particpabts with a BMI > 25 kg/m (all but
three ADA group particpants) were prescribed energy intake deficits of
500-1000 kcal."

other snippets: no meals were provided; each particpant initially met
with an RD for one hour to devise a meal plan, and thereafter each
attended a weekly one-hour meeting for nutrition & cooking
instruction.

-- bittersweet

#97 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

Alan S Wrote:
> Do you really want to be seen as a spokesperson supporting
> Barnard, PETA and PCRM? Because that's how it is starting to
> appear. There is a vast gap between their position and your
> favourite ADA guidelines.

Randy Replies:
Please substantiate you claim that the Barnard Study is PETA or PCRM
propoganda. I've posted 3 times in the last few days regarding funding
and oversite for the study. If you've got information showing the data
is jimmied or falsified please post it, otherwise your claim has no
substance.

The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the National
Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy data to for an
agenda.

Just because the data might support one's ideology has no bearing on
the veracy of the data. Data is data, period. If you think the data or
methodology is incorrect, present your case. The study has enought
weekness of it own without your citing problems that don't exist.
You should know better that this.

Alan S Writes:
>
> The next supporting post will be tacit
> agreement with those organisations. Be sure before you
> choose.

Randy Replies:
Thats absurd. The study in question is a scientific study. If one
accepts the results, that the Higher Carb group had lower A1C levels
in no way has anything to do with supporting or not supporting the
poicies of any organization including PETA, PCRN, the RNC, the NAZI
party or the Christian Right. Thats so obvious I amazed you would post
otherwise. If you want to show that the study authors lied and used
bad methodology thats accepatble, but until you do that your comments
are rubbish.

And once again, for the last time, I have no affilation or sympathies
with these organizations. I'm ONLY interested in the science dealing
the the topic on hand

#98 05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

On 30 Apr 2007 08:47:12 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:

>
>Thats absurd. The study in question is a scientific study. If one
>accepts the results, that the Higher Carb group had lower A1C levels
>

But they *didn't* have lower A1c, from what I can see from the numbers
in the study... the actual overall average A1c values for the two
groups were as follows, according to the table of page 4 of the pdf
document:

Vegan group:
baseline A1c: 9.08 +/- 2.95
22 weeks A1c: 7.11 +/- 1.97
change: -1.97 +/-2.68
ADA group:
baseline A1c: 8.90 +/- 2.26
22 weeks A1c: 6.98 +/- 1.91
change: -1.92 +/-2.48

Also, both groups ate a fairly large percentage of carbohydrates.
(75% for the vegans. The ADA'ers diet was listed as "60-70%
carbohydrate and monounsaturated fat"; I didn't notice a separate
level for carbs alone.) So the debate appears to be about a very
slight difference between a high-carb diet and an even-higher-carb
diet.

--bittersweet

#99 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

On Apr 30, 2:21ï¿½am, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2007 23:18:07 -0700, Kurt
>
> <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Randy,
>
> >This place is chock full of conspiracy theorists. *But you will soon
> >find that out for yourself. *If you post something that goes against
> >low carbing then the usual suspects will attack it like sharks in a
> >feeding frenzy. *Now if you can find a study that says low carbing is
> >the only way to go... well then you will be lauded as a Saint and the
> >study will go unquestioned. *Okay, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but it
> >will at least seem that way.

>
> >Kurt
>
> Hi Kurt
>
> Try to put aside your antipathy to me for a moment.

Try to put aside your everpresent need to tell others how they should
think and what they should write and worry about yourself for a
change.

Thank you.

Kurt

#**100** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

Bittersweet Wrote:

> But they *didn't* have lower A1c, from what I can see from the numbers
> in the study... the actual overall average A1c values for the two
> groups were as follows, according to the table of page 4 of the pdf
> document:
>
> Vegan group:
> baseline A1c: 9.08 +/- 2.95
> 22 weeks A1c: 7.11 +/- 1.97
> change: -1.97 +/-2.68
> ADA group:
> baseline A1c: 8.90 +/- 2.26
> 22 weeks A1c: 6.98 +/- 1.91
> change: -1.92 +/-2.48
>
Randy Replies:
Common Bittersweet, you thats misleading and you know it. I know you
know cause you posted the number on those using the same amount of
drugs before and after.

When looking at the ones that didn't changes drugs the Vegan group
posted .66 lower and had a 3X decrease before and after.
You were doing such a good job at being fair, I was let down.
In anycase here's the numbers you posted the other day.

Of the particpants whose meds did not change
: during the study:
: vegan group:
: baseline A1c: 8.07 +/- 1.24
: 22 weeks A1c: 6.84 +/- 0.84
: change: -1.23 +/-1.38
: ADA group:
: baseline A1c: 7.88 +/- 0.93
: 22 weeks A1c: 7.50 +/- 1.03
: change: -0.38 +/-2.48

In anycase keep up the good work, just try to present the whole
picture.

Best Regards
Randy F

#**101** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

x-no-archive: yes

randy@val.com wrote:

> In anycase keep up the good work, just try to present the whole
> picture.

In the big picture, over a protracted period, both groups still had A1cs
squarely in the danger zone for complications risk.

Even in healthy non DMs, CVD risk begins to steadily rise at anything
above 4.6%, as one example.

Susan

#**102** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

On 30 Apr 2007 12:38:36 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:

>Bittersweet Wrote:
>
>> But they *didn't* have lower A1c, from what I can see from the numbers
>> in the study... the actual overall average A1c values for the two
>> groups were as follows, according to the table of page 4 of the pdf
>> document:
>>
>> Vegan group:
>> baseline A1c: 9.08 +/- 2.95
>> 22 weeks A1c: 7.11 +/- 1.97
>> change: -1.97 +/-2.68
>> ADA group:
>> baseline A1c: 8.90 +/- 2.26
>> 22 weeks A1c: 6.98 +/- 1.91
>> change: -1.92 +/-2.48
>>
>Randy Replies:
>Common Bittersweet, you thats misleading and you know it. I know you
>know cause you posted the number on those using the same amount of
>drugs before and after.
>
>When looking at the ones that didn't changes drugs the Vegan group
>posted .66 lower and had a 3X decrease before and after.
>You were doing such a good job at being fair, I was let down.
>In anycase here's the numbers you posted the other day.
>
>Of the particpants whose meds did not change
>: during the study:
>: vegan group:
>: baseline A1c: 8.07 +/- 1.24
>: 22 weeks A1c: 6.84 +/- 0.84
>: change: -1.23 +/-1.38
>: ADA group:
>: baseline A1c: 7.88 +/- 0.93
>: 22 weeks A1c: 7.50 +/- 1.03
>: change: -0.38 +/-2.48
>
>In anycase keep up the good work, just try to present the whole
>picture.
>
>Best Regards
>Randy F
>
>

Randy --

I was responding to your statement that "the Higher Carb group had
lower A1C levels". (It was quoted in the part of my post that you
removed.) You did not say "a specific subset of the Higher Carb group
had lower A1c levels."

So, since there was no mention of a specific subset,just of the two
groups as a whole, it only made sense to refer to the overall numbers
of the two groups. And overall, the slightly-lower-carb group had
slightly lower starting and stopping values than the higher-carb
group, although the changes in both groups were nearly identical.

(I am not intentionally being "unfair", since I am not at all biased
toward either of these two approaches. Neither is one that I would
ever follow.)

-- bittersweet

#**103** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

<randy@val.com> wrote in message
news:1177948032.614248.247860@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Alan S Wrote:
> > Do you really want to be seen as a spokesperson supporting
> > Barnard, PETA and PCRM? Because that's how it is starting to
> > appear. There is a vast gap between their position and your
> > favourite ADA guidelines.
>
> Randy Replies:
> Please substantiate you claim that the Barnard Study is PETA or PCRM
> propoganda. I've posted 3 times in the last few days regarding funding
> and oversite for the study. If you've got information showing the data
> is jimmied or falsified please post it, otherwise your claim has no
> substance.

I doubt it's falsified but the weight losses and A1c reductions over 22
weeks are very poor.

#**104** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

"Mâck©®" <shootspammers@deathtospam.net> wrote in message
news:0hsb339a6ilbnm6pvfvubqhk9t2i0unevl@4ax.com...
> On 28 Apr 2007 22:39:57 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> you said it was a pub med study, give us a pub med link.

Prev Med. 1999 Aug;29(2):87-91.
Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot
intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet.
Nicholson AS, Sklar M, Barnard ND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning S.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Georgetown University Medical
Center, Washington, DC, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether glycemic and lipid control in patients
with non-insulin-dependent diabetes (NIDDM) can be significantly improved
using a low-fat, vegetarian (vegan) diet in the absence of recommendations
regarding exercise or other lifestyle changes. METHODS: Eleven subjects with
NIDDM recruited from the Georgetown University Medical Center or the local
community were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (seven subjects) or
a conventional low-fat diet (four subjects). Two additional subjects
assigned to the control group failed to complete the study. The diets were
not designed to be isocaloric. Fasting serum glucose, body weight,
medication use, and blood pressure were assessed at baseline and biweekly
thereafter for 12 weeks. Serum lipids, glycosylated hemoglobin, urinary
albumin, and dietary macronutrients were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Although the sample was intentionally small in accordance with the
pilot study design, the 28% mean reduction in fasting serum glucose of the
experimental group, from 10.7 to 7.75 mmol/L (195 to 141 mg/dl), was
significantly greater than the 12% decrease, from 9.86 to 8.64 mmol/L (179
to 157 mg/dl), for the control group (P < 0.05). The mean weight loss was
7.2 kg in the experimental group, compared to 3. 8 kg for the control group
(P < 0.005). Of six experimental group subjects on oral hypoglycemic agents,
medication use was discontinued in one and reduced in three. Insulin was
reduced in both experimental group patients on insulin. No patient in the
control group reduced medication use. Differences between the diet groups in
the reductions of serum cholesterol and 24-h microalbuminuria did not reach
statistical significance; however, high-density lipoprotein concentration
fell more sharply (0.20 mmol/L) in the experimental group than in the
control group (0.02 mmol/L) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a low-fat,
vegetarian diet in patients with NIDDM was associated with significant
reductions in fasting serum glucose concentration and body weight in the
absence of recommendations for exercise. A larger study is needed for
confirmation. Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

PMID: 10446033

Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
Seidl K, Green AA, Talpers S.
Department of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine,
Washington, DC, USA. nbarnard@pcrm.org
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate whether a low-fat vegan diet improves
glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2
diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes (n =
99) were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (n = 49) or a diet
following the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (n = 50).
Participants were evaluated at baseline and 22 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-three
percent (21 of 49) of the vegan group and 26% (13 of 50) of the ADA group
participants reduced diabetes medications. Including all participants,
HbA(1c) (A1C) decreased 0.96 percentage points in the vegan group and 0.56
points in the ADA group (P = 0.089). Excluding those who changed
medications, A1C fell 1.23 points in the vegan group compared with 0.38
points in the ADA group (P = 0.01). Body weight decreased 6.5 kg in the
vegan group and 3.1 kg in the ADA group (P < 0.001). Body weight change
correlated with A1C change (r = 0.51, n = 57, P < 0.0001). Among those who
did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol fell 21.2% in the
vegan group and 10.7% in the ADA group (P = 0.02). After adjustment for
baseline values, urinary albumin reductions were greater in the vegan group
(15.9 mg/24 h) than in the ADA group (10.9 mg/24 h) (P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines
improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These
improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet.
Grant Support:
R01 DK059362-01A2/DK/NIDDK
PMID: 16873779

hth
Gys

#**105** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

"W. Baker" <wbaker@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f14qqo$lf9$1@reader2.panix.com...
> randy@val.com <randy@val.com> wrote:
>
> : The study listed exactly what the subject ate. The Vegan diet was 75%
> : Carb 15% Protein and 10% Protein and no animal products.
> : It also listed exactly what the control group ate.
>
> What ws the fiber content of that carb abmount? Was the fiber content
> subtracted from the carb coount or in addition to it, in which case it is
> absent from the % caculations. If you are eating only vegetable carbs, as
> opposed to dair ones, there should be a fairly high perdcent of fiber in
> there, unless the food was all processed white foods, like pasta and white
> bread, etc.
>
> Wendy

I'm still trying to figure out what this thread is about. If I eat more
carbs than my body needs and that my pancreas thingee can ooze out stuff to
take care of... then my meter gets all gummed up with sticky stuff and shows
scary numbers so I ain't eatin no high carb diet.

John

#**106** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:05:24 -0400, bittersweet
<bittersweet@spamless.invalid> wrote:

> So the debate appears to be about a very
>slight difference between a high-carb diet and an even-higher-carb
>diet.

That's the essence of it. Pointless.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Athens and The Adriatic

#**107** 05-01-2007, 12:44 AM

On 30 Apr 2007 11:38:54 -0700, Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 2:21?am, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2007 23:18:07 -0700, Kurt
>>
>> <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Randy,
>>
>> >This place is chock full of conspiracy theorists.
ut you will soon
>> >find that out for yourself. f you post something that goes against
>> >low carbing then the usual suspects will attack it like sharks in a
>> >feeding frenzy. ow if you can find a study that says low carbing is
>> >the only way to go... well then you will be lauded as a Saint and the
>> >study will go unquestioned. kay, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but it
>> >will at least seem that way.

>>
>> >Kurt
>>
>> Hi Kurt
>>
>> Try to put aside your antipathy to me for a moment.
>
>Try to put aside your everpresent need to tell others how they should
>think and what they should write and worry about yourself for a
>change.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Kurt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.

#**108** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

Hmm, the stated objectives are different between the two reports.

I still don't see any changes significant enough to warrant crowing about.
I am also wondering why the meds were dropped when A1c's were still out of
range for even good diabetic control.

"GysdeJongh" <jongh711@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:4636592a$0$16941$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl ...
> "Mâck©®" <shootspammers@deathtospam.net> wrote in message
> news:0hsb339a6ilbnm6pvfvubqhk9t2i0unevl@4ax.com...
> > On 28 Apr 2007 22:39:57 -0700, "randy@val.com" <randy@val.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > you said it was a pub med study, give us a pub med link.
>
> Prev Med. 1999 Aug;29(2):87-91.
> Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot
> intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet.
> Nicholson AS, Sklar M, Barnard ND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning S.
> Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Georgetown University
Medical
> Center, Washington, DC, USA.
> OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether glycemic and lipid control in patients
> with non-insulin-dependent diabetes (NIDDM) can be significantly improved
> using a low-fat, vegetarian (vegan) diet in the absence of recommendations
> regarding exercise or other lifestyle changes. METHODS: Eleven subjects
with
> NIDDM recruited from the Georgetown University Medical Center or the local
> community were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (seven subjects)
or
> a conventional low-fat diet (four subjects). Two additional subjects
> assigned to the control group failed to complete the study. The diets were
> not designed to be isocaloric. Fasting serum glucose, body weight,
> medication use, and blood pressure were assessed at baseline and biweekly
> thereafter for 12 weeks. Serum lipids, glycosylated hemoglobin, urinary
> albumin, and dietary macronutrients were assessed at baseline and 12
weeks.
> RESULTS: Although the sample was intentionally small in accordance with
the
> pilot study design, the 28% mean reduction in fasting serum glucose of the
> experimental group, from 10.7 to 7.75 mmol/L (195 to 141 mg/dl), was
> significantly greater than the 12% decrease, from 9.86 to 8.64 mmol/L (179
> to 157 mg/dl), for the control group (P < 0.05). The mean weight loss was
> 7.2 kg in the experimental group, compared to 3. 8 kg for the control
group
> (P < 0.005). Of six experimental group subjects on oral hypoglycemic
agents,
> medication use was discontinued in one and reduced in three. Insulin was
> reduced in both experimental group patients on insulin. No patient in the
> control group reduced medication use. Differences between the diet groups
in
> the reductions of serum cholesterol and 24-h microalbuminuria did not
reach
> statistical significance; however, high-density lipoprotein concentration
> fell more sharply (0.20 mmol/L) in the experimental group than in the
> control group (0.02 mmol/L) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a low-fat,
> vegetarian diet in patients with NIDDM was associated with significant
> reductions in fasting serum glucose concentration and body weight in the
> absence of recommendations for exercise. A larger study is needed for
> confirmation. Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic
Press.
>
> PMID: 10446033
>
>
> Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83.
> A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk
> factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2
diabetes.
> Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Turner-McGrievy G, Gloede L, Jaster B,
> Seidl K, Green AA, Talpers S.
> Department of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine,
> Washington, DC, USA. nbarnard@pcrm.org
> OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate whether a low-fat vegan diet improves
> glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type
2
> diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes (n
=
> 99) were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (n = 49) or a diet
> following the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (n = 50).
> Participants were evaluated at baseline and 22 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-three
> percent (21 of 49) of the vegan group and 26% (13 of 50) of the ADA group
> participants reduced diabetes medications. Including all participants,
> HbA(1c) (A1C) decreased 0.96 percentage points in the vegan group and 0.56
> points in the ADA group (P = 0.089). Excluding those who changed
> medications, A1C fell 1.23 points in the vegan group compared with 0.38
> points in the ADA group (P = 0.01). Body weight decreased 6.5 kg in the
> vegan group and 3.1 kg in the ADA group (P < 0.001). Body weight change
> correlated with A1C change (r = 0.51, n = 57, P < 0.0001). Among those who
> did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol fell 21.2% in
the
> vegan group and 10.7% in the ADA group (P = 0.02). After adjustment for
> baseline values, urinary albumin reductions were greater in the vegan
group
> (15.9 mg/24 h) than in the ADA group (10.9 mg/24 h) (P = 0.013).
> CONCLUSIONS: Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines
> improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These
> improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet.
> Grant Support:
> R01 DK059362-01A2/DK/NIDDK
> PMID: 16873779
>
>
> hth
> Gys
>
>

#**109** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

Hi GYS,

Thanks for you astute observations and evidence based comments. Your's
is the kind of discourse I was hoping to find in this group, but have
mostly been very disappointed.

Last night I spent two hours on a detailed response only to find it
lost in Cyberspace. I'm sure you've all had that experience and its
quite frustrating so I have to expedite my remarks. Please forgive my
brevity. (I gota get to work.)

I would also like to say Hi to Wes. He also seem interested in real
discourse and I'll try to have my remarks cover his comments also..

My statements: (Please read all nine points). The bulk of the
references are at the end of the post.

1. I am not or have ever been a member of PETA or PRCN. I could care
less about their agendas. The Atkins episode and PRCN is atrocious and
if true I agree with your outrage, especially if they didn't
applogize. If anyone still accuses or implies that I have any
connection or sympathy with these groups after reading this "May you
die a slow and painfull death".

2. I do not dispute the great results reported in this group with the
LowCarb and displined metering approach. You guys have outstanding
and inspiring results. It I were you or Wes I doubt wouldn't change a
thing. I am not trying to convert anyone. Personally I perfer to eat a
Low Carb/Hi Protein diet. I much Salmon and Salid to Rice and Beans.

3. The "Barnard Study" has been critisized as regards its integrety.
As I have pointed out numerous times this should be demonstrated and
not assumed to be true. Its in a peer review publication and its
protcol approved by a reptuable body. If anyone is claiming that this
study is bogus because Benard is involved without any further proof I
cannot continue the discussion in this group. At that point our
discourse has degenerated where discussions are no longer possible. If
you claim that my source has bad methodology or bad data without some
sort of proof, then I can claim the same about your data and we get
nowhere. Ofcourse if you've got substantiation that the data is bad
thats a different story. Here's the details on the oversite and
funding for the study:

The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the
National
Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy or jimmying data to
for an agenda.

4. The Barnard study has been criticizsed by both Wes,GYS and OzyGirl
on the grounds that the ending A1C levels were nothing to brag about.
And I agree, especially considering what some of the folks in this
group report.
What cannot be disputed though is that the High Carb/Lower Fat group
did better, significanly better (when kept on same drugs) than the
Lower Carb/Higher Fat group.

Also please keep in mind that the none of the subjects in the Barnad
were allowed to burn significant calories in exercise. They did this
to remove exercise as a comfounder. The numbers might have been
alittly better otherwise.

5. My criticism of the Barnard study in that we don't know what the
subjects really ate. In fact the High Carb group was supposed to keep
their fat levels <15%, but were accepted if their food reports went up
to 25% (at that point were not even low fat anymore in my opinion).
And this was acertained by phone reports, what they really ate might
have been even higher fat.

6.What we need is a "Metabolic Ward Study", that is a study where we
put the subjects in jail (so to speak) and control exactly what they
eat.

Here's a study of 20 Insulin dependant men keep in a metabolic ward
(hospital) and feed a HIGH CARB/LOW FAT diet. Insulin needs decreased
from 26 units to 11 units. Nine subjects that needed 15 - 20 units of
insulin need none at the end of the study and 2 patients that needed
32 units of insulin needed none after 16 DAYS, without any weight
loss.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1979 Nov;32(11):2312-21
High-carbohydrate, high-fiber diets for insulin-treated men with
diabetes mellitus.Anderson JW, Ward K.

The effects of high-carbohydrate, high plant fiber (HCF) diets on
glucose and lipid metabolism of 20 lean men receiving insulin therapy
for diabetes mellitus were evaluated on a metabolic ward. All men
received control diets for an average of 7 days followed by HCF diets
for an average of 16 days. Diets were designed to be weight-
maintaining and there were no significant alterations in body weight.
The daily dose of insulin was lower for each patient on the HCF diet
than on the control diet. The average insulin dose was reduced from 26
+/- 3 units/day (mean +/- SEM) on the control diets to 11 +/- 3 (P
less than 0.001) on the HCF diets. On the HCF diets, insulin therapy
could be discontinued in nine patients receiving 15 to 20 units/day
and in two patients receiving 32 units/day. Fasting and 3-hr
postprandial plasma glucose values were lower in most patients on the
HCF diets than on the control diets despite lower insulin doses. Serum
cholesterol values dropped from 206 +/- 10 mg/dl on the control diets
to 147 +/- 5 (P less than 0.001) on the HCF diet; average fasting
serum triglyceride values were not significantly altered on the HCF
diets. These studies suggest that HCF diets may be the dietary therapy
of choice for certain patients with the maturity-onset type of
diabetes.

PMID: 495550 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7. Here's a recent metabolic ward study that looked 31 Obese men fed
Low Fat (<15) HighCarb diet for 3 weeks.
Although weight overall was slight, average Insulin Sensitivity was
increased 30%.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01292.2005v1

8. Please note that for these diets to work(according to its
supporters) the fat content of the diet must be very, very low <15.
That means No Nuts, No oils (of any kind), No avacados, No olives. The
idea behind this is the a certain kind of fat stored in muscles tisuse
called intramyocellular lipid. This fat is thought to be responsible
for insulin resistance. Please note that this is not viseral or
subcutaneous fat. If the Carbs in the diet are increased (according to
this theory) without reducing fat and thereby reducing
intramyocellular lipid, glycemic control will worsen. Thats the theory
anyway. Here's the support:

Veganism and its relationship with insulin resistance and
intramyocellular lipid.Goff LM, Bell JD, So PW, Dornhorst A, Frost
GS.
Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Metabolic Medicine,
Investigative Science, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College
Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that dietary factors in the vegan
diet lead to improved insulin sensitivity and lower intramyocellular
lipid (IMCL) storage. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Imperial
College School of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
SUBJECTS: A total of 24 vegans and 25 omnivores participated in this
study; three vegan subjects could not be matched therefore the matched
results are shown for 21 vegans and 25 omnivores. The subjects were
matched for gender, age and body mass index (BMI). INTERVENTIONS: Full
anthropometry, 7-day dietary assessment and physical activity levels
were obtained. Insulin sensitivity (%S) and beta-cell function (%B)
were determined using the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA). IMCL
levels were determined using in vivo proton magnetic resonance
spectroscopy; total body fat content was assessed by bioelectrical
impedance. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in sex,
age, BMI, waist measurement, percentage body fat, activity levels and
energy intake. Vegans had a significantly lower systolic blood
pressure (-11.0 mmHg, CI -20.6 to -1.3, P=0.027) and higher dietary
intake of carbohydrate (10.7%, CI 6.8-14.5, P<0.001), nonstarch
polysaccharides (20.7 g, CI 15.8-25.6, P<0.001) and polyunsaturated
fat (2.8%, CI 1.0-4.6, P=0.003), with a significantly lower glycaemic
index (-3.7, CI -6.7 to -0.7, P=0.01). Also, vegans had lower fasting
plasma triacylglycerol (-0.7 mmol/l, CI -0.9 to -0.4, P<0.001) and
glucose (-0.4 mmol/l, CI -0.7 to -0.09, P=0.05) concentrations. There
was no significant difference in HOMA %S but there was with HOMA %B
(32.1%, CI 10.3-53.9, P=0.005), while IMCL levels were significantly
lower in the soleus muscle (-9.7, CI -16.2 to -3.3, P=0.01).
CONCLUSION: Vegans have a food intake and a biochemical profile that
will be expected to be cardioprotective, with lower IMCL accumulation
and beta-cell protective.

PMID: 15523486 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Association of increased intramyocellular lipid content with insulin
resistance in lean nondiabetic offspring of type 2 diabetic
subjects.Jacob S, Machann J, Rett K, Brechtel K, Volk A, Renn W,
Maerker E, Matthaei S, Schick F, Claussen CD, Haring HU.
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Tubingen,
Germany.

Insulin resistance plays an important role in the pathogenesis of type
2 diabetes; however, the multiple mechanisms causing insulin
resistance are not yet fully understood. The aim of this study was to
explore the possible contribution of intramyocellular lipid content in
the pathogenesis of skeletal muscle insulin resistance. We compared
insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive subjects. To meet stringent
matching criteria for other known confounders of insulin resistance,
these individuals were selected from an extensively metabolically
characterized group of 280 first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetic
subjects. Some 13 lean insulin-resistant and 13 lean insulin-sensitive
subjects were matched for sex, age, BMI, percent body fat, physical
fitness, and waist-to-hip ratio. Insulin sensitivity was determined by
the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp method (for insulin-resistant
subjects, glucose metabolic clearance rate [MCR] was 5.77+/-0.28 ml x
kg(-1) x min(-1) [mean +/- SE]; for insulin-sensitive subjects, MCR
was 10.15+/-0.7 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1); P<0.002). Proton magnetic
resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was used to measure intramyocellular
lipid content (IMCL) in both groups. MRS studies demonstrated that in
soleus muscle, IMCL was increased by 84% (11.8+/-1.6 vs. 6.4+/-0.59
arbitrary units; P = 0.008 ), and in tibialis anterior muscle, IMCL
was increased by 57% (3.26+/-0.36 vs. 2.08+/-0.3 arbitrary units; P =
0.017) in the insulin-resistant offspring, whereas the
extramyocellular lipid content and total muscle lipid content were not
statistically different between the two groups. These data demonstrate
that in these well-matched groups of lean subjects, IMCL is increased
in insulin-resistant offspring of type 2 diabetic subjects when
compared with an insulin-sensitive group matched for age, BMI, body
fat distribution, percent body fat, and degree of physical fitness.
These results indicate that increased IMCL represents an early
abnormality in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance and suggest that
increased IMCL may contribute to the defective glucose uptake in
skeletal muscle in insulin-resistant subjects.

PMID: 10331418 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A high-fat diet coordinately downregulates genes required for
mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in skeletal muscle.Sparks LM,
Xie H, Koza RA, Mynatt R, Hulver MW, Bray GA, Smith SR.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge,
LA 70808, USA.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes have been associated with a high-fat diet
(HFD) and reduced mitochondrial mass and function. We hypothesized a
HFD may affect expression of genes involved in mitochondrial function
and biogenesis. To test this hypothesis, we fed 10 insulin-sensitive
males an isoenergetic HFD for 3 days with muscle biopsies before and
after intervention. Oligonucleotide microarray analysis revealed 297
genes were differentially regulated by the HFD (Bonferonni adjusted P
< 0.001). Six genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS)
decreased. Four were members of mitochondrial complex I: NDUFB3,
NDUFB5, NDUFS1, and NDUFV1; one was SDHB in complex II and a
mitochondrial carrier protein SLC25A12. Peroxisome proliferator-
activated receptor gamma coactivator-1 (PGC1) alpha and PGC1beta mRNA
were decreased by -20%, P < 0.01, and -25%, P < 0.01, respectively. In
a separate experiment, we fed C57Bl/6J mice a HFD for 3 weeks and
found that the same OXPHOS and PGC1 mRNAs were downregulated by
approximately 90%, cytochrome C and PGC1alpha protein by approximately
40%. Combined, these results suggest a mechanism whereby HFD
downregulates genes necessary for OXPHOS and mitochondrial biogenesis.
These changes mimic those observed in diabetes and insulin resistance
and, if sustained, may result in mitochondrial dysfunction in the
prediabetic/insulin-resistant state.

PMID: 15983191 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The take home message of the above is that if High Carbs and High Fats
do not mix!!

9. Here's general support for the High Carb/Low Fat approach.

High carbohydrate-high fibre diets in poorly controlled diabetes.
Lousley SE, Jones DB, Slaughter P, Carter RD, Jelfs R, Mann JI.

Fifteen non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients with persistently
elevated blood glucoses despite high doses of oral hypoglycaemic
agents, were randomly allocated to a high carbohydrate-high fibre diet
(HC) or a reinforced low carbohydrate diet (LC). After six weeks the
diets were reversed for a similar period. Immediately preceding the
study and at the end of each dietary period 24-h biochemical profiles
were performed. In the 11 patients who completed the study, fasting
and preprandial glucose, percentage glycosylated haemoglobin, VLDL
cholesterol and mean 24-h triglycerides were significantly lower on HC
than on LC or during the initial profile on their usual diet. There
was no significant difference in any of the measurements on LC
compared with the usual diet. Previous studies of high carbohydrate-
high fibre diets in diabetes have been carried out in relatively well-
controlled patients. These data show that poorly controlled non-
insulin-dependent patients have an even more striking response.

Publication Types:
Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PMID: 6100938 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot
intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet.Nicholson AS, Sklar M,
Barnard ND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning S.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Georgetown University
Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether glycemic and lipid control in
patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes (NIDDM) can be
significantly improved using a low-fat, vegetarian (vegan) diet in the
absence of recommendations regarding exercise or other lifestyle
changes. METHODS: Eleven subjects with NIDDM recruited from the
Georgetown University Medical Center or the local community were
randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (seven subjects) or a
conventional low-fat diet (four subjects). Two additional subjects
assigned to the control group failed to complete the study. The diets
were not designed to be isocaloric. Fasting serum glucose, body
weight, medication use, and blood pressure were assessed at baseline
and biweekly thereafter for 12 weeks. Serum lipids, glycosylated
hemoglobin, urinary albumin, and dietary macronutrients were assessed
at baseline and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Although the sample was
intentionally small in accordance with the pilot study design, the 28%
mean reduction in fasting serum glucose of the experimental group,
from 10.7 to 7.75 mmol/L (195 to 141 mg/dl), was significantly greater
than the 12% decrease, from 9.86 to 8.64 mmol/L (179 to 157 mg/dl),
for the control group (P < 0.05). The mean weight loss was 7.2 kg in
the experimental group, compared to 3. 8 kg for the control group (P <
0.005). Of six experimental group subjects on oral hypoglycemic
agents, medication use was discontinued in one and reduced in three.
Insulin was reduced in both experimental group patients on insulin. No
patient in the control group reduced medication use. Differences
between the diet groups in the reductions of serum cholesterol and 24-
h microalbuminuria did not reach statistical significance; however,
high-density lipoprotein concentration fell more sharply (0.20 mmol/L)
in the experimental group than in the control group (0.02 mmol/L) (P <
0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a low-fat, vegetarian diet in patients
with NIDDM was associated with significant reductions in fasting serum
glucose concentration and body weight in the absence of
recommendations for exercise. A larger study is needed for
confirmation. Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic
Press.
PMID: 10446033 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin
sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Sargrad KR, Homko C, Mozzoli M,
Boden G.
Nutrition Center, Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Drexel
University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. ksargrad@drexel.edu

BACKGROUND: Extremely low carbohydrate/high protein diets are popular
methods of weight loss. Compliance with these diets is poor and long-
term effectiveness and the safety of these diets for patients with
type 2 diabetes is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current
study was to evaluate effects of less extreme changes in carbohydrate
or protein diets on weight, insulin sensitivity, glycemic control,
cardiovascular risk factors (blood pressure, lipid levels), and renal
function in obese inner-city patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN:
Study patients were admitted to the General Clinical Research Center
for 24 hours for initial tests including a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic
clamp (for measurement of insulin sensitivity), bioelectrical
impedance analysis (BIA) and anthropometric measurements (for
assessment of body composition), indirect calorimetry (for measurement
of REE), electronic blood pressure monitoring, and blood chemistries
to measure blood lipids levels along with renal and hepatic functions.
Six patients with type 2 diabetes (five women and one man) were
randomly assigned to the high-protein diet (40% carbohydrate, 30%
protein, 30% fat) and six patients (four women and two men) to the
high-carbohydrate diet (55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, 30% fat). All
patients returned to the General Clinical Research Center weekly for
monitoring of food records; dietary compliance; and measurements of
body weight, blood pressure, and blood glucose. After 8 weeks on these
diets, all patients were readmitted to the General Clinical Research
Center for the same series of tests. INTERVENTION: Twelve study
patients were taught to select either the high-protein or high-
carbohydrate diet and were followed for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: Insulin sensitivity, hemoglobin A1c, weight, and blood
pressure were measured. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Statistical significance
was assessed using two-tailed Student's t tests and two-way repeated
measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Both the high-carbohydrate and
high-protein groups lost weight (-2.2+/-0.9 kg, -2.5+/-1.6 kg,
respectively, P <.05) and the difference between the groups was not
significant (P =.9). In the high-carbohydrate group, hemoglobin A1c
decreased (from 8.2% to 6.9%, P <.03), fasting plasma glucose
decreased (from 8.8 to 7.2 mmol/L, P <.02), and insulin sensitivity
increased (from 12.8 to 17.2 micromol/kg/min, P <.03). No significant
changes in these parameters occurred in the high-protein group,
instead systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased (-10.5+/-2.3
mm Hg, P =.003 and -18+/-9.0 mm Hg, P <.05, respectively). After 2
months on these hypocaloric diets, each diet had either no or minimal
effects on lipid levels (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein,
high-density lipoprotein), renal (blood urea nitrogen, serum
creatinine), or hepatic function (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine
aminotransferase, bilirubin).
PMID: 15800559 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

High carbohydrate, high fiber diets for patients with
diabetes.Anderson JW.

Thirty-three insulin-treated men with diabetes were hospitalized on a
metabolic ward and fed control diets (43% carbohydrate) for 6 to 11
days followed by high carbohydrate (70%), high fiber (HCF) diets for
12-35 days. Fasting blood glucose, cholesterol and triglyceride values
were significantly lower on HCF diets than on control diets despite
significantly (p less than 0.01) lower insulin doses on the HCF diets.
HCF diets were accompanied by increased insulin sensitivity and by
binding of insulin by monocytes. Patients who responded well to the
diet in the hospital have maintained comparable glucose, cholesterol
and triglyceride values as well as lower insulin doses for an average
of 20 months on maintenance diets (60% carbohydrate). The high
carbohydrate and low fat content of these HCF diets seem to play the
predominant role in the improved glucose metabolism of these patients
whereas the high plant fiber content may be responsible for the
reduction in serum cholesterol and triglyceride values. These studies
suggest that HCF diets may have an important place in the management
of patients with the maturity-onset type of diabetes.
PMID: 495284 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Decreased insulin requirement and improved control of diabetes in
pregnant women given a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet.Ney
D, Hollingsworth DR, Cousins L.

Five quantitative measures of diabetic control [HbA1c determinations,
mean 24-h plasma glucose values, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions
(MAGE), mean 24-h urinary loss of glucose, and daily exogenous insulin
requirement] were compared in 20 pregnant women who were randomly
assigned to either a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet (HCF) that was
low in fat or to a control diet commonly prescribed for pregnancy.
Eleven women followed the HCF diet and nine subjects, the control
diet, from baseline entry into the study until delivery. Dietary
compliance was excellent, with 78% of the women in each group rated
good or acceptable. HbA1c values were similar in both groups at
baseline (HCF: 11.0 +/- 0.5% versus control: 10.2 +/- 0.6%), with no
different predelivery values (8.6 +/- 0.4%). Mean 24-h plasma glucose
levels improved in patients on both diets, with lower values noted in
the HCF group at predelivery. MAGE values and standard deviations did
not differ significantly in the two groups. Glycosuria decreased
markedly in both dietary groups, but differences between groups were
not significant. Improved control of diabetes on the HCF diet was
achieved with significantly lower increments in insulin dose during
gestation (HCF baseline: 32 +/- 8 U/24 h to 66 +/- 10 U/24 h versus
control baseline: 27 +/- 9 U/24 h to 108 +/- 12 U/24 h, P less than
0.03). Outcome of pregnancy did not differ in the two groups of
patients, but women on the HCF diet gained less weight than those on
the control diet (26 +/- 3 lb versus 35 +/- 5 lb, P less than 0.05).
Mean newborn gestational age was similar in the two groups (HCF: 37.2
+/- 0.7 wk versus control: 36.5 +/- 0.7 wk). Mean birth weight in
infants of HCF mothers was 3809 +/- 248 g versus 3313 +/- 278 g in
infants of control mothers (P less than 0.05). We conclude that
although marked improvement of diabetic control occurred on both
regimens, patients on the HCF diet achieved better control of diabetes
with significantly lower increments in exogenous insulin.
PMID: 6329613 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reversal of diet-induced obesity and diabetes in C57BL/6J mice.Parekh
PI, Petro AE, Tiller JM, Feinglos MN, Surwit RS.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University
Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

We have previously shown that C57BL/6J (B6) mice develop severe
obesity and diabetes if weaned onto high-fat diets, whereas A/J mice
tend to be obesity and diabetes-resistant. The purpose of this study
was to determine if obesity and diabetes in the B6 mouse could be
completely reversed by reducing dietary fat content. After 4 months,
both strains consumed more calories on a high-fat diet than on a low-
fat diet, and both strains showed a higher feed efficiency (FE=weight
gained/calories consumed) on the high-fat diet versus the low-fat
diet. However, relative to A/J mice, B6 mice demonstrated a
significantly higher FE on the high-fat diet. Hyperglycemia,
hyperinsulinemia, and increased adiposity were apparent in B6 mice
after 4 months on the high-fat diet regardless of whether the diet was
begun at weaning or 4 months later. Correlational analyses showed that
adiposity was strongly related to both insulin and glucose levels in
B6 mice, but only moderately related to insulin levels in A/J mice. In
obese B6 mice that were switched to a low-fat diet, obesity and
diabetes were completely reversed. Adiposity, fasting glucose, and
fasting insulin values in these mice were equivalent to those in B6
mice of the same age that had spent 8 months on the low-fat diet. In
summary, our data show that in the B6 mouse the severity of diabetes
is a direct function of obesity and diabetes is completely reversible
by reducing dietary fat.
PMID: 9751238 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I've got more stuff that I'll provide tonight, but I hope this study
heats things up a bit.

I very much appreciate all those that disagree but are willing to have
an intelligent discussion.

Best Regards
Randy F

> So I consider the author of this article to be the expert on the effect of a
> vegan diet on diabetes II.In his reference list there are
> 1,2,3,4,22,23,24,27 = 8 references on the connection between the vegan diet
> and diabetes. Of these 2,22 =2 are not from this research group.It is not
> uncommon to find 50 references , so 10 is very few and only 2 from outside
> is _very_ few.I'm very intrigued by this concept so I spent a few hours to
> see if I could find some more literature.I did not.If you have more , or
> newer , literature I would be very gratefull if you would share it here.
>
> Ok
> So the concept seems rather new.There used to be a poster here by the name
> of "Anil".He (I'm not sure if it is a "he" , sorry if you are a "she" Anil)
> had some very good recipes for vegan food.His concept was to use the
> sprouted version of all kinds of seeds.I tried it myself and it did not
> spike me at all.So the sprouting technique of Anil is within my FE.I'm 61 ,
> lean , muscular and got enough beta cells left.The sprouted things have more
> protein and mico nutrients so I like it for myself.I also like the concept
> that it does not harm a living creature or the existense of the earth
> itself.
>
> Ok
> Here is a quote:
>
> "The vegan diet (10% of energy from fat, 15% protein, and 75% carbohydrate)
> consisted of vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes. Participants were
> asked to avoid animal products and added fats and to favor low-glycemic
> index foods, such as beans and green vegetables."
>
> Now , if I may compare this to my diet , this is what I do except I like to
> add more protein.My FE would definitely alow me this diet.I would like to
> add more nuts and beans and go easy on the grain.So for me this would mean
> more energy from fat (nuts) and protein (nuts and beans).Only because I like
> the concept of more muscle is more GLUT4 transporters = lower bloodglucose ,
> because a moving muscle does not need insulin.And more muscle = more
> protein.
>
> We must also realise that this diet is high , or even very high , in
> fiber.If you don't panic by the first high bg reading and keep doing this
> diet for a few days than the indigestible fiber will cause the growth of
> friendly bacteria in your intestines.They will digest the fiber for you.In
> the process they will produce short chain fatty acids.These will stimulate
> the l-cells in your intestine to produce GLP-1 , the incretin hormone . This
> is the natuaral feedback signal for insuline.Or to make it more blunt : more
> of this vegan diet will lower your bg by incretins.If this vegan diet or a
> high fiber diet is for some reason not in your FE , than you can use the
> more powerfull pharmaceutical incretin mimetics like Byetta or
> Sitagliptin.Or if that does not help maybe even barriatic surgery.....
>
> Here is another quote :
>
> "Both groups reduced energy intake .Vegan 1759 to 1425 kcal/day ADA 1846 to
> 1391 kcal/ day "
>
> (I left out the statistics) If you look on the ADA website they recommend
> 2800 kcal/day for men so this is about half...The "ton" of carb is just a
> relative "ton" In absolute amounts it is just a little bit

Now I
> personally think that this is a very good feature of the diet.I think , and
> a have lots of literature on this , that calorie restriction is good . You
> will even live longer.The question is of course : can you really do it ????
> Also eating less in itself very good for you if you are an over weight T2.It
> will cause you to loose adipose tissue.Belly fat.This fat is actually a
> hormone producing organ.It produces adiponectin , visfatin , grehlin , TNF
> and other inflamation signals.Less fat = very good indeed . The author
> himself admits that the calorie restriction maybe responsible for a large
> part of the effect : page 1782 :
>
> "First, because such diets are low in fat and high in fiber, they typically
> cause associated reductions in dietary energy density and energy intake,
> which are not fully compensated for by increased food intake (16,17). Our
> data suggest that the weight-reducing effect of the vegan diet (4) is
> responsible for a substantial portion of its effect on A1C."
>
> No for the effect ( see table 2 on page 1780 , only for the vegan and my
> diet as I posted before)
>
> Vegan A1c from 8.0 to 7.1 = 0.9 %
>
> My A1c from 10.3 to 5.0 = 5.3 %
>
> Vegan body weight 97 to 91 = 6 kg
> My body weight 117 to 74 = 43 kg
>
> Vegan Fasting bg 9.1 to 7.1 = 2.0 mmol/l
> My Fasting bg 15.3 to 4.6 = 10.7 mmol/l
>
> To be honest I'm not impressed by the effect of the diet.To be honest an A1c
> of 7.1 is still rather high and a body weight change of 6 kg is not what
> most people here would consider worth while talking about.A body mass index
> of 31.8 will still leave you in the danger zone.
>
> The article does not state what exactly was eaten.It does state that no
> meals were dictated.You could e-mail the author to ask him if he has any
> comments on that.Seems important to me if you would like to give it a try.If
> you do a radical change from your high meat and starch diet to vegan than I
> hope you will let us know how it worked for you.
>
> To summarize :
> the diet is no mystery to me .It is high in carb , but this is compensated
> by the fact that it is very high in fiber (incretin effect) , low glycemic
> and calorie restricted (good for weight loss and loss of adipose tissue).I
> believe that it produces the (mild) effects the authors are reporting.
>
> I think this diet is in my FE . I personally like the same amount of fiber ,
> but a bit more protein and fat.The fiber will stop the hunger.The protein
> will build more muscle and is very effective in stopping the hunger.The
> (mono unsaturated) fat will give me a bit more energy and more
> palatability.So .... I'm still thinking about a change to vegetarian.For me
> this would mean no more meat but more nuts and beans and thus not a diet
> high in carbs but a diet high in fiber and fat , moderate in protein and
> still low in carbs.
>
> Nice to see that the thread came back to live

>
> hth
> Gys

#**110** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

On Apr 30, 3:31ï¿½pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2007 11:38:54 -0700, Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 30, 2:21?am, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 29 Apr 2007 23:18:07 -0700, Kurt
>
> >> <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Randy,
>
> >> >This place is chock full of conspiracy theorists.
> ut you will soon
> >> >find that out for yourself. * * * *f you post something that goes against
> >> >low carbing then the usual suspects will attack it like sharks in a
> >> >feeding frenzy. *ow if you can find a study that says low carbing is
> >> >the only way to go... well then you will be lauded as a Saint and the
> >> >study will go unquestioned. *kay, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but it
> >> >will at least seem that way.

>
> >> >Kurt
>
> >> Hi Kurt
>
> >> Try to put aside your antipathy to me for a moment.
>
> >Try to put aside your everpresent need to tell others how they should
> >think and what they should write and worry about yourself for a
> >change.
>
> >Thank you.
>
> >Kurt
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

http://users.aol.com/coffeeweb/LO/graphics/denmom.jpg

Kurt

#**111** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

randy@val.com wrote:
> Jim Wrote:
>> When analyzing a study, ALWAYS look at who funded it. When the study
>> strongly substantiates the premise of the funding body or the principal
>> researcher, that should cause serious skepticism. Just because a
>> study gets cataloged by MEDLINE doesn't give it credibility.
>
> Well sure ofcourse, but one of the functions of Medline is too only
> make available publicatons that meet certain criteria for ojectivity.
> Ofcourse its not perfect but all sorts of checks and balances are put
> in place.

I think you don't really understand MedLine.
And, did you say this was a peer-reviewed study?
Where does it say that? I see on the first page
the A.D.A. was paid to publish it.

> Why didn't you look as see who funded this study I posted it recently.
> It was funded by the "National Institure of Diabetes, Digestion and
> Kidney disease and the Diabetes Action and Research and Education
> Foundation". If you know these to organization are suspect, please
> post such. All you've done is suggest it could be so and then implied
> that it is so.

I believe the NIDDK is a sincere and honest professional organization.
I'm not so sure about the DARE. Google can only find TWO mentions of
them on the web. One is their own website; the other is a mention
(NOT an endorsement) by the NIH saying that they fund research.
"We [NIH] are not responsible for the content of external links."

I took a look at DARE's website. Guess who is at the top of
their list of board members? Yep, Neal Barnard.

> The protocal was approved by "George Washington University
> Institutional Review Board"

That means that the IRB at GWU looked at the methods the authors said
they planned to use and agreed that there was no obvious unethical
treatment of participants. It does NOT mean that GWU considers the
study as significant or agrees with the results.

> The study listed exactly what the subject ate. The Vegan diet was 75%
> Carb 15% Protein and 10% Protein and no animal products.
> It also listed exactly what the control group ate.

No, it did not. It stated that the particpants were asked to follow
the guidelines of one or the other dietary approach, neither of which
requires specific foods, although one forbids certain foods.

It also says that of the fairly small group of subjects, only two-thirds
of the vegan group and less than half of the ADA group were believed to
have complied with their requested diets. And yet the abstract bases
its claims of vegan superiority on ALL participants.

It also says that almost half of the vegan group and a quarter of the
ADA group changed their meds due to hypoglycemia. To me, that means:

1. The change in medications needs to be considered as a factor
in the results (since they base their conclusion on ALL subjects)

2. If almost half of a HIGH A1c group is having hypos, I find it hard
to believe that they were truly on a high-carb diet.

3. The A.D.A. diet is safer than the PETA diet regarding hypos.

A particular significant point NOT in the abstract: If you take
those people who did NOT change their meds (page 1779), the differences
in A1c are seen to correlate with change in body weight, NOT in which
diet. Those on the vegan diet lost more weight on average.

I am not certain what this statement means: "Because assignment was done
simultaneously, allocation concealment was unnecessary" It probably has
some connection with the study not being "blind," but whether it has
greater significance, I don't know.

I do see that two of the four dietitians that gave weekly advice to the
participants are associated with PCRM, and therefore must be presumed to
be at risk of biasing the results. I have no clue whether the other two
are PCRM supporters--certainly not hostile, else they would not be
listed as authors.

I am not a statistician, so I can't be dogmatic about this, but I think
the P-values for fasting plasma glucose (0.92) on page 2891 indicate
that the difference is meaningless. For A1c, P=0.09 is better, but
still way over what I'm used to seeing regarding "significant."

For lipids, P-values range from 0.34 to 0.92--again, hardly impressive.

I also wonder about the requirements for participation, which reduced
the size of the study to 99 people. I don't know how many answered the
advertisement, but they selected a thousand people for screening, and
turned down over 90% of them.

Finally, several of us said already, even if all the P values were
stellar, there's nothing to impress about _slight_ differences among
two groups whose health indicators went from very bad to almost as bad
over 22 weeks.

--
Wes Groleau

Expert, n.:
Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.

#**112** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

J.C. Hartman Wrote:
> A little research on the Diabetes Action Research & Education Foundation
> shows that somebody named Neal Barnard, M.D, Physicians Committee for
> Responsible Medicine, happens to be on their Medical Advisory Board.
> What an interesting coincidence!

Randy Replies:
So does this mean the study is invalid without proof or errors or
wrong doing??

#**113** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

On Apr 30, 3:35?pm, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:

> I still don't see any changes significant enough to warrant crowing about.

I don't think Randy is or was crowing about anything. He presented a
study and then the crows here attacked it and him like an ear of corn.

Kurt

#**114** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

J J Levin wrote:
> These are not laws, and there is no punishment. It's simply a matter of
> polite behavior. Before the Internet, it was considered to trash one own's
> politicians when you were outside the country. George McGovern came under a
> lot of fire (you youngsters, this was in 1972) when he went to Oxford and
> railed against Richard Nixon. He was told -- by his friends, among others --
> to limit his criticism to when he was within his own country.

When people are getting hurt, silence is not politeness.

If you _think_ people are getting hurt and you are wrong,
your silence might turn out for the best, but it's still
no credit to your character.

--
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
-- Benjamin Franklin

#**115** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

"Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177975048.741901.153290@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com...
> On Apr 30, 3:35?pm, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:
>
> > I still don't see any changes significant enough to warrant crowing
about.

>
> I don't think Randy is or was crowing about anything. He presented a
> study and then the crows here attacked it and him like an ear of corn.

I never said it was Randy, I am talking aobu tthose writing the reports of
the trial.

#**116** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

randy@val.com (>) and somebody elsde (>>) wrote:
>> So now we get to the heart of the matter, eh?
>>
>> You're a PETA pusher. You offer quack science by a documented liar.
>> Bugger off - I'm having steak and eggs for breakfast.
>>
>> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/3178
>>
>> http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html
>
> Your comment is irresponible and objectively irrelavent.

No comment on his/her comment.
But the links ARE relevant.

The first shows that Neal Barnard is not merely a quack,
he's an outright liar.

The second shows that the American Dietetic Association,
the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical
Association, and others are FAR from supportive of PCRM.

--
Wes Groleau
http://groleau.freeshell.org/teaching/

#**117** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

Bittersweet: Wrote:
> Randy --
>
> I was responding to your statement that "the Higher Carb group had
> lower A1C levels". (It was quoted in the part of my post that you
> removed.) You did not say "a specific subset of the Higher Carb group
> had lower A1c levels."
>
> So, since there was no mention of a specific subset,just of the two
> groups as a whole, it only made sense to refer to the overall numbers
> of the two groups. And overall, the slightly-lower-carb group had
> slightly lower starting and stopping values than the higher-carb
> group, although the changes in both groups were nearly identical.
>
> (I am not intentionally being "unfair", since I am not at all biased
> toward either of these two approaches. Neither is one that I would
> ever follow.)

More than fair enough and please accept my appologies. Really!!
And I believe that you are not taking sides.

Sincerest Regards
Randy

#**118** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

<randy@val.com> wrote in message
news:1177975592.061200.280210@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> J.C. Hartman Wrote:
> > A little research on the Diabetes Action Research & Education Foundation
> > shows that somebody named Neal Barnard, M.D, Physicians Committee for
> > Responsible Medicine, happens to be on their Medical Advisory Board.
> > What an interesting coincidence!
>
> Randy Replies:
> So does this mean the study is invalid without proof or errors or
> wrong doing??

More likely to be a bias than bogus.
>

#**119** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

randy@val.com wrote:
> J.C. Hartman Wrote:
>> A little research on the Diabetes Action Research & Education Foundation
>> shows that somebody named Neal Barnard, M.D, Physicians Committee for
>> Responsible Medicine, happens to be on their Medical Advisory Board.
>> What an interesting coincidence!
>
> Randy Replies:
> So does this mean the study is invalid without proof or errors or
> wrong doing??
>
Randy,

I'm wondering why, as a first poster to this NG, you are so invested in
this particular study? Do you have a vegan viewpoint, or even a point to
your enthusiastic defense of it?

This is one study, and its results are not spectacular. It's the
somewhat deceptive methods and conclusions plus the possible biased
agenda of the players that brought out the skeptics.

Remember, a nickle is 5x a penny!!!! But it's still just five cents.

Jim

#**120** 05-01-2007, 12:45 AM

randy@val.com wrote:
> The study is a not connected with PCRM in anyway (and neither am I).
> I can understand your distaste for this organization, but it has no
> bearing on the study.

It isn't? Half of the authors are admitted as "from the PCRM,"
the principal author is its founder, and two of its members
advised the participants on diet.

> Ofcourse if you can site some real reasons to doubt the validity of
> the study results that's a different matter.
>>From my vantage point its seems the necessary controls were in place
> to trust their findings.
> The protocol was supervised and approved by "George Washington
> University Institutional Review Board" and funded by "The National
> Institute of Diabetes, Digestion and Kidney Disease" and the National
> Action Research and Education Foundation". Neither of these groups
> would risk sullying their repution by fascifngy data to for an agenda.

If they actually funded the study, that does not guarantee they
endorse its conclusions, nor that they disapprove. Did they?
Can't trust anything Barnard says.

> Ofcourse I could be wrong, but unless you or someone else can supply
> proof the to show a conspricy, I must accept the data as valid. If we
> can't get past this point I have no interest in posting.
>
> Besides there are enough weaknesses in the study to attack on its own.
>
> And more on that very shortly.

More on that by me already elsewhere in this thread.

--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.