Grains promote CVD and liver fat, saturated fats lower risk

x-no-archive: yes



http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox1,2
Robert H Knopp and Barbara M Retzlaff
1 From the Northwest Lipid Research Clinic, University of Washington
School of Medicine, Seattle

2 Address reprint requests to RH Knopp, Northwest Lipid Research
Clinic, University of Washington, School of Medicine, 325 9th Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98104. E-mail: rhknopp@u.washington.edu.

See corresponding article on page 1175.


It is an article of faith that saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol and
accelerates coronary artery disease, whereas unsaturated fatty acids
have the opposite effect (1, 2). One of the earliest and most
convincing studies of the better efficacy of unsaturated than of
saturated fat in reducing cholesterol and heart disease is the Finnish
Mental Hospital Study conducted in the 12 y between 1959 and 1971. In
this study, the usual high-saturated-fat institutional diet was
compared with an equally high-fat diet in which the saturated fat in
dairy products was replaced with soybean oil and soft margarine and
polyunsaturated fats were used in cooking. Each diet was provided for 6
y and then the alternate diet was provided for the next 6 y (3). After
a comparison of the effects of the 2 diets in both men and women, the
incidence of coronary artery disease was lower by 50% and 65% after the
consumption of polyunsaturated fat in the 2 hospitals.

In this issue of the Journal, Mozaffarian et al (4) report the opposite
association. They found that a higher saturated fat intake is
associated with less progression of coronary artery disease according
to quantitative angiography. How can this paradox be explained? In
food-frequency questionnaires, saturated fat intake is more precisely
estimated than is total fat. If saturated fat is more precisely
estimated, it will associate more strongly in statistical analyses with
the outcome variable, even though other variables-such as total fat
or carbohydrate-could be more relevant physiologically. We believe
that these possibilities deserve a closer look.

Unlike the diet used in the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, the diet
described by Mozaffarian et al was low in fat, averaging 25% of energy.
The study subjects were women with coronary artery disease: most were
hypertensive, many had diabetes (19-31%), their body mass index
(kg/m2) ranged from 29 to 30, and their lipid profile indicated
combined hyperlipidemia (triacylglycerol concentration: 200 mg/dL;
HDL-cholesterol concentration: 40-50 mg/dL; above-average LDL
concentration: 135-141 mg/dL); these characteristics are consistent
with the metabolic syndrome. In addition, two-thirds of these women
were taking sex hormones. The importance of each of these points is
addressed below.

What are the effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet in comparison
with those of a higher-fat, lower-carbohydrate diet? The response
differs by the 2 main types of hyperlipidemia: simple
hypercholesterolemia and combined hyperlipidemia. In our studies of
simple hypercholesterolemia in men, a fat intake <25% of energy and a
carbohydrate intake >60% of energy was associated with a sustained
increase in triacylglycerol of 40%, a decrease in HDL cholesterol of
3.5%, and no further decrease in LDL in comparison with higher fat
intakes (5). In contrast, a low-fat diet in persons with combined
hyperlipidemia caused no worsening of triacylglycerol or HDL, but
intakes of fat >40% of energy and of carbohydrate <45% of energy for 2
y were associated with a lower triacylglycerol concentration at a
stable weight (6). In the subjects of Mozaffarian et al, a greater
saturated fat intake paralleled a total fat intake, which ranged from
18% to 32% of energy in the first to fourth quartiles. Modest favorable
trends in triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol concentrations were
observed with higher fat intakes.

Triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol concentrations are stronger
predictors of coronary artery disease in women, whereas the
LDL-cholesterol concentration is a stronger predictor in men (7).
Because VLDL triacylglycerol secretion and removal rates in healthy
women are double those of men (8), conditions impairing lipoprotein
removal would be expected to exaggerate the hyperlipidemic response in
women as compared with that in men (9). This sex difference is seen
with the development of diabetes. The increment in lipids is greater in
women than in men and is associated with a greater increment in
coronary artery disease risk in women than in men (9). Similarly, the
development of insulin resistance and obesity is associated with a
greater lipoprotein increment in women than in men (10). The
exaggerated decreases in HDL- and HDL2-cholesterol concentrations
observed with the consumption of a low-fat Step II diet in women but
not in men appear to be another facet of this effect (11).

The failure of female sex hormones to prevent coronary artery disease
has been a great disappointment (9). This effect might also be due to
an estrogen-induced increase in lipoprotein entry against a fixed or
impaired rate of lipoprotein removal, as might be expected in women
with the metabolic syndrome and coronary artery disease.

Would saturated fat still be bad for anyone? Not necessarily. The
effect of saturated fat and cholesterol ingestion in the form of 4
eggs/d for 1 mo in obese, insulin-resistant subjects is 33% of that
seen in lean, insulin-sensitive subjects, likely because of diminished
cholesterol absorption (12). Thus, the classic effects of saturated fat
as compared with those of unsaturated fat seen in the Finnish Mental
Hospital Study are likely blunted in the subjects of Mozaffarian et al,
whereas the effects of low fat and high carbohydrate intakes on
triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol concentrations appear to be
exaggerated by the interactions of female sex, exogenous sex hormones,
and the metabolic syndrome. A major effect on cardiovascular disease
risk would be the result of hypertriglyceridemia and low
HDL-cholesterol concentrations, which are attenuated by an increase in
saturated fat intake itself or in total fat intake, for which saturated
fat is a more statistically stable surrogate (4).

In conclusion, the hypothesis-generating report of Mozaffarian et al
draws attention to the different effects of diet on lipoprotein
physiology and cardiovascular disease risk. These effects include the
paradox that *********a high-fat, high-saturated fat diet is associated with
diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the
metabolic syndrome, a condition that is epidemic in the United States.
This paradox presents a challenge to differentiate the effects of
dietary fat on lipoproteins and cardiovascular disease risk in men and
women, in the different lipid disorders, and in the metabolic
syndrome.*************


REFERENCES


Kinsell LW, Michaels GD, Cochrane GC, Partridge JW, Jahn JP, Balch HE.
Effect of vegetable fat on hypercholesterolemia and
hyperphospholipidemia: observations on diabetic and nondiabetic
subjects given diets high in vegetable fat and protein. Diabetes
1954;3:113-9.[Medline]
Grundy SM, Denke MA. Dietary influences on serum lipids and
lipoproteins. J Lipid Res 1990;31:1149-72.[Abstract]
Miettinen M, Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Elosuo R, Paavilainen E. Effect
of cholesterol-lowering diet on mortality from coronary heart-disease
and other causes. A twelve-year clinical trial in men and women. Lancet
1972;2:835-8.[Medline]
Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB, Herrington DM. Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and
progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. Am J
Clin Nutr 2004;80:1175-84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Knopp RH, Walden CE, Retzlaff BM, et al. Long-term cholesterol-lowering
effects of 4 fat-restricted diets in hypercholesterolemic and combined
hyperlipidemic men. The Dietary Alternatives Study. JAMA
1997;278:1509-15.[Abstract]
Retzlaff BM, Walden CE, Dowdy AA, McCann BS, Anderson KV, Knopp RH.
Changes in plasma triacylglycerol concentrations among free-living
hyperlipidemic men adopting different carbohydrate intakes over 2 y:
the Dietary Alternatives Study. Am J Clin Nutr
1995;62:988-95.[Abstract]
Knopp RH, Zhu X, Bonet B. Effects of estrogens on lipoprotein
metabolism and cardiovascular disease in women. Atherosclerosis
1994;110(suppl):S83-91.[Medline]
Mittendorfer B, Patterson BW, Klein S. Effect of sex and obesity on
basal VLDL-triacylglycerol kinetics. Am J Clin Nutr
2003;77:573-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Barrett-Connor E, Giardina EG, Gitt AK, Gudat U, Steinberg HO, Tschoepe
D. Women and heart disease: the role of diabetes and hyperglycemia.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:934-42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Aikawa K, Retzlaff B, Fish B, et al. Dyslipidemia of insulin resistance
and obesity: gender differences. Circulation 2002;106(suppl 2):II-75
(abstr 377).
Walden CE, Retzlaff BM, Buck BL, Wallick S, McCann BS, Knopp RH.
Differential effect of the National Cholesterol Education Program
(NCEP) Step II diet on HDL cholesterol, its subfractions, and
apoprotein A-I levels in hypercholesterolemic women and men after 1
year: the beFIT Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol
2000;20:1580-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Knopp RH, Retzlaff B, Fish B, et al. Effects of insulin resistance and
obesity on lipoproteins and sensitivity to egg feeding. Arterioscler
Thromb Vasc Biol 2003;23:1437-43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

---

High-Grain Diet May Increase Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

American Journal Clinical Nutrition January 2003 77: 43-50

When humans consume more carbohydrates than can be stored, the excess
carbohydrate energy is converted to fat by the liver. This process may
maintain blood sugar control and prevent diabetes in the short-term,
however it may also increase triglyceride concentrations, which may
increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

In the last decade, researchers established that fat production by the
liver varies depending on dietary habits and health status.

The typical Western diet has a high fat content, which means that only
a limited amount of carbohydrates are available for liver fat
production, and liver fat production tends to be very low among
individuals who eat this type of diet. However, when too many
carbohydrates were consumed, both liver fat and sugar production were
increased.

A very low-fat (10 percent of energy) and very high-carbohydrate (75
percent of energy) diet also leads to increased liver fat production,
with the increase being even more pronounced when more than half of
the carbohydrate was consumed as simple sugars. This points to the
importance of carbohydrate quality, as another study using 68 percent
of energy from complex carbohydrate resulted in minimal liver fat
production.

However, it was found that obese individuals with high insulin levels
who consume a high-fat (40 percent of energy) diet had a liver fat
production rate three to four times higher than that of lean
individuals with normal insulin levels. But, both normal and high
insulin groups had lower liver fat production on the high-fat diet
than on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

Moreover, the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet caused an increase in
triglyceride concentrations, a risk factor for coronary heart disease,
which was associated with the liver fat production in both normal and
high-insulin individuals.

Researchers concluded that the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet might
not be ideal, as it can induce liver fat production and insulin
resistance. This is especially true when most of the carbohydrate is
in the form of simple sugars.

--

1: Am J Clin Nutr 2003 Jan;77(1):43-50

Hepatic de novo lipogenesis in normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic
subjects consuming high-fat, low-carbohydrate and low-fat,
high-carbohydrate isoenergetic diets.

Schwarz JM, Linfoot P, Dare D, Aghajanian K.

Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology, University of
California, Berkeley (J-MS and KA), and the Department of Medicine,
University of California, San Francisco (J-MS, PL, and DD).

BACKGROUND: Hypertriglyceridemia is associated with increased risk of
cardiovascular disease. Until recently, the importance of hepatic de
novo lipogenesis (DNL) in contributing to hypertriglyceridemia was
difficult to assess because of methodologic limitations. OBJECTIVE: We
evaluated the extent of the contribution by DNL to different
conditions associated with hypertriglyceridemia. DESIGN: After 5 d of
an isoenergetic high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, fasting DNL was
measured in normoinsulinemic (/= 115 pmol/L) obese (n = 8) subjects.
Fasting DNL was measured after a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet in
normoinsulinemic lean (n = 5) and hyperinsulinemic obese (n = 5)
subjects. Mass isotopomer distribution analysis was used to measure
the fraction of newly synthesized fatty acids in VLDL-triacylglycerol.
RESULTS: With the high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, hyperinsulinemic
obese subjects had a 3.7-5.3-fold higher fractional DNL (8.5 +/- 0.7%)
than did normoinsulinemic lean (1.6 +/- 0.5%) or obese (2.3 +/- 0.3%)
subjects. With the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, normoinsulinemic
lean and hyperinsulinemic obese subjects had similarly high fractional
DNL (13 +/- 5.1% and 12.8 +/- 1.4%, respectively). Compared with
baseline, consumption of the high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet did not
affect triacylglycerol concentrations. However, after the low-fat,
high-carbohydrate diet, triacylglycerols increased significantly and
DNL was 5-6-fold higher than in normoinsulinemic subjects consuming a
high-fat diet. The increase in triacylglycerol after the low-fat,
high-carbohydrate diet was correlated with fractional DNL (P < 0.01),
indicating that subjects with high DNL had the greatest increase in
triacylglycerols.

>>>>>CONCLUSIONS: These results support the concept that
both hyperinsulinemia and a low-fat diet increase DNL, and that DNL
contributes to hypertriglyceridemia.*****

PMID: 12499321 [PubMed - in process]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:44:27 -0500, Susan <susan@nothanks.org> wrote:

What's fascinating is that not only the people like Ronald Krauss (who
has been out there for years), Richard Feinman, Eric Westman, Mary
Gannon, Frank Nuttall and of course Jeff Volek, who I knew was a
lifter but hadn't realised was actually a powerlifting *champion*,
which he obviously couldn't do if his diet was crap, have been
championing reducing EXCESSIVE carbohydrates for years, aided and
abetted by the likes of Elizabeth Parks, but now people who have
always been comparatively conventional, like Frank Hu (who recently
worked with Ron Krauss) and Simin Liu now he's a professor, and now
Mozaffarian, are coming round to seeing the error of their former
ways.

IMO the only problem with saturated fat is that it amplifies the
effect of excessive carbohydrates. Without the carbs it can't do that.

Hmmm, Stephan may only have a PhD in neurobiology so is only an
amateur with a blog <G> but he's put together a load of information
from official sources like the USDA and NHANES

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...et-trends.html

and Ricardo has gone even further

http://www.canibaisereis.com/2009/03...alth-database/

(it's not all in Portugese)

Makes it look suspiciously like people ARE eating the diet they were
recommended to eat, and this is the direct cause of the "epidemics" of
obesity and cardiovascular disease, ie insulin resistance.

Not only that but doing the opposite works to make "healthy" people in
the "fitness community" even healthier

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

plus all the spin-off primal and paleo blogs and websites

Some of them make my improvements, like doubling my HDL and literally
decimating my trigs look positively puny

Here's some stuff I dug up recently

http://trinkwasser.wordpress.com/201...ional-science/

didn't know that wheat killed cows as well as people, it may be full
of nutrients but also antinutrients like lectins, phytates and wheat
germ agglutinin which the dieticians forget to tell you about

"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:7bu7p51op6bknpfmhakkggmc286fcmvuvs@4ax.com...

hi Trink, long time no see
thanks for the links to your interesting blog

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:52:30 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7bu7p51op6bknpfmhakkggmc286fcmvuvs@4ax.com.. .
>
>hi Trink, long time no see
>thanks for the links to your interesting blog

It's a bit unfinished but the links are well worth following up.

The point that the eejit and his acolytes are completely missing in
their need to "clean up" asd and drive out the informational posters
by targetting them individually and dogpiling on them is that the
information is now largely elsewhere - and the elsewhere is HUGE and
unlikely to get anything but larger.

People who follow Conventional Wisdom achieve the expected results.
Some people achieve marginal improvements, many get significantly
worse.

People who follow what is fast becoming Current Best Practice achieve
major improvement in most (but not all) cases

Avoid *excess* carbs, particularly grains and especially wheat, which
we never evolved to eat.

Avoid *excess" Omega 6s, eat more Omega 3s and healthy saturates and
monounsaturates (there's some genetic variability in lipid metabolism
so YMMV)

Eat lots of different veggies, nuts and fruit (if you can handle it)
with your grass-fed meat and fish, keep your micronutirent intake up

Avoid the excess cardio which you only need to burn off the excess
carbs, concentrate on heavy lifting and high impact interval training
("Move slowly a lot, run very fast occasionally, lift heavy things")

Doesn't make so much profit for the foodlike substance manufacturing
industry or the drug companies but appears to work

"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com...


> The point that the eejit and his acolytes

who is eejit (?)
sorry, no clue

> that the
> information is now largely elsewhere - and the elsewhere is HUGE and
> unlikely to get anything but larger.

I noticed that too
also I think asd is very "volatile" : things posted are forgotten one day
later, so the same discussions over and over again. There are very few
people who are ready to change their opinion when new facts become
available. After almost two years and more than one thread nobody seems to
have absorbed the information that bariatric surgery actually influences
incretin hormones. It is still believed that you want to eat and are hungry,
while the reverse is true.

No one seems to follow the current litterature about feeding and physical
activity as an evolutionary optimized autopilot : if the setpoint of the
autopilot or the autopilot itself is broken than you have to use your
consious brain to not only determine what you eat but, of course, also how
much you must move. I'm convinced that the hypothalamus, which integrates
all the feeding/activity signals, is an important target for therapy. All I
get if I post something are all kind of stupid responses so a blog might a
much better solution.

> People who follow what is fast becoming Current Best Practice achieve
> major improvement in most (but not all) cases
>
> Avoid *excess* carbs, particularly grains and especially wheat, which
> we never evolved to eat.
>
> Avoid *excess" Omega 6s, eat more Omega 3s and healthy saturates and
> monounsaturates (there's some genetic variability in lipid metabolism
> so YMMV)
>
> Eat lots of different veggies, nuts and fruit (if you can handle it)
> with your grass-fed meat and fish, keep your micronutirent intake up
>
> Avoid the excess cardio which you only need to burn off the excess
> carbs, concentrate on heavy lifting and high impact interval training
> ("Move slowly a lot, run very fast occasionally, lift heavy things")
>

true
I'm following Stephan too
he is very good in my opinion

r.
>
> I noticed that too
> also I think asd is very "volatile" : things posted are forgotten one
> day later, so the same discussions over and over again. There are very
> few people who are ready to change their opinion when new facts become
> available. After almost two years and more than one thread nobody seems
> to have absorbed the information that bariatric surgery actually
> influences incretin hormones. It is still believed that you want to eat
> and are hungry, while the reverse is true.
>

I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
obey my meter.

I found out that I can have fresh fruit now if I am desperate enough to
drink 2 tablespoons of vinegar first. Sometimes I get pretty desperate.
My wife thinks it is simply not worth it. She hasn't eaten fresh fruit
or any fruit in years.

I am actually wide open to suggestions that would allow me to eat a
wider diet. The vinegar is one of the few things that actually work.

Ray has gotten me drinking 1.7 oz of rum every night at bedtime. That is
the minimum I have found that will keep my morning FBG down.

Michael

"Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

> I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
> often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
> obey my meter.

in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly discovered
scientific facts don't agree with your current view

Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body uses
a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you. Ever started to vomit
after "bad" food ? Your body did that without a "meter"

You can stop eating fruit because your meter thinks so, but your meter does
not tell you what kind of good things you are missing. You can continue
eating things your meter allows you, but your meter does not tell you what
kind of potential other bad things are hapening in your body.....

On Mar 9, 12:37�am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl> wrote:
> "Michael" <mico...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
> > often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
> > obey my meter.
>
> in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly discovered
> scientific facts don't agree with your current view �
>
> Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body uses
> a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you. Ever started to vomit
> after "bad" food ? Your body did that without a "meter"
>
> You can stop eating fruit because your meter thinks so, but your meter does
> not tell you what kind of good things you are missing. You can continue
> eating things your meter allows you, but your meter does not tell you what
> kind of potential other bad things are hapening in your body.....

Great post, Gys. I like your concept of the body having a zillion
meters. One of the main reasons I dislike the "eat to your meter"
mantra here is that very reason, it only shows one thing...your bg
number at the time. It doesn't tell you about your nutritional needs
or what that food you ate will do over a long period of time. The idea
that, 'Hey if my meter tells me it's okay to eat that then it must be"
is not in the best interest of the body as a whole.

Like your zillion meter idea, diabetes is not just one single problem.
My endo told me that for all the information we have about diabetes,
there are still many things we don't know about it. However we do know
it is a complicated disease and it may in fact be comprised of many
different internal problems. They also believe that there may be many
different "kinds" of diabetes that share similar symptoms and
complications. That's the other reason I think it is just foolish and
a bit delusional to try and treat this disease only by reading books,
believing selective studies gleaned from the Internet, and basing
one's treatment on hearsay and opinions. This goes for both Type 1 and
Type 2...and all the other potential "types" of diabetes.

With a disease that has a potential for a zillion things, it behooves
us to get the guidance of someone like an endo to help us make it
through the minefield that is diabetes.

Kurt

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:09:42 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com.. .
>
>
>> The point that the eejit and his acolytes
>
>who is eejit (?)
>sorry, no clue

Begins with K and ends with urt

>No one seems to follow the current litterature about feeding and physical
>activity as an evolutionary optimized autopilot : if the setpoint of the
>autopilot or the autopilot itself is broken than you have to use your
>consious brain to not only determine what you eat but, of course, also how
>much you must move. I'm convinced that the hypothalamus, which integrates
>all the feeding/activity signals, is an important target for therapy. All I
>get if I post something are all kind of stupid responses so a blog might a
>much better solution.

Yeah the benefit of blogs (and to a degree forums with "stickies") is
that the information stays where it's put, along with the added
comments and pointers to further papers etc.

I think epigenetics is also important - and the *expression* of
whatever genes you carry is something you can modify by changing
environmental factors.

Here's Ron Krauss showing that while some subjects produce "Pattern B"
lipids anyway, excess dietary carbs will switch other subjects from
Pattern A to Pattern B

http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/43/9/1363

gives you some idea of the complexity of the system too

Here's Richard Feinman and Jeff Volek demonstrating the opposite

http://nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/24

http://nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/19

>I'm following Stephan too
>he is very good in my opinion

And Mark Sisson

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:37:57 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>"Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>> I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
>> often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
>> obey my meter.
>
>in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly discovered
>scientific facts don't agree with your current view
>
>Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body uses
>a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you.

This is where other tests like BP and lipid panels are important.
Strangely when you get your BG into range and reduce IR these also
improve, fancy that!

On Mar 9, 5:33�am, Trinkwasser <s...@devnull.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:09:42 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >"Trinkwasser" <s...@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com.. .
>
> >> The point that the eejit and his acolytes
>
> >who is eejit (?)
> >sorry, no clue
>
> Begins with K and ends with urt

Let's see, you took a long break from here and came back in hurling
insults at me. You learned from your master well! lol

Kurt

On 3/9/2010 2:37 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>> I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
>> often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile.
>> I obey my meter.
>
> in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly
> discovered scientific facts don't agree with your current view
>
> Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body
> uses a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you. Ever started
> to vomit after "bad" food ? Your body did that without a "meter"
>
> You can stop eating fruit because your meter thinks so, but your meter
> does not tell you what kind of good things you are missing. You can
> continue eating things your meter allows you, but your meter does not
> tell you what kind of potential other bad things are hapening in your
> body.....

Well, the ever present problem is the BG level at which cellular damage
occurs. The present scientific opinion is 140. Any foods that push me
close to that number get put on my "no" list.

I want to keep my kidneys, eyes. and toes. There are certainly foods
that would probably be good for me if I did not have T2. These foods,
like whole grains, or apples are more of a threat than a help. At least
for me they are.

So the zillion meters aside, the BG meter tells me when I am about to
suffer cellular damage. I don't think you would recommend any foods for
me that would push me past that 140 number. So, given that, my selection
of foods are limited to "carbless" foods and very complex carbs in green
vegetables eaten as a salad.

Michael

x-no-archive: yes

Michael wrote:

> Well, the ever present problem is the BG level at which cellular damage
> occurs. The present scientific opinion is 140.

That's not an opinion, that's documented fact:


http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php


Susan

"Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17c00192-5d74-43d2-8b5c-9e7cde6a1108@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 12:37�am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl> wrote:

> Great post, Gys. I like your concept of the body
> having a zillion meters. One of the main reasons
> I dislike the "eat to your meter" mantra

that is too much honor
it is not my concept
it is the current view in molecular biology

cells have receptors by which they measure the concentration of molecules
around them and react to the detected value. There are receptors for :
insulin
glucagon
GLP-1
GIP
Akt
leptin
grehlin
resistin
cholesystokinin
GPR40
GPR119
TGR5
T1r
Bombesin
SLGT1
..........
..........

but also for
fat in general
carbohydrate in general
protein in general

but also for
bacteria
virusses
molds

I hope you realise that this is a very short list of the ones we know off;
there are most probably much more we don't know off
Did you know that your brain has insulin receptors with a total different
function ?
Did you know that not only your tongue but also your intestine has taste
receptors ?
Did you know that these also detect "artificial" sweeteners ?
Here is a very small piece of the nutrient sensing pathway in your lizard
brain the Hypothalamus :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...6/?tool=pubmed

there are really a zillion meters in our body

"Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2gvln.385921$FK3.340375@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 3/9/2010 2:37 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

> Well, the ever present problem is the BG level at which cellular damage
> occurs. The present scientific opinion is 140. Any foods that push me
> close to that number get put on my "no" list.
>
> I want to keep my kidneys, eyes. and toes. There are certainly foods that
> would probably be good for me if I did not have T2. These foods, like
> whole grains, or apples are more of a threat than a help. At least for me
> they are.
>
> So the zillion meters aside, the BG meter tells me when I am about to
> suffer cellular damage. I don't think you would recommend any foods for me
> that would push me past that 140 number. So, given that, my selection of
> foods are limited to "carbless" foods and very complex carbs in green
> vegetables eaten as a salad.

1) you have to get your energy to live from :
carbohydrate
fat
protein

2) if you decide not to eat carbohydrate than fat and protein are left
green vegetables don't contain enough energy
the lower the GI the lower the energy (roughly)

3) you want to decide to eat no carbohydrates, the only logical choices left
are thus : fat and protein

my problem with this scheme is that you only measure glucose in your blood.
You cannot measure the postprandial fat or protein in your blood. If you
could measure them all then you still would have to know your personal
optimal choise. You would still only measure 3 of a zillion important things

do you think that a food that causes a low bloodglucose is good and the
amount of alcohol in your blood is insignificant ?
do you think that a food that causes a low bloodglucose is good and the
amount of fat in your blood is insignificant ?
are you sure that a little bit higher bg + a little bit less fat is the
wrong choise for you ?
are you sure that the same bg + a bit less fat + some medicine is the wrong
choise for you ?

"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tiicp59k8g3uf1pg6rgqvi8108d17af433@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:09:42 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>


> I think epigenetics is also important - and the *expression* of
> whatever genes you carry is something you can modify by changing
> environmental factors.

my education is more and more outdated of course, but up to now I understand
epigenetics as gene silencing in utero. Which was demonstrated to happen
also by environmental factors. I tried to find articles with epigenetic
modification during the life time of (any) organism. Till now I found that
only tumor cells can do that trick and a claim by one research group that is
not (yet) followed up. And the claim that broccoli works miracles because it
has methyl donors. Exiting stuff indeed

thx for the links

In article <rtxln.239894$zD4.218777@newsfe19.ams2>,
"GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl> wrote:

> 1) you have to get your energy to live from :
> carbohydrate
> fat
> protein

High fat/low carb diet: get your energy from ketones.
High protein/low carb diet: get your energy from the glucose which is
slowly produced from about 53% of the protein you eat

PP, T2
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

On 3/9/2010 1:39 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2gvln.385921$FK3.340375@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 3/9/2010 2:37 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>>> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>> Well, the ever present problem is the BG level at which cellular
>> damage occurs. The present scientific opinion is 140. Any foods that
>> push me close to that number get put on my "no" list.
>>
>> I want to keep my kidneys, eyes. and toes. There are certainly foods
>> that would probably be good for me if I did not have T2. These foods,
>> like whole grains, or apples are more of a threat than a help. At
>> least for me they are.
>>
>> So the zillion meters aside, the BG meter tells me when I am about to
>> suffer cellular damage. I don't think you would recommend any foods
>> for me that would push me past that 140 number. So, given that, my
>> selection of foods are limited to "carbless" foods and very complex
>> carbs in green vegetables eaten as a salad.
>
> 1) you have to get your energy to live from :
> carbohydrate
> fat
> protein
>
> 2) if you decide not to eat carbohydrate than fat and protein are left
> green vegetables don't contain enough energy
> the lower the GI the lower the energy (roughly)
>
> 3) you want to decide to eat no carbohydrates, the only logical choices
> left are thus : fat and protein
>
> my problem with this scheme is that you only measure glucose in your
> blood. You cannot measure the postprandial fat or protein in your blood.
> If you could measure them all then you still would have to know your
> personal optimal choise. You would still only measure 3 of a zillion
> important things
>
> do you think that a food that causes a low bloodglucose is good and the
> amount of alcohol in your blood is insignificant ?
> do you think that a food that causes a low bloodglucose is good and the
> amount of fat in your blood is insignificant ?
> are you sure that a little bit higher bg + a little bit less fat is the
> wrong choise for you ?
> are you sure that the same bg + a bit less fat + some medicine is the
> wrong choise for you ?

I am quite sure that any number above 140 is the wrong choice for me. I
have a form of T2 that is very unforgiving. There are very few options
open to me.

I am not afraid of eating protein and fat long term. My wife has done
this for 12 years. Since she started eating this way, she has stopped
all progression of the disease. She reversed most damage that had
occurred before she started.

So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to eat
something besides what I have already listed ?

It makes no sense to me in light of an example in my home of a protein
and fat eater who is quite healthy.

BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was
125. My trig and ldl was fine.

I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with
my eating to my meter.

Michael

On 3/9/2010 1:22 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:17c00192-5d74-43d2-8b5c-9e7cde6a1108@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 12:37�am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> Great post, Gys. I like your concept of the body
>> having a zillion meters. One of the main reasons
>> I dislike the "eat to your meter" mantra
>
> that is too much honor
> it is not my concept
> it is the current view in molecular biology
>
> cells have receptors by which they measure the concentration of
> molecules around them and react to the detected value. There are
> receptors for :
> insulin
> glucagon
> GLP-1
> GIP
> Akt
> leptin
> grehlin
> resistin
> cholesystokinin
> GPR40
> GPR119
> TGR5
> T1r
> Bombesin
> SLGT1
> .........
> .........
>
> but also for
> fat in general
> carbohydrate in general
> protein in general
>
> but also for
> bacteria
> virusses
> molds
>
> I hope you realise that this is a very short list of the ones we know
> off; there are most probably much more we don't know off
> Did you know that your brain has insulin receptors with a total
> different function ?
> Did you know that not only your tongue but also your intestine has taste
> receptors ?
> Did you know that these also detect "artificial" sweeteners ?
> Here is a very small piece of the nutrient sensing pathway in your
> lizard brain the Hypothalamus :
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...6/?tool=pubmed
>
> there are really a zillion meters in our body

So, how does any of this effect me in practical terms.

I am a very practical person. I see what worked for my wife. I do same.
Very simple.

Michael

x-no-archive: yes

Michael wrote:

> I am quite sure that any number above 140 is the wrong choice for me. I
> have a form of T2 that is very unforgiving. There are very few options
> open to me.
>
> I am not afraid of eating protein and fat long term. My wife has done
> this for 12 years. Since she started eating this way, she has stopped
> all progression of the disease. She reversed most damage that had
> occurred before she started.
>
> So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to eat
> something besides what I have already listed ?
>
> It makes no sense to me in light of an example in my home of a protein
> and fat eater who is quite healthy.
>
> BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was
> 125. My trig and ldl was fine.
>
> I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with
> my eating to my meter.

Michael, don't worry about it, he's just completely confused and surfing
for erroneous conclusions that match his faulty beliefs.

Protein is the best and most sustained source of energy; it lasts and it
does so without causing hunger or provoking dysmetabolism.

Fat stimulates neither glucagon (raises bg)nor insulin (stores fat) and
it's essential. Without it, you will die. Eat too little and all your
cells suffer, especially brain and immunity.

Since good research has shown us that higher saturated fat intake
results in lower serum saturated fats, anyone with a concern about it
would logically eat more saturated fat.

Since carb intake most directly stimulates excessive fatty acid
formation and storage, one with concerns about this would logically
reduce carbohydrates.

Your results speak well of your efforts, while those who have the most
severe complications and hospitalizations due to diabetes or who need
increasing numbers of drugs to control their DM try to tell you to do
what they're doing instead.

Susan

On 3/9/2010 5:26 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>> I am quite sure that any number above 140 is the wrong choice for me.
>> I have a form of T2 that is very unforgiving. There are very few
>> options open to me.
>>
>> I am not afraid of eating protein and fat long term. My wife has done
>> this for 12 years. Since she started eating this way, she has stopped
>> all progression of the disease. She reversed most damage that had
>> occurred before she started.
>>
>> So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to
>> eat something besides what I have already listed ?
>>
>> It makes no sense to me in light of an example in my home of a protein
>> and fat eater who is quite healthy.
>>
>> BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was
>> 125. My trig and ldl was fine.
>>
>> I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with
>> my eating to my meter.
>
> Michael, don't worry about it, he's just completely confused and surfing
> for erroneous conclusions that match his faulty beliefs.
>
> Protein is the best and most sustained source of energy; it lasts and it
> does so without causing hunger or provoking dysmetabolism.
>
> Fat stimulates neither glucagon (raises bg)nor insulin (stores fat) and
> it's essential. Without it, you will die. Eat too little and all your
> cells suffer, especially brain and immunity.
>
> Since good research has shown us that higher saturated fat intake
> results in lower serum saturated fats, anyone with a concern about it
> would logically eat more saturated fat.
>
> Since carb intake most directly stimulates excessive fatty acid
> formation and storage, one with concerns about this would logically
> reduce carbohydrates.
>
> Your results speak well of your efforts, while those who have the most
> severe complications and hospitalizations due to diabetes or who need
> increasing numbers of drugs to control their DM try to tell you to do
> what they're doing instead.
>
> Susan

Thanks Susan,

I was actually trying to figure out what the logic was behind this
person's posting and not getting anywhere. I was beginning to think what
you wrote above.

I could simply not make any sense of the postings. I realize now it was
not because I was too dense it was because there is probably some other
obscure (to me) agenda going on.

Any time some one thinks some diet agenda is more important than
diabetes complications, they have lost me.

Michael

On 3/9/2010 5:26 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>> I am quite sure that any number above 140 is the wrong choice for me.
>> I have a form of T2 that is very unforgiving. There are very few
>> options open to me.
>>
>> I am not afraid of eating protein and fat long term. My wife has done
>> this for 12 years. Since she started eating this way, she has stopped
>> all progression of the disease. She reversed most damage that had
>> occurred before she started.
>>
>> So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to
>> eat something besides what I have already listed ?
>>
>> It makes no sense to me in light of an example in my home of a protein
>> and fat eater who is quite healthy.
>>
>> BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was
>> 125. My trig and ldl was fine.
>>
>> I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with
>> my eating to my meter.
>
> Michael, don't worry about it, he's just completely confused and surfing
> for erroneous conclusions that match his faulty beliefs.
>
> Protein is the best and most sustained source of energy; it lasts and it
> does so without causing hunger or provoking dysmetabolism.
>
> Fat stimulates neither glucagon (raises bg)nor insulin (stores fat) and
> it's essential. Without it, you will die. Eat too little and all your
> cells suffer, especially brain and immunity.
>
> Since good research has shown us that higher saturated fat intake
> results in lower serum saturated fats, anyone with a concern about it
> would logically eat more saturated fat.
>
> Since carb intake most directly stimulates excessive fatty acid
> formation and storage, one with concerns about this would logically
> reduce carbohydrates.
>
> Your results speak well of your efforts, while those who have the most
> severe complications and hospitalizations due to diabetes or who need
> increasing numbers of drugs to control their DM try to tell you to do
> what they're doing instead.
>
> Susan

Success is its own reward, we need no other.

Kurt <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:37???am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl> wrote:
>> "Michael" <mico...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>> > I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
>> > often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
>> > obey my meter.
>>
>> in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly discovered
>> scientific facts don't agree with your current view ???
>>
>> Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body uses
>> a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you. Ever started to vomit
>> after "bad" food ? Your body did that without a "meter"
>>
>> You can stop eating fruit because your meter thinks so, but your meter does
>> not tell you what kind of good things you are missing. You can continue
>> eating things your meter allows you, but your meter does not tell you what
>> kind of potential other bad things are hapening in your body.....

> Great post, Gys. I like your concept of the body having a zillion
> meters. One of the main reasons I dislike the "eat to your meter"
> mantra here is that very reason, it only shows one thing...your bg
> number at the time. It doesn't tell you about your nutritional needs
> or what that food you ate will do over a long period of time. The idea
> that, 'Hey if my meter tells me it's okay to eat that then it must be"
> is not in the best interest of the body as a whole.

Fair enough point, but hardly relevant here, where people who "eat to
their meters" use it to tell them what *not* to eat rather than what to
eat.

> Like your zillion meter idea, diabetes is not just one single problem.
> My endo told me that for all the information we have about diabetes,
> there are still many things we don't know about it. However we do know
> it is a complicated disease and it may in fact be comprised of many
> different internal problems. They also believe that there may be many
> different "kinds" of diabetes that share similar symptoms and
> complications. That's the other reason I think it is just foolish and
> a bit delusional to try and treat this disease only by reading books,
> believing selective studies gleaned from the Internet, and basing
> one's treatment on hearsay and opinions.

Fair enough point again, but again hardly relevant here, where there
is so much emphasis of doing your own experimental testing of advice.

> With a disease that has a potential for a zillion things, it behooves
> us to get the guidance of someone like an endo to help us make it
> through the minefield that is diabetes.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to test the advice of your
endo in the same way that we test the advice we get here? As you point
out, there are so many individual variations on diabetes, and in
science experiment always trumps opinion.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YDAln.44340$Jq1.36001@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 3/9/2010 1:22 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:17c00192-5d74-43d2-8b5c-9e7cde6a1108@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

> So, how does any of this effect me in practical terms.
> I am a very practical person. I see what worked
> for my wife. I do same. Very simple.

that is the problem. Biology is very complicated,we don't understand it and
it cannot be "programmed" with the aid of just 1 parameter like
bloodglucose. Biology is inherent chaotic. More like the weather than a
resistor and a battery. I hope you are joking (????) I would never try to
cope with the complexity of life by doing exactly what my wife does. (even
if I "had" one

> insulin
> glucagon
> GLP-1
> GIP
> Akt
> leptin
> grehlin
> resistin
> cholesystokinin
> GPR40
> GPR119
> TGR5
> T1r
> Bombesin
> SLGT1

all these things measure something that will influence your bloodglucose in
one way or another. Those are only the ones I remember and were tested in
the literature, so there are much more.

For me practical means :
accept that my life will end some day, whatever I do
accept only a few proven facts about exercise and nutrition
relax and enjoy life, because only "polishing my car and never riding it" is
not an option for me

"Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sBAln.44338$Jq1.38315@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

> So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to eat
> something besides what I have already listed ?

> I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with my
> eating to my meter.

sorry,
I do not take umbrage. It was not my intention to hurt you in anyway. I do
appologise. None of this is meant as "advice" I'm just trying to help by
discussing other options, by which (I hope) we both become better informed
and take better decisions. At the end I'm fully aware of the fact that we
have to make our own decission based on our own interpetation of all
available facts. Needless to say that I will respect your personal decision
whatever it will be. If you decide to measure your bloodglucose and stay
below 140 at all times than I will respect that. I also know the 140
barrier. From what you post here I get the impression that your personal
goal is 1) much lower than 140 and 2) that you are willing to take quite
drastic precautions to stay there. I also respect that, I'm just curious
about why you want to do that.

> BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was 125.
> My trig and ldl was fine.

my trig's went down for the first year after I adopted a low carb eating
style. Now since 4 years my HDL is at a constant high level but my trigs are
slowly but constant rising. One but : trig are not measured (in this
country) but calculated with the Friedenwald equation, which is wrong at
high HDL levels....

On 3/10/2010 4:07 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:YDAln.44340$Jq1.36001@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 3/9/2010 1:22 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>>> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:17c00192-5d74-43d2-8b5c-9e7cde6a1108@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>
>> So, how does any of this effect me in practical terms.
>> I am a very practical person. I see what worked
>> for my wife. I do same. Very simple.
>
> that is the problem. Biology is very complicated,we don't understand it
> and it cannot be "programmed" with the aid of just 1 parameter like
> bloodglucose.

Some things are simple, some are not.

> Biology is inherent chaotic.

Chaos relies on overdriven systems to function as it does.
When things like a hormone cascade settle down and become
more normalized, then a degree of predictability sets in
if indeed we can get that cascade to settle down.

> More like the weather than a resistor and a battery.

Atmospheric conditions are universally overdriven in the
case of the earth. Even a resistor and battery have some
important chaotic elements in them if you know where to
look.

For example, if you hook up a battery to a set of
headphones you get a lot of hissing. What you hear is
the chaos involved in the chemical reactions in the
battery that result in the electrical output. The
battery's output is monodirectional, however, if you
look at an oscilloscope representation of that output
you'll see what looks like positive and negative curves
once you adjust "zero" to fall within the range. To
simplify the example you gave, there's a chemical
storm happening inside the battery.

The output is as chaotic as the weather, but as
stable as climate. That is to say a battery appears
stable only over a longer time, just as weather is
similarly normalized when we discuss weather as climate.

> I hope you are joking (????) I would never try
> to cope with the complexity of life by doing exactly what my wife does.
> (even if I "had" one

[...]

> For me practical means :
> accept that my life will end some day, whatever I do
> accept only a few proven facts about exercise and nutrition
> relax and enjoy life, because only "polishing my car and never riding
> it" is not an option for me

That means you'd try anything that seems to work, including
copying what works for a wife. If it works for her, and not
for you, you move on to something else.

Because someone tries eating vinegar several times a day
in order to maintain BG control is not beyond reason. Who
knows, it might drive a reduction in the creation of his
stomach acids and everything will be all right for him
in the long term as well as the short. I have good
reasons to predict that factors other than BG would
prevent me from successfully copying the tactic.

On 3/10/2010 4:31 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:sBAln.44338$Jq1.38315@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>> So, I ask again, would you have me break the 140 barrier in order to
>> eat something besides what I have already listed ?
>
>> I cannot figure out for the life of me why you would take umbrage with
>> my eating to my meter.
>
> sorry,
> I do not take umbrage. It was not my intention to hurt you in anyway. I
> do appologise. None of this is meant as "advice" I'm just trying to help
> by discussing other options, by which (I hope) we both become better
> informed and take better decisions. At the end I'm fully aware of the
> fact that we have to make our own decission based on our own
> interpetation of all available facts. Needless to say that I will
> respect your personal decision whatever it will be. If you decide to
> measure your bloodglucose and stay below 140 at all times than I will
> respect that. I also know the 140 barrier. From what you post here I get
> the impression that your personal goal is 1) much lower than 140 and 2)
> that you are willing to take quite drastic precautions to stay there. I
> also respect that, I'm just curious about why you want to do that.

See Bernstein pg. 38. Reducing BG to as near normal (read non-
diabetic) as possible led to a reduction in early retinopathy
by 75%, 50% risk reduction for kidney disease, and so on


>> BTW, my last lipid panel was very healthy. My overall Chol level was
>> 125. My trig and ldl was fine.
>
> my trig's went down for the first year after I adopted a low carb eating
> style. Now since 4 years my HDL is at a constant high level but my trigs
> are slowly but constant rising. One but : trig are not measured (in this
> country) but calculated with the Friedenwald equation, which is wrong at
> high HDL levels....

How's your visceral fat doing? Unless all the conditions
are the same as they were earlier, the comparison is
invalid.

>
> sorry,
> I do not take umbrage. It was not my intention to hurt you in anyway. I
> do appologise. None of this is meant as "advice" I'm just trying to help
> by discussing other options, by which (I hope) we both become better
> informed and take better decisions. At the end I'm fully aware of the
> fact that we have to make our own decission based on our own
> interpetation of all available facts. Needless to say that I will
> respect your personal decision whatever it will be. If you decide to
> measure your bloodglucose and stay below 140 at all times than I will
> respect that. I also know the 140 barrier. From what you post here I get
> the impression that your personal goal is 1) much lower than 140 and 2)
> that you are willing to take quite drastic precautions to stay there. I
> also respect that, I'm just curious about why you want to do that.
>

It is a pretty simple reason. I have a strong desire to live out my
retirement without the complications from type 2 diabetes.

I have a desire to get my BG levels to more normal levels. This may be
an unrealistic goal for me.

It was not unrealistic for my wife. She has consistently normal levels
of BG. Of course, she does not eat any more than 10 or 15 carbs per day.
She has followed this course for 12 years.

Her motivation to stay on this diet is very high for her. She lost part
of her eyesight when she refused at first to accept her diagnosis. Her
eyesight is very important to her. She practices her hobby/obsession
each day. That is photography.

The other thing about your posts is that they are rather obtuse. It
would be better if you could condense your point and make it a little
more coherent for us. I am not trying to throw stones at you or make a
personal criticism. It is just that I cannot break down your posts into
an idea or theorem that I can get my head around.

Michael

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:51:06 -0800 (PST), Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 12:37?am, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl> wrote:
>> "Michael" <mico...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:L%gln.41841$Jq1.99@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>> > I am always ready to change my mind. I listen to suggestions here and
>> > often try them. My meter tells me if these suggestions are worthwhile. I
>> > obey my meter.
>>
>> in my opinion it is a good idea to change your mind if the newly discovered
>> scientific facts don't agree with your current view ?
>>
>> Your blood glucose meter measures only 1 parameter : your bg. Your body uses
>> a few zillion "meters" to decide what is good for you. Ever started to vomit
>> after "bad" food ? Your body did that without a "meter"
>>
>> You can stop eating fruit because your meter thinks so, but your meter does
>> not tell you what kind of good things you are missing. You can continue
>> eating things your meter allows you, but your meter does not tell you what
>> kind of potential other bad things are hapening in your body.....
>
>Great post, Gys. I like your concept of the body having a zillion
>meters. One of the main reasons I dislike the "eat to your meter"
>mantra here is that very reason, it only shows one thing...your bg
>number at the time. It doesn't tell you about your nutritional needs
>or what that food you ate will do over a long period of time. The idea
>that, 'Hey if my meter tells me it's okay to eat that then it must be"
>is not in the best interest of the body as a whole.

this is based on the assumption that what you are eating is inherently
bad for you because you are testing for BG.

yet kurt doesn't test for anything but BG before and after meals.


>
>Like your zillion meter idea, diabetes is not just one single problem.
>My endo told me that for all the information we have about diabetes,
>there are still many things we don't know about it. However we do know
>it is a complicated disease and it may in fact be comprised of many
>different internal problems. They also believe that there may be many
>different "kinds" of diabetes that share similar symptoms and
>complications.

Exactly how many different types of home tests BESIDES BG testing
can/are diabetics supposed/able to do? And exactly what are they
supposed to do with that information?

>That's the other reason I think it is just foolish and
>a bit delusional to try and treat this disease only by reading books,
>believing selective studies gleaned from the Internet, and basing
>one's treatment on hearsay and opinions. This goes for both Type 1 and
>Type 2...and all the other potential "types" of diabetes.

Based solely on that reasoning alone, every face to face ADA support
group meeting is a total waste of time. Since that is exactly what
they do in those meetings.

>
>With a disease that has a potential for a zillion things, it behooves
>us to get the guidance of someone like an endo to help us make it
>through the minefield that is diabetes.
>
>Kurt

And every endo will tell every diabetic that they need to educate
themselves and take charge of their own diabetes care because they
have to know how to manage their own body and disease.

So this group is doing what the endo's want us to do.

--
Måck©®
Pumper / Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/
http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/

"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

"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...
..

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:44:11 -0800 (PST), Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 5:33?am, Trinkwasser <s...@devnull.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:09:42 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@Planet.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Trinkwasser" <s...@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> >> The point that the eejit and his acolytes
>>
>> >who is eejit (?)
>> >sorry, no clue
>>
>> Begins with K and ends with urt
>
>Let's see, you took a long break from here and came back in hurling
>insults at me. You learned from your master well! lol
>
>Kurt

and yet you have never stopped doing what you condemn in others.

sometimers wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 4:07 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>> "Michael" <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:YDAln.44340$Jq1.36001@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> On 3/9/2010 1:22 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
>>>> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:17c00192-5d74-43d2-8b5c-9e7cde6a1108@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>
>>> So, how does any of this effect me in practical terms.
>>> I am a very practical person. I see what worked
>>> for my wife. I do same. Very simple.
>>
>> that is the problem. Biology is very complicated,we don't understand
>> it and it cannot be "programmed" with the aid of just 1 parameter
>> like bloodglucose.
>
> Some things are simple, some are not.
>
>> Biology is inherent chaotic.
>
> Chaos relies on overdriven systems to function as it does.
> When things like a hormone cascade settle down and become
> more normalized, then a degree of predictability sets in
> if indeed we can get that cascade to settle down.
>
>> More like the weather than a resistor and a battery.
>
> Atmospheric conditions are universally overdriven in the
> case of the earth. Even a resistor and battery have some
> important chaotic elements in them if you know where to
> look.
>
> For example, if you hook up a battery to a set of
> headphones you get a lot of hissing. What you hear is
> the chaos involved in the chemical reactions in the
> battery that result in the electrical output. The
> battery's output is monodirectional, however, if you
> look at an oscilloscope representation of that output
> you'll see what looks like positive and negative curves
> once you adjust "zero" to fall within the range. To
> simplify the example you gave, there's a chemical
> storm happening inside the battery.
>
> The output is as chaotic as the weather, but as
> stable as climate. That is to say a battery appears
> stable only over a longer time, just as weather is
> similarly normalized when we discuss weather as climate.
>
>> I hope you are joking (????) I would never try
>> to cope with the complexity of life by doing exactly what my wife
>> does. (even if I "had" one
>
> [...]
>
>> For me practical means :
>> accept that my life will end some day, whatever I do
>> accept only a few proven facts about exercise and nutrition
>> relax and enjoy life, because only "polishing my car and never riding
>> it" is not an option for me
>
> That means you'd try anything that seems to work, including
> copying what works for a wife. If it works for her, and not
> for you, you move on to something else.

That is Michael you are talking about not Gys, (whose post you are
answering).

GysdeJongh <jongh711@planet.nl> wrote:
> "Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com...

>> The point that the eejit and his acolytes

> who is eejit (?)
> sorry, no clue

>> that the
>> information is now largely elsewhere - and the elsewhere is HUGE and
>> unlikely to get anything but larger.

> I noticed that too
> also I think asd is very "volatile" : things posted are forgotten one day
> later, so the same discussions over and over again. There are very few
> people who are ready to change their opinion when new facts become
> available. After almost two years and more than one thread nobody seems to
> have absorbed the information that bariatric surgery actually influences
> incretin hormones. It is still believed that you want to eat and are hungry,
> while the reverse is true.

You can't judge what everyone in a group of people believe by
listening to what the noisiest ones are saying :-)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who spotted the endocrine effects of
bariatric surgery, which were much discussed here at the time the
first papers were published showing the effect. I'm sure I'm not the
only one who didn't forget it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who
couldn't be bothered reminding those who kept forgetting it or
preferred not to believe it or didn't understand it etc..

--
Chris Malcolm

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7vs3a0FiltU4@mid.individual.net...
> GysdeJongh <jongh711@planet.nl> wrote:
>> "Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com...

> You can't judge what everyone in a group of people believe by
> listening to what the noisiest ones are saying :-)

sorry, your are right
some days I seem to be a bit more depressed than usual

> I'm sure I'm not the only one who spotted the endocrine effects of
> bariatric surgery, which were much discussed here at the time the
> first papers were published showing the effect. I'm sure I'm not the
> only one who didn't forget it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who
> couldn't be bothered reminding those who kept forgetting it or
> preferred not to believe it or didn't understand it etc..

thx for a much more positive view

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:26:15 -0500, Susan <susan@nothanks.org> wrote:

>Your results speak well of your efforts, while those who have the most
>severe complications and hospitalizations due to diabetes or who need
>increasing numbers of drugs to control their DM try to tell you to do
>what they're doing instead.

Word!

Been doing this for about five years now with only benefits.

Many others have been doing it for 20 years with only benefits.

Recently I "met" someone whose Type 2 has failed to progress for 40
years, which he puts down to having been given a low carb diet back
when it was SOP and never having been taken off it

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:31:32 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>my trig's went down for the first year after I adopted a low carb eating
>style. Now since 4 years my HDL is at a constant high level but my trigs are
>slowly but constant rising. One but : trig are not measured (in this
>country) but calculated with the Friedenwald equation, which is wrong at
>high HDL levels....

http://trinkwasser.wordpress.com/200...s-at-a-stroke/

doesn't entirely work, the Iranian Equation was derived with TChol
over 250 but with low trigs it gives a better estimate of LDL

that may not be too important as long as trigs/HDL is low, the ratio
is connected to insulin resistance, cardiovascular risk and particle
size of LDL (no coincidence IMO, it's also been related to grain
consumption)

Keep that in check and the LDL is fully formed useful particles, not
Ron Krauss' infamous Small Dense LDL

My labs actually appear to *measure* LDL (when I can get them) the
number comes out intermediate between the Friedewald and Iranian
calculations

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:47:56 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:tiicp59k8g3uf1pg6rgqvi8108d17af433@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:09:42 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
>
>
>> I think epigenetics is also important - and the *expression* of
>> whatever genes you carry is something you can modify by changing
>> environmental factors.
>
>my education is more and more outdated of course, but up to now I understand
>epigenetics as gene silencing in utero. Which was demonstrated to happen
>also by environmental factors. I tried to find articles with epigenetic
>modification during the life time of (any) organism. Till now I found that
>only tumor cells can do that trick and a claim by one research group that is
>not (yet) followed up. And the claim that broccoli works miracles because it
>has methyl donors. Exiting stuff indeed
>
>thx for the links

This is what appears to be being discovered - gene *expression* is
controlled by many environmental factors, for example genes to express
a particular receptor are switched on and off at a cellular level when
more or less of the receptors are required, etc. etc.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:35:51 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
wrote:

>"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:7vs3a0FiltU4@mid.individual.net...
>> GysdeJongh <jongh711@planet.nl> wrote:
>>> "Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:1sgap5pg6qkkv1b4hh0gbcl1sglic4rsa8@4ax.com...
>
>> You can't judge what everyone in a group of people believe by
>> listening to what the noisiest ones are saying :-)
>
>sorry, your are right
>some days I seem to be a bit more depressed than usual

Usenet used to be a major repository for information. It was also a
place for personality conflicts and the expression of personality
disorders.

Over time much of the information has migrated elsewhere, probably
most internet users now have never even heard of usenet let alone used
it.

Meanwhile the noise level has remained fairly constant.

Some (many) once useful newgroups are now bereft of anything except
spam and rantings. asd hasn't gone nearly as far as that (yet)

>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who spotted the endocrine effects of
>> bariatric surgery, which were much discussed here at the time the
>> first papers were published showing the effect. I'm sure I'm not the
>> only one who didn't forget it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who
>> couldn't be bothered reminding those who kept forgetting it or
>> preferred not to believe it or didn't understand it etc..
>
>thx for a much more positive view

What I miss about blogs and forums is that usenet can easily be
archived and searched on my local disks. Blogs and forums can end up
as a metric shitload of bookmarks (and can run like treacle on valium)

"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
newscalp5p2hnembdk0fpbefffl7s0e4gjcse@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:31:32 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>my trig's went down for the first year after I adopted a low carb eating
>>style. Now since 4 years my HDL is at a constant high level but my trigs
>>are
>>slowly but constant rising. One but : trig are not measured (in this
>>country) but calculated with the Friedenwald equation, which is wrong at
>>high HDL levels....
>
> http://trinkwasser.wordpress.com/200...s-at-a-stroke/
>
> doesn't entirely work, the Iranian Equation was derived with TChol
> over 250 but with low trigs it gives a better estimate of LDL

I have seen that one
we seem to research the same things
thank you very much for the link

"Trinkwasser" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tpalp519cbd2jibt484tpcdf1edivo2598@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:47:56 +0100, "GysdeJongh" <jongh711@Planet.nl>
> wrote:

> This is what appears to be being discovered - gene *expression* is
> controlled by many environmental factors, for example genes to express
> a particular receptor are switched on and off at a cellular level when
> more or less of the receptors are required, etc. etc.

Ok, but that was known for some time already.

Gene upregulation by induction of transcription factors.
Something docks on a receptor of cell A. Cell A starts to make a special
protein which is a transcription factor. This transcription factor then, in
his turn, docks on a nuclear receptor in the cell nucleus of cell B. PPAR
gamma works along this line and A and B don't need to be different.
Environmental factors can induce transcription factors.

Epigenetics is when a gene in the nucleus of a cell is shut down permanently
by methylation of a few nucleotides of the DNA itself. There are other
mechanisms to modify the DNA in the nucleus itself besides Methylation.

So induction by transcription factors can be reversed/regulated during the
life time of an organism. But DNA silencing by methylation, epigenetics, is
constant during it's life time

That is ..... as far as I know, or at this point in science.....

Trinkwasser wrote:
<snip>

> Usenet used to be a major repository for information. It was also a
> place for personality conflicts and the expression of personality
> disorders.
>
I just had to see this again.

<snip>

> What I miss about blogs and forums is that usenet can easily be
> archived and searched on my local disks. Blogs and forums can end up
> as a metric shitload of bookmarks (and can run like treacle on valium)

B-b-but Web Forums have animated smilies <g>!
--
PB
"I suspect you're an arrogant little pissant who grew up in the
Red Bull generation." - CJW