Reversing Diabetes

[MoonLight]

Hi,
From what I know eating a lot of fresh fruits and vegtables and avoiding processed food - because it has a lot of added sugar (did you know that the food industry has 61 names for sugar...).
Food that is consumed from it's natural form either fresh or cooked (apples, bananas  carrots, lentils etc.) helps the health of the  liver and the pancreas.
Here are few youtube videos about that:

• Fed Up 2014https://youtu.be/Y647tNm8nTI?list=PLiZG ... cH6EHMfT9f
• A BBC Documentaryhttps://youtu.be/K4LzSH9qU_Q?list=PLiZG ... cH6EHMfT9f
• A discussion in the University of California https://youtu.be/XM0vyUUvO9E?list=PLiZG ... cH6EHMfT9f
• Sugar: The Bitter Truth also from the University of Californiahttps://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?list=PLiZG ... cH6EHMfT9f

I hope this helps.






 

[MachineGhost]

I'm assuming you've tried digestive enzymes that work on beans. Cause? Something is not quite right in your gut.  If you're open to experimenting,, I know something that might improve your gut. You have to give it trial though say 3 months.  Start by taking 1/4 or less of capsule once per day in the morning and work up to full capsule over week or so. It is called triphala and is used to normalize digestion/assimilation.  It comes from ayurvedic medicine.

Tried it already.  Trust me, I've tried it all.  Nothing ever makes a difference.  Nor am I confident it is even my gut, though that is the logical assumption.

[MachineGhost]

Guess I can stop worrying about my thyroid hormones and maybe I should even eat more carbs.  Yeah, right!

But note that the lazy S.A.D. (standard american diet) bums were eating 2400 calories a day compared to 1800 practicing C.R.A.N. (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition).  If you can get by with 1800 what with being a lazy bum also, are you really that surprised you wake up one day to find yourself a S.V.O.L. (sedentary vat of lard) from eating 2400?  The macro-composition was virtually the same among all groups.

[quote=http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2006-0328]Data from a series of studies have shown that short-term (2 wk to 6 months) fasting or severe CR decreases serum T3 and transiently increases serum rT3 concentrations in obese subjects who are actively losing weight (9). Similar findings have been reported in a study of eight nonobese individuals who unintentionally underwent moderate CR and intense physical labor (70–80 h/wk) for 21 months (3). In addition, the results from some studies (9, 10, 11) suggest that a low-carbohydrate intake (50–120 g/d) can prevent the fall in serum T3 and particularly the rise in serum rT3 concentration induced by CR. Carbohydrate intake in our CR subjects was approximately 250 g/d, which may have contributed to their normal serum rT3 concentrations. Therefore, our findings provide evidence that long-term CR in sedentary lean, weight-stable subjects causes similar but persistent changes in thyroid hormones as previously reported during short-term fasting or CR in obese subjects who were continuing to experience active diet-induced weight loss.

Patients who have the sick euthyroid syndrome also have low serum T3 concentrations (12). However, these patients have systemic nonthyroidal illnesses, such as cancer, myocardial infarction, severe infections, and major injuries (6, 12). Therefore, it is likely that inflammation, rather than decreased calorie intake, is responsible for the reduction in serum T3 concentrations in patients with sick euthyroid syndrome (13). In fact, infusion of proinflammatory cytokines in human subjects decreases serum T3 concentration (14, 15). Moreover, the decline in serum T3 concentration induced by illness is blunted in IL-6 knockout mice, which supports the notion that cytokines are involved in the pathogenesis of the sick euthyroid syndrome (16). The mechanism responsible for this response is probably related to a cytokine-induced reduction in type I iodothyronine-5?-monodeiodinase expression, which results in decreased conversion of T4 to T3 in extrathyroidal tissues and decreased serum T3 concentrations (6, 13, 14, 15, 16). In contrast, low serum T3 concentration was not associated with an increase in inflammatory cytokines in our CR subjects. In fact, markers of systemic inflammation, serum CRP and TNF? concentrations, were low in our CR subjects. These findings are consistent with data from CR studies conducted in rodents and monkeys, which showed that CR caused a marked decrease in markers of inflammation and a reduction in serum T3 concentration (7, 8, 17, 18). The combination of decreased serum T3 and reduced systemic inflammation could alter the aging process by reducing metabolic rate, oxidative stress, and systemic inflammation (1, 19, 20).

In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that long-term CR, with adequate intake of protein and micronutrients, in healthy lean and weight-stable subjects is associated with sustained low serum T3 concentration, similar to that found in calorie-restricted rodents and monkeys. This effect is likely due to CR itself, rather than a decrease in body fat mass, and could be involved in slowing the rate of aging.[/quote]

[jafs]

I suspect if you replace the toxin-laden legumes* with high quality lean animal protein, it would be an interesting diet challenge to try.  The mean planning alone would be challenging.  And it doesn't look cheap either.

BTW jafs, in my lingo "high quality protein" is not about taking in all of the essential amino acids at once which is an outdated concept, but the protein being of sufficient quantity and quality to initiate anabolism which gets harder and harder to do as one gets older.  Plant-derived proteins are just terrible for that which is why you get "Sarcopenic Vegans" if they manage to stick out their extremism against all odds.

*  I react to legumes similarly as I do to wheat gluten (blurry/tunnel vision, eye pressure, foggy brain) except without the eventual headaches.  I wish there was an easily indentifiable cause and a fix.

I had to look up sarcopenia - never heard of it before.

The more common recommendation to prevent it is exercise, not diet.  And there seems to be a lot that isn't known yet - more research is needed.  My first thoughts would be exercise, including weights (which I should do more), and perhaps calcium, which is harder to get as a vegan unless you eat a lot of leafy greens.

Sorry to hear you can't eat legumes - I've also never heard of that problem with them before.  The fact that you can't doesn't indicate that they're "toxic laden", of course.  You may just have some sort of physiological problem.

Have you discussed this with a doctor?

Since you've "tried everything", I assume you've tried probiotics like acidophilus.

[jafs]

I did some more quick searching about sarcopenia.

Ironically, meat is often mentioned as contributing to it, if we're looking at diet!

It's true that there is a recommendation for older folks to get more protein, which is interesting.  And, it's recommended that people get good protein at each meal, rather than just at dinner.  I try to do that already, and also snack on proteins like nuts periodically throughout the day.

I should do weights more - maybe this will inspire me to do that.

And, as I get older, I'll talk with my doctor about it, and make sure that I'm not losing muscle mass (or too much - it may be impossible to avoid losing some as we age).

[Reub]

Why do you have to talk to your doctor to begin some resistance exercises? Do you think that he/she knows about them? From what I've seen most doctors are unhealthy themselves.

I've been reading about the usefulness of whey protein on insulin, blood sugar, weight loss and diabetes. I'm in the process of going to a whey protein breakfast shake or at least adding the drink to my late breakfast/early lunch. It seems that whey can be a godsend  (sorry MG) when it comes to diabetes.

" After 12 weeks, the group on whey protein lost
the most weight: 7.6 kg (16.7 pounds),
compared to 6.1 kg (13.4 pounds) for those on
the other proteins, and 3.1 kg (6.8 pounds) for
those in the carbohydrate group.
Whey protein diet participants were more
satiated and less hungry throughout the day, with
lower glucose spikes after meals compared to
the other two diets, and their HbA1C also
decreased more than with the other two diets.
"The whey protein diet significantly suppresses
the hunger hormone 'ghrelin.' A whey protein
drink is easily prepared and provides the
advantages of a high-protein breakfast on weight
loss, reduction of hunger, glucose spikes and
HbA1c," Jakubowicz said."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111253.htm

[jafs]

I meant talk to him about sarcopenia in general.

Doctors do have quite a bit of useful information, if you have a good doctor.

Obviously I can just do more weights on my own.

[Cortopassi]

This just came up on a board I read, it is from last year:

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0 ... 3/abstract

Abstract

The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

[Reub]

This just came up on a board I read, it is from last year:

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0 ... 3/abstract

Abstract

The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

Thanks for this! It corroborates what many here have known for awhile. That lower carb diets (excluding fiber and most vegetables) are advantageous for those with diabetes and prediabetes. The thing to keep in mind is that there are probably 100 million people in this country alone who suffer from some form of metabolic syndrome (prediabetes) and don't even know it.

[MachineGhost]

As always, the devil is in the details. What is their definition of "low carbohydrate" and is it uniform across the meta-analysis? This is asking a lot of researchers, typically.

Still, I think this is more like putting the cart before the horse. The amount of calories ingested has COMPOUNDED UPWARDS each and every year. Before we even begin to worry about all this tweaking self-hacks, you've first got to stop stuffing your piehole with excess calories. That requires awareness. I am just not very sympathetic to unaware fat fucks. This isn't Mexico where naive mothers think Pepsi is good for their kids. Deal with your problem or your problem will deal with you via evolutionary Darwinism.

(Yes, I'm frustrated...)

[MachineGhost]

Starting to look into this TDEE dealio as I'm liable to experiment with loading up on AMPK-inducers while preserving 16-hour IF but upping my calorie intake to what is "proper" during the feeding window. However:

Data from other long-term CR practitioners reflect similar discrepancies between actual caloric requirements and those estimated by energy equations. Experiments have shown that after weight loss the total energy expenditure is lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition even well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss.[13] A calculated caloric deficit does not imply that a person will lose weight. When a person achieves material and energy equilibrium with fewer calories, the calculated caloric deficit reflects an adaptation to lower calorie consumption compared to the subjects from which the equations were derived. The Biosphere-2 experiment[8] showed that the BMR of the biospherians were approximately 6% lower than those of the control subjects after adjustment for age, sex, fat-free mass, and fat mass. Other experiments have shown that the basal metabolic rate can decrease by approximately 12% in three weeks of a 40% calorie restricted diet, but without reaching material equilibrium.[9] A pioneering six-month semistarvation study by Keys[10] showed that severe energy restriction decreased BMR in absolute terms by 39% and also relative to the weight of metabolically active tissue by 16%. Another study published in 2007 showed that after 3 months of a 25% CR diet, the BMR of calorie-restricted individuals was 91 kcalories per day less than the BMR of the control subjects.[12] The authors concluded that BMR adapted or decreased beyond values expected from changes in weight and body composition as a result of energy deficit.

Experiments of 20 days of overeating have also shown that overfeeding causes a variable increase (1-18%) in basal metabolic rate but no change in metabolic rate during light exercise.[11] This suggests that the BMR adapts to the level of food availability over a period of several days or weeks, but it is not easily affected by demands for energy of short duration.

Rodent Experiments
One feature of mice experiments is that the mice are started on calorically restricted diets after 9 weeks, shortly after weaning. The mice on 40% calorie restricted (CR) diets grow to be adults which are approximately 51% of the size of mice fed ad libitum.[5] Considering that the CR mice receive 60% of the food and that they have an adult weight of 51% of the weight of AL mice, CR mice eat 18% more than AL mice on a body weight basis.

Masoro[6] also reported that rats started on a 40% CR diet at 6 weeks of age had lower weights. Masoro's data for rats from 10 to 20 months old can be used to calculate that the 40% CR rats had only 53% of the weight of the AL rats. The restricted rats got 57.9% of the food, but received 9% more calories per gram of body weight than the AL rats. Masoro only remarks about the number of calories that the CR rats consume over their lifetime, but his data indicates that the CR rats routinely ate more calories per gram of body weight from the age of 3 months, and also had a substantially longer lifespan.

What does this mean for humans?
The paradox of increased food consumption per unit of body weight for calorically restricted rodents has been interpreted to mean that it is only the reduction in total calories that really matters for longevity. Humans starting calorie restriction after maturity cannot achieve higher consumption-to-weight ratios than the controls. In the Case Study, above, the actual calories divided by the subject's weight gives 1000/120 = 8.3 Calories/pound, whereas the corresponding control requires 1766/140.2 = 12.6 Calories/pound.

Animal experiments on calorie restriction after maturity indicate that adult-onset CR also increases longevity.[7] This has provided encouragement to the growing number of human CRON practitioners. Human CR diets must be phased in gradually over several years, and moderation is recommended since the optimum percentage of calorie restriction for human adults is still not known.

Source: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

[Benko]

Certainly added sugars are bad, but things do not appear to be quite so simple for all non-vegetable carbs. For example eating beans improves the blood sugar response of whatever you eat at the next meal. Adding berries which contain sugars (even though small amounts) to a meal improves the blood sugar response over the same meal without the berries.

recent Harvard School of Public Health investigation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990623
Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, is significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater consumption of fruit juice is associated with a higher risk.

More discussion here:
http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/06/09/ju ... ust-fiber/

[jafs]

That makes sense to me, as fruit juices usually remove the fiber found in whole fruits.

[Reub]

An interesting twist:

"A Leucine, Metformin and Sildenafil Combination Regresses Non-Alcoholic
Steatohepatitis (NASH) in Mice
Abstract Number: 260-LB
Date and Time: Sunday, June 12, 2016, 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Location: Poster Hall, 21-B, Integrated Physiology – Liver
This poster will share pre-clinical research testing NuSirt’s patented combination of
leucine, low dose metformin and sub therapeutic levels of sildenafil in mice induced
with NASH.
Results from the study demonstrated significant potential for the triple combination to
reverse NASH in mice. In fact, data showed that the treatment reduced liver fat by 43
percent, liver inflammation by 55 percent and fibrosis by 50 percent.
About Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis
(NASH)
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a result of fat building up in the liver,
preventing the organ’s ability to remove toxins from the blood. It affects up to one-third of
the general population. Although there are no known causes for NAFLD, obesity, high
cholesterol, diabetes, and high blood pressure are all considered risk factors.
Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) occurs in 10 to 30 percent of those with NAFLD. It
happens when the liver of a person with NAFLD becomes inflamed, causing severe liver cell
damage. Over time, this can result in permanent scarring and hardening of the liver. The
consequences of NASH include cardiovascular disease, liver cancer, and liver failure."

So it seems that low dose metformin, leucine (as found in whey protein and BCAAs), and sub therapeutic amounts of, yes, VIAGRA, have been found to markedly reduce fatty liver disease which causes diabetes and prediabetes in millions of cases! I'm already using the leucine with metformin but never had a need for Viagra....until now.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... ociation’s

[MachineGhost]

So it seems that low dose metformin, leucine (as found in whey protein and BCAAs), and sub therapeutic amounts of, yes, VIAGRA, have been found to markedly reduce fatty liver disease which causes diabetes and prediabetes in millions of cases! I'm already using the leucine with metformin but never had a need for Viagra....until now.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... ociation’s

If that's so then just use L-Citrulline which will be converted into Arginine and then into NO. Viagra is a toxic joke; a repurposed heart attack drug. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Reub]

Well, I'm off of the metformin again. That stuff really saps my strength and makes me lethargic. I really don't know how doctors can prescribe it so freely.

[Benko]

Reub,

Assuming you have fatty liver* it is likely a symptom of something of metabolically off in your body i.e. there is something metabolically off that is causing both the blood sugar issue (if it is still there) AND the fatty liver (again if you have it) . I see fatty liver on CT scans very frequently, but usually the people who have it are obese. Metabolic abnormalities are not my area of expertise. As I recall you were doing a number of very intelligent things, but if this is still persisting and is not gone away you might want to try something else. Personally I'd recommend chinese herbs under the diagnosis of a really good chinese herbalist.


*MRI (or liver biopsy) is definitive in the diagnosis of fatty liver. There are "false positives" of fatty liver on CT or US. If you were diagnosed on CT or US you might want to get a second opinion (from another radiologist). The criteria for fatty liver on CT used at the major academic liver center near me is:

Liver 30HU less than spleen on CT without IV contrast.
Liver 10 less than spleen on CT with IV contrast.
Ultrasound diagnosis of fatty liver is subjective.

Re: METFORMIN: I'm NOT recommending for or against it, but keep in mind not every patient reacts to any drug the same.

[MachineGhost]

Well, I'm off of the metformin again. That stuff really saps my strength and makes me lethargic. I really don't know how doctors can prescribe it so freely.

Even upping the Vitamin B's??? I have berberine here but forgot what I got it for!

[MachineGhost]

Assuming you have fatty liver* it is likely a symptom of something of metabolically off in your body i.e. there is something metabolically off that is causing both the blood sugar issue (if it is still there) AND the fatty liver (again if you have it) . I see fatty liver on CT scans very frequently, but usually the people who have it are obese. Metabolic abnormalities are not my area of expertise. As I recall you were doing a number of very intelligent things, but if this is still persisting and is not gone away you might want to try something else. Personally I'd recommend chinese herbs under the diagnosis of a really good chinese herbalist.

If you have a fatty liver, you are eating too much fructose and carbs for your level of activity. And to clear it up, you need to a few tablespoons of lecithin a day to your diet.

[MachineGhost]

Viagra is a toxic joke; a repurposed heart attack drug. Stupid is as stupid does.

Let's see if you still feel that way when you are in your 60's or 70's. I can't imagine just giving up on sex if there are other options.

Viagra is for unhealthy fat fucks with cardiovascular disease who can't get erections anymore because their penises are full of clogged arteries. Does that strike you as a path I'm going to take out of ignorance and sheer lazyness? Viagra is not an aphrodisiac nor a libido enhancer which is first necessary to even be interested in sex (and how well do obese, unhealthy, testosterone-dominate 60 and 70 year old women turn a man on???). Viagra just traps blood flow in the penis for an unnatural and hard erection. Nothing less, nothing more. It's overblown, overrated and for the idiotic. What do you expect of anything that makes it up to the lamestream level of middle-America Boobus Americanus discourse? Stupid is as stupid does.

P.S. Same exact idiots that want to move to for-pofit "active adult" master-planned communities that are nothing but a step above nursing homes but with subdivisions. They're fooling only themselves.

[Reub]

Lol!

[MachineGhost]

I used to think that if men stayed fit, they would never get xxxxxxxxx.

I used to think that too, back in the late 80's to early 90's.

I also know quite a few people who have moved to active adult communities in their late 50's / early 60's and absolutely love it.

I never said such people couldn't love it; but they don't have high expectations to begin with.

Sometimes you tend to be a little myopic. What works [or will work] for you isn't the solution for all of mankind.

True, dat! I'm just saying... don't be a lemming. Wasted breath, I know! Stupid is as stupid does.

[Reub]

New study shows that Viagra (sildenafil citrate) prevents heart attacks. At least for diabetics. And by a lot.

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Ne ... id/734016/

"In addition to boosting a flagging sex life, Viagra can also protect against heart attacks and heart failures, says a study from the U.K.'s University of Manchester. Researchers found that diabetic patients who took Viagra had a lower risk of suffering a heart attack or dying from heart failure than those who didn't take the drug.

Viagra, also known as sildenafil citrate, is normally used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) by increasing blood flow to the penis. It works by inhibiting an enzyme called PDE5, which prevents smooth tissue from relaxing.

The study, which will be published in the journal BMJ Heart, involved 6,000 diabetic men who had been prescribed Viagra for ED. Researchers found that they had a much lower risk of having a heart attack or dying from heart failure than men who didn't take the pill, according to the Daily Express.

The current study isn't the only research to find that Viagra may be good for the heart. A 2014 study published in the journal BMC Medicine found that Viagra can prevent heart muscle from thickening and early stage heart failure. "

[MachineGhost]

The current study isn't the only research to find that Viagra may be good for the heart. A 2014 study published in the journal BMC Medicine found that Viagra can prevent heart muscle from thickening and early stage heart failure. "

Lots of things "prevent heart attacks" but they don't have a huge industry behind it to fund such studies and promote on the lamestream media with the results.

Now go find out the long list of side effects that this crap drug has and get back to us.

[MachineGhost]

The best yet? It was all out for only 20 seconds 3 times and low intensity the other 9 minutes. And only three times a week.

Twelve Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Improves Indices of Cardiometabolic Health Similar to Traditional Endurance Training despite a Five-Fold Lower Exercise Volume and Time Commitment

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0154075