Gyroscopic Investing

Diabetes is something that effects approximately 100 million Americans and is growing exponentially. A new small study published this week in the NY Times entitled Hope For Reversing Type 2 Diabetes has demonstrated that a very low calorie, strict liquid diet (plus some low carb vegetables) has markedly reversed diabetes numbers even 6 months after the diet has been terminated.

"The researchers followed the participants after they had completed an eight-week low-calorie-milkshake diet and returned to normal eating. Six months later, those who had gone into remission immediately after the diet were still diabetes-free. Though most of those who reversed the disease had had it for less than four years, some had been diabetic for more than eight years."

This diet consisted of consuming 600-700 calories per day in three portions for eight weeks. Evidently, the diet works by causing the human body to utilize the fat already stored in the liver and pancreas, thereby enhancing the body's ability to use insulin.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/1 ... &smtyp=cur

Is this something that most of us should consider doing occasionally to prevent or reverse the signs of metabolic syndrome or general health? Personally, I wonder how this diet could be accomplished if one is physically very active and competing in sports activities. That wouldn't be easy and may not be possible.

This seems only relevant to fat fucks who are eating way above their calorie expenditure needs.  600-700 calories a day is absolutely normal for a mostly sedentary, PC working, TV watching human and not a "very low calorie diet".  One wonders what the hell people think a "normal calorie diet" is -- that's how out of whack Super Sized perceptions are.  People are in such denial.

I'd wager the changes were permanent because the gut microbiome changed.  The microbiota that makes you fat would likely die off on a liquid and nonstarchy vegetable diet.

Reub,

1. 600-700 calories per day

I think many people would find that difficult to sustain.

2. I haven't keep up on the latest on intermittent fasting, though the long periods of going without food I gather is supposed to have many benefits, including improving glucose tolerance.

3. For something completely different: I've been checking out:
http://nutritionfacts.org

Run by a vegan physician (saturated fat is evil and such).  He reads all the human literature on diet and puts out frequent videos/written summaries.  I do believe he has some biases* but he has a lot of good info e.g. which fruits/vegetables/herbs are the best for e.g. cancer prevention, etc. and is worth checking out. 

*IN MY OPINION: Flax/chia is not as good as preformed EPA/DHA for most people and if you'r'e trying to lose weight, I think you'd be better off limiting your fruit consumption for starters. 

MachineGhost wrote: I'd wager the changes were permanent because the gut microbiome changed.  The microbiota that makes you fat would likely die off on a liquid and nonstarchy vegetable diet.

The part about gut microbiome and weight is very important.

MachineGhost wrote: 600-700 calories a day is absolutely normal for a mostly sedentary, PC working, TV watching human and not a "very low calorie diet".

 
Says the man on a permanently calorie restricted diet (CRON).

According to the mayo clinic a sedentary 30 year old male 5'9" 160 lbs needs 2100 calories.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20084939

www.examine.com also has some useful info on increasing insulin sensitivity

Benko wrote: Says the man on a permanently calorie restricted diet (CRON).

According to the mayo clinic a sedentary 30 year old male 5'9" 160 lbs needs 2100 calories.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20084939

700 * 3 = 2100.  I eat about 600-650 calories a day depending on appetite.  Again, 600-700 is not a "very low calorie diet".  A "very low calorie diet" is eating like 1500 calories a day for men or 1200 calories a day for women.  I stand by my original statement.  Are you overweight/obese?  'cuz I'm not nor am I a skinny, sarcopenic Skeletor like Dr. Michael Greger.

When you eat high quality foods there is a natural upper limit to how much you can ingest because of the bulk and your lack of appetite (real appetite, not psychological/dopamine addictions/cravings).

Reub wrote: It is possible that an intermittent fasting diet such as the one that I usually follow with an 8 hour eating window as suggested by MachineGhost might also afford benefits similar to those seen in this study however I haven't seen studies demonstrating the amazing long term results that are seen here. I would like to try this if I could except that my extensive physical endeavors would likely make it an impossibility or even self defeating.

Have you considered that all of your physical endeavors that prompt you to eat extra calories to perform such isn't doing you much good if you're still diabetic and overweight?  Exercise doesn't do very much for weight loss.  It's energy in and energy out that is of primary importance.  Yeah, I know its not fashionable these days, but that's because facts are boring, never exciting.  Until you learn to track your exact calorie intake and stop digressing with junk foods, its pointless to try to find a magical approach that will let you have your cake and eat it too (hey, I made a funny!!!).

But if you are adventurous like I am, I'd definitely try the diet.  But you're gonna get really sick of liquid meals very fast, trust me.

MachineGhost wrote:
700 * 3 = 2100. I eat about 600-650 calories a day depending on appetite.  Again, 600-700 is not a "very low calorie diet".  A "very low calorie diet" is eating like 1500 calories a day for men or 1200 calories a day for women.

Perhaps you mean you eat 600-650 calories PER MEAL i.e. * 3?


"sarcopenic Skeletor like Dr. Michael Greger."
I ain't recommending anyone become a vegan or adopt his diet.  I do think eating lots of fruits and veggies worthwhile.

Benko wrote: Perhaps you mean you eat 600-650 calories PER MEAL i.e. * 3?

LOL!  Touche.  I am but an protoplasmic amoeba communicating by telepathy to a transcommunication deviced hooked up to a PC....

So MG, are you consuming 650 calories per day or 3X a day? 650 calories per day sure sounds like a low calorie diet to me.

MachineGhost wrote: I eat about 600-650 calories a day depending on appetite.

MG - you seem pretty technical, but this post is damn suspect.  Human flesh generates about 1 watt per kilo of wasted heat.

If you are typing via mental telepathy from your coma, consuming 650 calories per day then I calculate you weigh about 32 kilos.  (~70 lbs)

Back to Reub's topic on Diabetes...

I've been thinking a lot about metabolic syndrome lately - as I've had a few friends dealing with cancer and I firmly believe that cancer is a metabolic disease (energy pathways) and to a lesser extent an immune system failure.

Diabetes type 2 is a metabolic disease.
It kills me that as a society we are still fighting metabolic syndrome.  We KNOW how to prevent it.

1) Stay lean and strong.
2) Limit energy intake from carbs and polyunsaturated fats.
3) Stay active outdoors with sun exposure to bare skin.
4) Practice some form of periodic fasting.

Bada bing.  No more metabolic disorders.

Mark Leavy wrote: MG - you seem pretty technical, but this post is damn suspect.  Human flesh generates about 1 watt per kilo of wasted heat.

If you are typing via mental telepathy from your coma, consuming 650 calories per day then I calculate you weigh about 32 kilos.  (~70 lbs)

Mark Leavy wrote: I've been thinking a lot about metabolic syndrome lately - as I've had a few friends dealing with cancer and I firmly believe that cancer is a metabolic disease (energy pathways) and to a lesser extent an immune system failure.

I feel you're oversimplyfing the assault.  Cancer is resulting from the aberrant: progenitor stem cells, malnutrition, toxins, epigenetic dysfunctions and biochemical imbalances.  It does no good to focus on, say, just eating organic, raw food if you're not also detoxifying any of the 60,000 unregulated chemicals in our air, food, water and environment.  Don't be an individualist ideologue about any one cancerific process; be a collectivist ideologue!

MachineGhost wrote:

Mark Leavy wrote: I've been thinking a lot about metabolic syndrome lately - as I've had a few friends dealing with cancer and I firmly believe that cancer is a metabolic disease (energy pathways) and to a lesser extent an immune system failure.

I feel you're oversimplyfing the assault.  Cancer is resulting from the aberrant: progenitor stem cells, malnutrition, toxins, epigenetic dysfunctions and biochemical imbalances.  It does no good to focus on, say, just eating organic, raw food if you're not also detoxifying any of the 60,000 unregulated chemicals in our air, food, water and environment.  Don't be an individualist ideologue about any one cancerific process; be a collectivist ideologue!

MG - I completely agree with you that we are surrounded by millions of things that can initiate cancer development in our bodies.  But I also think that all of those stressors are perfectly natural and part of our exposure to the world of solar radiation, dust particles, random carcinogens from everyday plant and animal life...

I tend to go off the reservation in that I think a healthy body's natural defense mechanisms are constantly cleaning up and protecting us.  (autophagy, apoptosis, immune system...).  It is only when these systems break down that cancer can get a foothold.

Basically I'm saying that cancer is actually a normal part of everyday living.  Cancer is the trash and damage from living.  Cancer only becomes a problem when the maintenance and cleanup crew stop showing up for work.

That's my working theory.  Don't take medical advice from random people on the internet.

Mark Leavy wrote: a healthy body's natural defense mechanisms are constantly cleaning up and protecting us.  (autophagy, apoptosis, immune system...).  It is only when these systems break down that cancer can get a foothold.

Basically I'm saying that cancer is actually a normal part of everyday living.  Cancer is the trash and damage from living.  Cancer only becomes a problem when the maintenance and cleanup crew stop showing up for work.

That's my working theory.

  and a damn good one +1.

Benko wrote:

Mark Leavy wrote: a healthy body's natural defense mechanisms are constantly cleaning up and protecting us.  (autophagy, apoptosis, immune system...).  It is only when these systems break down that cancer can get a foothold.

Basically I'm saying that cancer is actually a normal part of everyday living.  Cancer is the trash and damage from living.  Cancer only becomes a problem when the maintenance and cleanup crew stop showing up for work.

That's my working theory.

  and a damn good one +1.

Sounds good to me too.  You guys are experts when posing answers to the "whats".  I can hardly wait until you get your heads around the "whys".  Have to move to another thread to ponder that one. 

Edit:  Back to taking out the trash:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTC3pG ... AK47bandit

... M

There are a lot of modern carcinogenic substances that aren't really "natural", in the way ML suggests, I'd say.

And, it may well be that we can clean up a certain amount/kind of junk, but not all of it and/or not as much of it as we may be exposed to today.

Also, I agree that lean and strong is a good thing (although for older folks, it seems to be a good idea to have a few extra pounds in case you get sick).

But I'd be cautious about sun exposure - that increases skin cancer risks.

And, complex carbs are a good thing.

Mountaineer wrote: Sounds good to me too.  You guys are experts when posing answers to the "whats".  I can hardly wait until you get your heads around the "whys".  Have to move to another thread to ponder that one. 

I'm always surprised that people don't make a distinction between simple and complex carbs.

Complex carbs, as found in whole grains/vegetables/etc. are a good thing, while simple carbs are bad.  The reason is that simple carbs are processed much more quickly in the body into sugar, which then affects insulin production, etc.

Whole grains and other sources of complex carbs are broken down more slowly, so they're not a substance that leads towards diabetes.  In fact, the main dietary change I made when "pre-diabetic" was to greatly reduce things like white rice/bread/pasta, and substitute whole grain versions of those.

If you're a vegetarian and don't want to eat a lot of milk/cheese/eggs, then whole grains (combined with legumes/beans) are a good source of protein as well.  For example, we went to an Indian restaurant last night, and had a lentil curry - instead of white rice, we ordered a whole wheat bread. 

They also have a lot of fiber, which is a good thing as well.

The conclusion of the study ML posted is that increased levels of polyunsaturated fats are a good idea, and help to prevent metabolic syndrome.

It seems to have been deleted.

jafs wrote: The conclusion of the study ML posted is that increased levels of polyunsaturated fats are a good idea, and help to prevent metabolic syndrome.

It seems to have been deleted.

Yea, I posted before I was finished.  Still working on it.

Sure.

But it looks like the conclusions of that study aren't that increased levels of polyunsatured fats are a bad thing, it's that they're a good thing, as far as metabolic syndrome.

MangoMan wrote:

Mark Leavy wrote: Back to Reub's topic on Diabetes...

I've been thinking a lot about metabolic syndrome lately - as I've had a few friends dealing with cancer and I firmly believe that cancer is a metabolic disease (energy pathways) and to a lesser extent an immune system failure.

Diabetes type 2 is a metabolic disease.
It kills me that as a society we are still fighting metabolic syndrome.  We KNOW how to prevent it.

1) Stay lean and strong.
2) Limit energy intake from carbs and polyunsaturated fats.
3) Stay active outdoors with sun exposure to bare skin.
4) Practice some form of periodic fasting.

Bada bing.  No more metabolic disorders.

Mark,
The carbs is obvious; do you have a reliable source to link to that explains the connection with polyunsaturates?

Pugchief -
I can find no journal approved papers that suggest PUFA's are a contributor to metabolic syndrome.

This paper represents the general consensus in the medical world.
Serum Omega-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Metabolic Syndrome: A Longitudinal Population-based Cohort Study

Full Text
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/176/3/253.full

Abstract
The serum fatty acid composition reflects the dietary fatty acid composition from the past few days to several weeks. However, the role of serum omega-3 (from fish and fish oils) and omega-6 (from vegetable oils) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the course of metabolic syndrome is poorly understood. At the Primary Health Care Unit in Pieksämäki, Finland, all subjects born in 1942, 1947, 1952, 1957, and 1962 (n = 1,294) were invited for health checkups in 1997–1998 and 2003–2004. Metabolic syndrome was defined by using the new, harmonized criteria. The serum omega-3 PUFAs, omega-6 PUFAs, and total fatty acids were analyzed by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Altogether, data from both checkups were available for 665 subjects. After adjustment for age, sex, and baseline body mass index, the incidence of metabolic syndrome between the 2 checkups with a 6.4-year follow-up was inversely associated (P < 0.001) with the increased relative proportion of omega-6 PUFAs in serum lipids. Further adjustment for body mass index change, lipid medication, smoking, alcohol intake, and physical activity conveyed similar results. The authors did not find any significant associations between omega-3 PUFAs and the incidence of metabolic syndrome. Therefore, their results suggest that the change in the relative proportion of omega-6 PUFAs in serum lipids is inversely related to the incidence of metabolic syndrome.

---------

My personal opinions are much different and have been influenced by a number of independent (and somewhat fringe) researchers.

I have a lot of respect for Petro Dobromylskyj at hyperlipid.com
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ ... rnish.html
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ ... -pufa.html

And for the "Yelling Stop" site
http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2016/0 ... xcess.html

And Michael Eades
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2016/02 ... even-more/


Again, this is just what I do.  It works for me.  Like investing, I think everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

Mark, I know you've spoken favorably about eggs in the past, but egg yolks contain 16% Linoleic Acid--probably too much to eat egg yolks every day. Do you limit your egg consumption to a few days a week or something? Or figure that a low-carb, periodic-fasting diet makes up for the LA?