Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PINK

Low carb diet alone will not normalize bloodsugars : Bernstein quote. paraphrase.

Recommended Posts

PINK

"A low carb diet alone will not normalize blood-sugars unless you have a very light case of Diabetes,"

 

From his recent podcast:

HIs radiocast: http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=19381665

 

About halfway through he starts to talk about meds being necessary for almost every one of his patients to keep their BG numbers down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had to type as he talked and so am paraphrasing here as an exact quote was beyond my current typing skills! Typonese is my friend.

He answers many letters. This is how this one starts:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Just started your diet.............Will I ever see a change in my numbers?"

Bernstein:

"Nowhere in anywhere in my books do I say that diet alone would normalize blood sugars.

Offhand I cannot think of ONE person who has been treated by diet alone and I have had thousands of patients over the years.

Some have cut down their numbers by half (with my low carb diet) but that is still above normal.

They will need medication to get them down all the way.

Don't count on diet alone, .....although diet is probably the biggest factor."

 

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Wow! I see so much devotion online to his low carb diet I never realized that the above was true for his practice. My surprise is in part due to the fact that I have only read excerpts to his books and not one of his books in it's entirety. This may all be old news to you, today I was pleasantly surprised to hear him say it.

 

Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

First of all, is he speaking about T2s or only T1s like himself?

 

Secondly, Dr. Bernstein has a way-off-mainstream opinion of what "normal" blood sugar means. Statistically, "normal" is more or less 70 - 99 fasting and 70 - 120 @ 2 hours. Dr. Bernstein believes in something called "truly normal" - more or less 83 all the time. Facts do not support this opinion of his.

 

Also, I don't know what he means by "very light" diabetes. There are many, many people out there achieving normal blood sugars (with its correct definition) with diet alone who had initial A1Cs of 10, 12 or even higher. Mine was 10.7 and I am one of those. Good to hear that my diabetes is only a "very light" case!

 

I am still quite hopeful of NEVER taking any meds or insulin and eventually dying of something unrelated. Obviously, if the disease has progressed too far, that might not be possible but I am convinced that it is a large majority of T2s who could do this, not some tiny minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby
Also, I don't know what he means by "very light" diabetes. There are many, many people out there achieving normal blood sugars (with its correct definition) with diet alone who had initial A1Cs of 10, 12 or even higher. Mine was 10.7 and I am one of those. Good to hear that my diabetes is only a "very light" case!

 

I don't understand the resistance to the idea of T2 being on a scale of severity. It seems bizarre to suggest otherwise, that every T2 suffers from some "flat rate" level of insulin resistance/ pancreatic strain/beta cell loss. Can you explain your rationale behind rejecting the idea of degrees of severity?

 

As for Bernstein, yep, he certainly discusses and recommends meds for both types in his books. For whatever that is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notme

Many are veering "way off mainstream", but I think we have to listen to all of the reports and know that what they say may be worth thinking about. It seems that the complaint here so many times is that people often listen only to "mainstream" doctors.

 

I think that some types of diabetes can be harder to control than others. For type one, there is the variable of the honeymoon period as well as a few people who do produce some insulin for many years before their pancreas peters out. For type two, I am sure there are some who are more insulin resistant than others. That is how I took the "light" diabetes comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Why would you think something like that? OF COURSE T2 is on varying levels of severity. That can be found in nearly every post I ever write!

 

My comment was in response to the Dr. suggesting that only "very light" cases of T2 (or "diabetics" - again not sure which/both he really meant) can achieve normal blood sugars with diet alone. I am achieving normal blood sugars with diet alone. My initial A1C was 10.7. This my first time to hear something implying that my particular case is "very light"! I didn't think 10.7 represented a "very light" case of T2. What would be severe? Above 20 maybe?

 

I hope it's clearer now.

 

 

I don't understand the resistance to the idea of T2 being on a scale of severity. It seems bizarre to suggest otherwise, that every T2 suffers from some "flat rate" level of insulin resistance/ pancreatic strain/beta cell loss. Can you explain your rationale behind rejecting the idea of degrees of severity?

 

As for Bernstein, yep, he certainly discusses and recommends meds for both types in his books. For whatever that is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dturney

I think there are alot of people on this forum who are not even diabetic....I think that is the reason some can go on their low carb high fat diets and maintain normal blood glucose. It stands to reason if you are producing insulin and your body is able to supply your cells with glucose your are not diabetic. I also think that some of us cannot produce insulin or use the insulin we do produce no matter what diet we are on. That is when you are a diabetic. To say you can control your diabetes using the LC/HF diet in any type 2 cases is wrong. If you are a type two diabetic and you think you can control your diabetes with a LC/HF diet good luck you are going to need it. There is no cure for diabetes type 1 or type 2. There is prevention and hopefully you can prevent it by your LC/HF diets. As for me I am going to shoot a little insulin and eat a well balanced diet.....42 years and counting with diabetes.....:):heeeellll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daytona

I think that for some people who are diagnosed as T2 early enough and don't have terribly bad IR, managing BG via diet and exercise alone can be possible (though maybe not preferable for many). I'm biased however because I fit into that definition. :D

 

However, I appreciate that he is upfront that most people use a combination of tactics to manage their diabetes. When I was first diagnosed, I couldn't control my BG with just diet/exercise, and felt like a failure. Having the message out there that it's okay to use all the tools in your D toolbox is a good thing.

 

I'm not sure what light diabetes means either, but I assume he meant that they still have enough pancreatic function left to not be insulin dependent. I don't believe he meant it to belittle/minimize/whatever people who he classified as having "light D".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby
Why would you think something like that? OF COURSE T2 is on varying levels of severity. That can be found in nearly every post I ever write!

 

My comment was in response to the Dr. suggesting that only "very light" cases of T2 (or "diabetics" - again not sure which/both he really meant) can achieve normal blood sugars with diet alone. I am achieving normal blood sugars with diet alone. My initial A1C was 10.7. This my first time to hear something implying that my particular case is "very light"! I didn't think 10.7 represented a "very light" case of T2. What would be severe? Above 20 maybe?

 

I hope it's clearer now.

 

Kind of. I now understand what you were saying, but it seems quite unusual to me.

 

Why? It's the first time I've heard someone so concretely quantify the severity of their T2 solely on A1c at DX. I mean, people do put their starting A1cs in their sig and talk about how high it was, but I didn't realise it was the gold standard to "severity" it apparently is, going by what you are saying! I'd be interested in other T2's take on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daytona
I think there are alot of people on this forum who are not even diabetic....

 

Just curious how you would classify someone who meets the accepted criteria for having diabetes, e.g. a fasting BG of say 400, but who isn't insulin dependent. Do you not consider them to be diabetic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bountyman
Hidden
I think there are a lot of people on this forum who are not even diabetic....I think that is the reason some can go on their low carb high fat diets and maintain normal blood glucose. It stands to reason if you are producing insulin and your body is able to supply your cells with glucose your are not diabetic. I also think that some of us cannot produce insulin or use the insulin we do produce no matter what diet we are on. That is when you are a diabetic.

 

I'll have to agree with you. I've seen several members come through here saying they had a high HbA1c and through diet and exercise they're HbA1c came down to acceptable levels. Well of course it did. I suppose if you smacked your finger with a hammer every day you'd have some issues picking your nose during the Sunday Night Movie. You could call yourself a Type X finger-smasher...that's feeling very dexterous of late, but it's only because you're not smashing your fingers anymore. The quasi-formula they're using? I stopped abusing myself. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Daytona

I'm not sure how constructive or helpful it is to say that people who are able to control their BG through diet and exercise were just dummies abusing themselves. I just don't get the point. :confused:

 

Sure there are some people who were diagnosed after years of eating a classically poor diet, turn things around and get things under control. However to cast aspersions on so many people (whom you nothing about), seems petty and hurtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Man, you are in rare form today. Everything I say gets twisted into something else. I was diagnosed with T2. From all the stats and my own measurements, I don't think it would be correctly classified as a "very light" case of diabetes. I wish it was! My wife had an A1C of 7.2. I think it is safe to say that hers is much "milder" (or less advanced) then mine and probably qualifies as "very light". A few years back, I don't think it would even have been called "diabetes".

 

I wasn't making any commentary on the A1C or any "gold standard". Rather, EVERYTHING about my case (I haven't had a OGTT, but my own experimentation makes it pretty clear where that would go), says type 2 diabetes of relatively advanced progression. Please don't divert this to a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of a single test - that wasn't the point.

 

My point is that all indicators are that my diabetes is somewhere above average in terms of severity and certainly not "very light". In spite of that, I have completely normal blood sugars by using diet ALONE. This is on the point of the thread. The rest isn't. Even exercise has nothing to do with it. I do it sometimes (for many other very good reasons) and don't others - it has no effect on my BG control. If it did, I would know I was doing something wrong - but that is another discussion.

 

My own experience and the experiences of many others has convinced me that a large majority of T2's could have normal blood sugars by diet alone - not a small minority of "very light" cases. Whether they would want to is another matter entirely, but I think this knowledge is vital in order for people to understand their true range of choices and then make the choice which is truly best for THEM. I believe the reason Dr. Bernstein's conclusion is so different is simply because of his definition of "normal" which I believe is wrong and not supported by any evidence outside of his own subjective opinion.

 

More and more new diabetics appear to be like my wife - getting diagnosed with very low A1C's (and presumably other stats in line with that) like 7.2. I have little doubt that nearly all of those (barring other unknown tangential issues) could halt the disease in its tracks if they were willing to eat what truly suits their condition - without any meds or insulin.

 

Unfortunately, because there is no profit - and HUGE "opportunity cost" losses - involved here, I doubt if that research will ever be done outside of individuals on forums like this one.

 

 

 

Kind of. I now understand what you were saying, but it seems quite unusual to me.

 

Why? It's the first time I've heard someone so concretely quantify the severity of their T2 solely on A1c at DX. I mean, people do put their starting A1cs in their sig and talk about how high it was, but I didn't realise it was the gold standard to "severity" it apparently is, going by what you are saying! I'd be interested in other T2's take on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dturney
Just curious how you would classify someone who meets the accepted criteria for having diabetes, e.g. a fasting BG of say 400, but who isn't insulin dependent. Do you not consider them to be diabetic?

 

I did not refer to an insulin dependent diabetic. I said type 2. If I had a fasting BG of 400 and it stayed there for any amount of time I would be on my way to the Hospital. Now if you weigh 400lbs and your body can't supply enough insulin ...then losing 250lbs might bring your BG under control. Then a LC/HF diet might work. I would not go this direction but then that is just me. If you classify yourself as pre-diabetic I suppose you could get by with the LC/HF diet. What I said was, if your body does not produce insulin , or if your body cannot use the insulin you produce then this type of diet will not work without meds. My choice of meds is INSULIN. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daytona
... if your body does not produce insulin , or if your body cannot use the insulin you produce then this type of diet will not work without meds. My choice of meds is INSULIN. :)

 

Thanks, I figured I just misunderstood (and I did!). Yup, that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PINK

The main point of this thread was to say I was glad to hear Dr Bernstein being open about using all the tools in the box to manage Diabetes well.

 

I was glad he wasn't claiming to be God-like or to have the 'Only workable ideas' or to claim that if everyone went on his diet they would have excellent management unless they were doing something wrong.

 

It surprised me and I was very hard on myself when LC healthy diet and tons of exercise alone didn't fix me. It was a relief to hear such an 'Authohitay" mention meds as a part of the fix.

 

I am one of those people who believes that whatever works is a good thing, from either side of the fence. I prefer to take no meds and that just isn't possible for me. I dream of keeping things as simple as possible and work towards that goal.

 

The last 2 weeks have been scary for me and I am happy as can be to be on Lantus now. It's only been 3 days and I am feeling better already. No 200's! Everything is around 120 and will be coming down one way or another.

 

Thanks everybody for chiming in here. It is a good way to get an idea of what moves you.

 

:)

 

Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Don, have you been paying attention? LC/HF doesn't work because it makes you lose weight, although that is certainly one of its benefits. Rather, it works because it breaks your dependence on glucose - and therefore on large amounts of insulin. It has nothing to do with weight. When you practice LC/HF and enter into a state called "ketosis" and stay there, 95% of your body's cells learn to utilize alternative fuels in lieu of glucose. Only a tiny fraction of your cells actually NEED glucose. The rest are able to "switch".

 

So, this drastically reduced need for glucose also means a drastically reduced need for insulin. The average T2 still has 50% of his/her insulin producing capacity at diagnosis. (Wow, that sounds much better as "glass half full" - it's almost always cited in "glass half empty" format!). Depending on the remaining capacity, it will be possible in many cases to bring the actual need for insulin substantially BELOW the remaining capacity to produce it. Now, there is no "pressure" on the pancreas and no reason to believe that its condition will continue to deteriorate. It is "coasting".

 

Insulin resistance is also rendered irrelevant since as already described, 95% of your cells are not even using glucose/insulin to any significant degree and can get all the energy they need from other sources, so it doesn't even matter. I have no desire to "treat" my insulin resistance. It is my friend. It is there to make sure most of my cells continue to prefer other fuels to glucose.

 

Weight loss is nice at least for some but hardly relevant to the entire scenario of addressing T2 with a ketogenic diet. For those who don't need to lose weight, it is usually possible to utilize a ketogenic diet for control without weight loss. I can gain or lose weight at will while all the while having normal BG.

 

I'm diabetic. My glucose metabolizing system is "broken". I can either continue to try forcing it to work by various means (except perhaps extreme exercise, these means would all entail chemical intervention) OR I can address it as described above. My personal choice is the latter. It's an issue of freedom and keeping it simple - my way of being a "casual" (but HEALTHY) T2 diabetic.

 

 

 

I did not refer to an insulin dependent diabetic. I said type 2. If I had a fasting BG of 400 and it stayed there for any amount of time I would be on my way to the Hospital. Now if you weigh 400lbs and your body can't supply enough insulin ...then losing 250lbs might bring your BG under control. Then a LC/HF diet might work. I would not go this direction but then that is just me. If you classify yourself as pre-diabetic I suppose you could get by with the LC/HF diet. What I said was, if your body does not produce insulin , or if your body cannot use the insulin you produce then this type of diet will not work without meds. My choice of meds is INSULIN. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whack-a-mmol/L
First of all, is he speaking about T2s or only T1s like himself?

 

Secondly, Dr. Bernstein has a way-off-mainstream opinion of what "normal" blood sugar means. Statistically, "normal" is more or less 70 - 99 fasting and 70 - 120 @ 2 hours. Dr. Bernstein believes in something called "truly normal" - more or less 83 all the time. Facts do not support this opinion of his.

 

Agreed, however in his last broadcast Berstein qualifies this Non diabetic 83BG number as a relative constant if on a low carb diet. With that qualifier he may be correct as a non diabetic on low carb would never get outside of their bodies ability to maintain homeostasis. Obviously if they ate pancakes the number would go way up just not as far as ours might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Maybe, but I don't believe that, either. I believe people have varying "set points" where their body DECIDES it wants to be and for how long without ever being "unable" to maintain state. I have tested some of my sons with VERY different results. Neither is diabetic and neither one gets in any way "overwhelmed" no matter what they eat. One will ALWAYS be in the low 80's no matter what he eats. The other will go above 100 likewise no matter what he eats and without much difference whether he eats like me of drinks a 60 oz soda.

 

Like nearly every other biological factoid, this resides on a bell curve even for normal, non-diabetic people. They are NOT within some very, very narrow range and everyone outside that is either hypoglycemic or diabetic. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that and don't believe the facts support it.

 

I believe I am living well within my glycemic means but my last A1C was 5.4. (The one before that was 5.1). I would have liked a 4.8 but firmly believe that my body resided at 5.4 because it WANTED to, not because it "couldn't" achieve a lower number. If nothing is overwhelmed, then this must be my "set point". I'll take it.

 

 

Agreed, however in his last broadcast Berstein qualifies this Non diabetic 83BG number as a relative constant if on a low carb diet. With that qualifier he may be correct as a non diabetic on low carb would never get outside of their bodies ability to maintain homeostasis. Obviously if they ate pancakes the number would go way up just not as far as ours might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whack-a-mmol/L

I understand your skepticism. I'm not defending Bernstein here, just looking to clarify his statement as I understand it. I believe he is saying that if you dial out the major variables, good BMI, no D, no IR, ingest very limited and very controlled amounts of carbs, then BS will hover around 83. That's a lot of ifs for the real world. I suppose without a test group eating identical low carb meals for a few months there is no way to know anything meaningful about his assertion or how accurate it might be. And no ones going to fund that study, no potential profit, no study. :mad: In the long run it makes no difference to us, we fail on at least one or more of the variables above.

 

As far as I can tell his whole stick is based on doing everything possible to achieve that theoretical, (real or not), ideal. Glucophage for IR, extreme diet restriction, insulin, etc. All in the service of minimizing or reversing diabetic complications. I can't argue with his goal. While I don't believe my diabetes warrants quite the extreme measures he advocates if I had nerve or kidney damage I might drink his koolaid.

 

Now Bernstein aside my history leads me to agree in principle with your "set point" theory. My eating and activity level is consistent and I eat HF/LC. My A1c has been 5.1 for a year and a half after DX. Lab test for FBS is always 86. I'm betting that if my diet changed to include a twinky every day, or if i injected a basel insulin dose, my "set point" would change. My current set point is determined by diet, a dysfunctional but still somewhat active pancreas, some insulin resistance, and some additional body fat. Change any of those, (and probably a hundred other known and unknown factors), and the set point will likely change as well but my major limiting factors are IR and decreased ability to produce and store insulin for a 1st phase response. A condition shared by many type II's here.

 

At 5.1 Bernstein would likely advocate Glucophage or minute doses of insulin. while I am considering glucophage for other reasons I am personally quite comfortable, and thankful, to be within the accepted normal bell curve you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Good points and I agree completely. When I set my goals at soon after DX, I decided that as long as my A1C was under 6.5 I would not engage in any chemical or hormonal intervention.

 

The human body is hugely complex. If you attempt to read in detail about any of the metabolic processes involved what is most amazing is not how much we know (which is a lot and very detailed) but how much we don't know. Then to think that they can take completely alien chemical, introduce them into a few hundred or a few thousand of these organisms (us) and think they have done enough testing to determine efficacy and safety across the entire population, for longer periods AND mixed with various other substances and pharmaceuticals is just ludicrous. The fact that the incentive behind all this development is profit, that they rush it to market to make that profit and the revolving doors between government regulating bodies and the industry itself obviously does nothing to boost my confidence.

 

I'm no Christian Scientist and I'm not against pharmaceuticals when the need is clear and pressing, but I will always prefer lifestyle means if at all possible.

 

When the treatment involved is "chronic" (taking something every single day for the rest of your life), my degree of caution goes up exponentially. I'm not sure Ibuprofin or Tylenol is completely safe and may hurt my liver or something, but taking them 2 or 3 times per year for something very painful is not that big of a concern.

 

On the other hand, Metformin although it appears relatively safe, I would still approach with much caution because were talking multiple times per day for years, possibly for life. It has been implicated in neuropathy and possible liver problems. Rather ironic to take something to lower spillover glucose (the thing we measure) and then actually worsen one of the biggest complications we're seeking to avoid.

 

At 5.4 (or even a little higher), I personally would never, ever consider chemical intervention. I consider that very misguided. There is simply not enough evidence of great reduction in risk of anything from 5.4 to 4.8 to justify it IMO. I believe my A1C will eventually settle below 5 in the range Dr. B. likes but even if not, so be it.

 

 

I understand your skepticism. I'm not defending Bernstein here, just looking to clarify his statement as I understand it. I believe he is saying that if you dial out the major variables, good BMI, no D, no IR, ingest very limited and very controlled amounts of carbs, then BS will hover around 83. That's a lot of ifs for the real world. I suppose without a test group eating identical low carb meals for a few months there is no way to know anything meaningful about his assertion or how accurate it might be. And no ones going to fund that study, no potential profit, no study. :mad: In the long run it makes no difference to us, we fail on at least one or more of the variables above.

 

As far as I can tell his whole stick is based on doing everything possible to achieve that theoretical, (real or not), ideal. Glucophage for IR, extreme diet restriction, insulin, etc. All in the service of minimizing or reversing diabetic complications. I can't argue with his goal. While I don't believe my diabetes warrants quite the extreme measures he advocates if I had nerve or kidney damage I might drink his koolaid.

 

Now Bernstein aside my history leads me to agree in principle with your "set point" theory. My eating and activity level is consistent and I eat HF/LC. My A1c has been 5.1 for a year and a half after DX. Lab test for FBS is always 86. I'm betting that if my diet changed to include a twinky every day, or if i injected a basel insulin dose, my "set point" would change. My current set point is determined by diet, a dysfunctional but still somewhat active pancreas, some insulin resistance, and some additional body fat. Change any of those, (and probably a hundred other known and unknown factors), and the set point will likely change as well but my major limiting factors are IR and decreased ability to produce and store insulin for a 1st phase response. A condition shared by many type II's here.

 

At 5.1 Bernstein would likely advocate Glucophage or minute doses of insulin. while I am considering glucophage for other reasons I am personally quite comfortable, and thankful, to be within the accepted normal bell curve you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby
Man, you are in rare form today. Everything I say gets twisted into something else.

 

I'll take the rare form comment charitably, but no, I am not trying to "twist your words" - I'm just engaging with the conversation and responding to the specific points that you raise. We are not mind readers, Samorgan, we are not privy to the wider context in your own head, that your specific, explicated points belong to! Grow some skin: if you meant more than DX A1c (you didn't say it, but if you meant it) then just fill in the picture, skip the "you're doing me so much VIOLENCE! You're SO WRONG!" BS, please. What you may not realise is that I and most people here are not like you and do not think the way you do: in responding to points we are usually not aggressively jumping on each other, but: simply responding to points, and often that will be in a querying or contrary spirit. It's a pretty established format in civilised discourse: one responds, providing the opportunity for the "statement - response - elaboration" dynamic of conversation and generally, no-one need lose an eye. I commend it.

 

I was diagnosed with T2. From all the stats and my own measurements, I don't think it would be correctly classified as a "very light" case of diabetes. I wish it was!

 

Have you read the Bernstein to determine what he specifically means by "very light" diabetes? Without that I can't understand how you can talk about "correct classifications" of very light in the first place.

 

My point is that all indicators are that my diabetes is somewhere above average in terms of severity and certainly not "very light".

 

See previous point, and it may (or may not) be worth saying:as far as it goes I'm happy to take your comments on face value, in that that is your understanding of your own status with the condition, just as I have an understanding of my status of 'severity' with my T1 (which goes well above things like "being insulin dependent" or 'degree of insulin dependency'). Sheesh, I mentioned T1, may I pre-empt your next rap over the knuckles for going OT and say I'll get back on track right now.

 

But, in terms of Bernstein's 'very light' (which we don't have an adequate definition of) for me you haven't provided a lot of alternative theory to consider in terms of norms - all you've provided is your initial A1c and what you think an OGTT would result in. Please, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I still don't consider that a very comprehensive or thought out way to determine severity of T2. I'm interested in that. I may be T1, doesn't mean I don't have my own interest in these questions (both for the T2 interests in my life, and because such questions do overlap with T1, though that need not play into this conversation at all).

 

My own experience and the experiences of many others has convinced me that a large majority of T2's could have normal blood sugars by diet alone - not a small minority of "very light" cases. Whether they would want to is another matter entirely, but I think this knowledge is vital in order for people to understand their true range of choices and then make the choice which is truly best for THEM. I believe the reason Dr. Bernstein's conclusion is so different is simply because of his definition of "normal" which I believe is wrong and not supported by any evidence outside of his own subjective opinion.

 

More and more new diabetics appear to be like my wife - getting diagnosed with very low A1C's (and presumably other stats in line with that) like 7.2. I have little doubt that nearly all of those (barring other unknown tangential issues) could halt the disease in its tracks if they were willing to eat what truly suits their condition - without any meds or insulin.

 

Unfortunately, because there is no profit - and HUGE "opportunity cost" losses - involved here, I doubt if that research will ever be done outside of individuals on forums like this one.

 

Yeah, I somewhat agree with you here. But I know from another recent thread that if I explicate my understanding of your point without quoting verbatim, all I get is another crack over the knuckles for 'misrepresenting' you. So I certainly won't stick my neck out further. This is, is seems, your method for dominating the discourse - read their responses uncharitably, call them out on the letter, not the spirit, and generally make it unpleasant for other person to engage you critically. I don't like it. But hey, there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Subby:

 

Sorry about your knuckles and your neck! As far as that description is from any intention of mine, I'll do my best to ponder why you feel it that way. OK?

 

We've gone round this way before and it just seems like many points you raise are nit-picking, wholly unnecessary, too argumentative and distracting from the topic. What is the benefit of picking on the definition of "very light". Isn't that obvious? On any kind of continuum which expressed "severity", "very light" would have to be the lower percentiles as opposed to "light", "medium", "high" and "very high" or whatever you choose to call the rest of it. It is so abundantly clear that by any measure, I am not in the bottom quartile or probably even bottom half that it seems downright silly to even debate this highly irrelevant little side-point. And that is the pattern I see when you "discuss".

 

I suspect you'll say I do that more than you, so I'll just go ahead and try to imagine how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop

Dr. B was responding to a question from a relatively recently diagnosed person who reported that, despite following Dr. B's recommendations for a week, his BGs were ranging from 140 to 250. He wanted to know if that would ever change. (He did not state his A1c at diagnosis, or what his BGs had been before starting the diet.) Dr. B said that, over the course of treating thousands of patients, he had never treated one who was able to get his BGs to what Dr. B considers normal by means of diet alone. He said that only someone whose diabetes was "very mild" could do so. He did not define "very mild."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

For a week? Did Dr. B. mean that they couldn't do that in one week, or ever? Could you tell?

 

 

Dr. B was responding to a question from a relatively recently diagnosed person who reported that, despite following Dr. B's recommendations for a week, his BGs were ranging from 140 to 250. He wanted to know if that would ever change. (He did not state his A1c at diagnosis, or what his BGs had been before starting the diet.) Dr. B said that, over the course of treating thousands of patients, he had never treated one who was able to get his BGs to what Dr. B considers normal by means of diet alone. He said that only someone whose diabetes was "very mild" could do so. He did not define "very mild."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.