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

ShottleBop

He didn't really say what would, or wouldn't, happen to the caller. He simply noted that nowhere in his book did he say that diet alone would normalize blood sugars; "You would have to have very mild diabetes for it to do that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Well, on the one hand we have the official bodies telling us that progression is inevitable and every T2 will eventually require insulin - right after warning us to always make sure we get "sufficient" carbs at every meal.

 

Then, we have Dr. B. insisting that "normal" BG is all-83 all the time and then saying that no one but the mildest of T2s can achieve "normal" BGs with diet alone.

 

A pox on BOTH their houses! They are both self-fulfilling. Their wrong parameters skew the outcome and make them correct in their own eyes, and within their own invented parameters.

 

I remain convinced that MOST T2s could achieve normal BGs with diet alone just as soon as you understand what "normal" really is and what "diet" can achieve that.

 

 

 

He didn't really say what would, or wouldn't, happen to the caller. He simply noted that nowhere in his book did he say that diet alone would normalize blood sugars; "You would have to have very mild diabetes for it to do that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop

Dr. B's goal of 83 is not "invented"; he based that number on the hundreds of tests that he conducted on blood glucose meter salesmen that came by selling their wares. He has maintained, in a comment to one of David Mendosa's columns about what a "normal" A1c is, that the fact that many nondiabetic folks these days have BGs higher than that is due to the SAD that so many folks have eaten for the past few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby
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".

 

The issue I raise about Bernsteins "very light" is how he determines who is very light, medium, heavy, etc. It might be that he considers someone who's measurable level of cellular insulin resistance is a big factor of place on the scale. It might be that he has a sliding scale from time of diagnosis. It might be that he considers physical fitness indications or obesity as important adjuncts upon the question. I don't know, neither do you, what he really means (except that he thinks that the group who fall in "very light" will have very good success with diet - which is not necessarily a criteria, though). That's the entire point. How does he determine his scale?

 

As a reasonable point of enquiry about the topic and how to assess Bernstein's claim, I don't think my interest or methods are any of the objectionable things you claim they are. You have made your position clear: perhaps we'll get some relevant input from others who might take my question a bit more seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Yes, very unscientific, taken from a very atypical sample and completely at odds with results of those who have attempted this in a more scientific manner. Little more than "anecdotal", really.

 

 

Dr. B's goal of 83 is not "invented"; he based that number on the hundreds of tests that he conducted on blood glucose meter salesmen that came by selling their wares. He has maintained, in a comment to one of David Mendosa's columns about what a "normal" A1c is, that the fact that many nondiabetic folks these days have BGs higher than that is due to the SAD that so many folks have eaten for the past few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCS

I am not sure I agree with Dr. B entirely or maybe I am a rare case:

 

I had a fasting BG of 350 when Dxed, that was after eating zero carbs for a week. I had previously went into DKA twice with a MRSA infection the underlying cause. Neuropathy so severe in my hands I could barely drive a car.

 

Onced Dxed, I tried to divide all of my conditions into their separate groups. Digestion, IR, Insulin production, signaling, hormones, etc. I then determined what I had to do to bring these items back to nominal.

 

I am now taking no BG lowering drugs or herbals other than asprin. My BG are in Dr. B's range of BG levels. I am always 5 pts away from 83 except for the 1 hr after a meal. My old set point was much higher, so one can change their baseline number. I would like to exercise more but right now 2-4 miles walking a day is about it. My diet consists of meat and veggies for the most part.

 

I think his comment about being a light Diabetic, may be referring to how damaged a persons body is after suffering from above normal BG levels. My thoughts are type 2 Diabetes creates the environment with in ones body that cascades into other aspects of health due to abnormal BG levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwags

It took me at least 2 years of low carbing to get close to Dr B's 83. I am usually in the 80-100 range most of the day, even after meals. Anyone who has started a low carb diet will tell you bgs don't magically lower to 83 in a week. I also think if you were Dr B's patient he would go over your medical records and do all sorts of tests to determine what your unique bg pattern is. I am one of those Type 2's who the first couple of years got liver dumps when I wasn't eating. It took a lot of work and metformin changes to figure out how to manage those glucose dumps. Also for me things like exercise also cause bg spikes. When you have diabetes your endocrine system is messed up, so getting an average of 83 without meds is tricky. I think Dr B believes you should use all medications available drugs, insulin to get you close to that 83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

I'll stick to the Middle Way. I have no problem whatsoever with 110 after meals. Actually, even 130 at peak wouldn't be a problem but I don't usually go there. I nearly always wake up at 83 - 86 but anywhere between 70 - 99 is just fine with me. If I don't snack between meals, I'll be back at 83 but if I feel like snacking I may stay between 90 and 100 all day. Works for me.

 

Personal opinions/preferences aside, I just can't see taking extraordinary means (or ANY chemical or hormonal intervention) to take it farther than that. These are all numbers COMMONLY found in healthy non-diabetics. I have seen no convincing evidence that there is any significant benefit in going beyond that. If I do so by lifestyle means, so be it. Otherwise, uh-uh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PinkRose
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.

 

We may not know exactly what B means by being a 'light' diabetic but from the point of view of a T1, an initial A1c score of 10.7 upon diagnosis, would have been an absolute dream. Most T1s at diagnosis have A1c scores that will make your hair stand on end in terror :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop

He was talking about T2s, not T1s. T1s are insulin dependent, and have no expectation of maintaining even close-to-normal BGs by diet alone. He bases his recommendation that people try to keep their BGs at 83 (actually, for T1s who produce no insulin whatsoever, he recommends targeting 90, so as to prevent hypos) on his belief that a healthy, nondiabetic person who ate low-carb would virtually always stay around that number. He does NOT believe that a nondiabetic person eating the SAD would stay there all the time; he said as much in his most recent teleconference. Give a piece of pie to a nondiabetic, and his/her blood sugar is going to go up. (It will come down fairly rapidly, afterwards, however.) Even nondiabetics don't have 1-hour and 2-hour OGTT readings of 83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jillybean
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. :)

Color me confused - I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a fasting glucose level in the 200s and an A1C of 9.5. Are you saying that, if I was able to bring those numbers down with diet alone, then I wasn't really a type 2 diabetic to begin with? There are lots of people out there who ate worse than me, weighed more than me, and were older than me but did not have those fasting and A1C levels, so what does that make me if not a type 2?

 

In fact, even now with A1Cs in the low 5s and high 4s and morbid obesity a thing of the past, I still consider myself a type 2 diabetic because my post-prandial glucose levels will spike well into the 200s if I eat something particularly high in carbs. But, since I still don't need actual meds and can control this condition with diet alone, it is your opinion that I don't really have a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwags

I was dx'd with a fasting of 240 and HbA1c of almost 11. Since I was not overweight, doctor told me to lose weight but doubted it would help. So diabetes happens for lots of reasons. If I remember from Dr. B's book the 83 number came from a game he played with drug salemen that came in his office. He would always bet them what their average bg was. More often than not 83 would come up. So when he talks about a normal bg, he is telling that from many years of testing average,normal non diabetics. His theory is basically with LC diet and the correct meds or insulin diabetics whether you are T 1 or T 2 can come very close to the normal. He also believes if you diet is correctly balanced with your meds your bg stays very stable throughout the day. So he eliminates a lot of the highs and lows diabetics experience. He also feels this type of diet does help eliminate complications in his patients. I have to admit I have experimented with different levels of carbs and usually do a lot better on his recomended 30 per day. It has been great for getting back to my college weight and staying there. I am so slim and trim now, it is like I am a whole new person. I also feel healthier. When your pancreas won't work effectively I see nothing wrong taking oral meds or insulin to help it along. Since diabetics all have differing levels of pancreatic function, it is hard to say just because one person can do it with diet alone, that we all can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PINK

Wow Jwags! What you wrote is spooky in the sense that I was wondering if I would see anyone on these forums whose numbers do the same things mine do.

Now I have! You...........

 

It took me at least 2 years of low carbing to get close to Dr B's 83. I am usually in the 80-100 range most of the day, even after meals. Anyone who has started a low carb diet will tell you bgs don't magically lower to 83 in a week. I also think if you were Dr B's patient he would go over your medical records and do all sorts of tests to determine what your unique bg pattern is. I am one of those Type 2's who the first couple of years got liver dumps when I wasn't eating. It took a lot of work and metformin changes to figure out how to manage those glucose dumps. Also for me things like exercise also cause bg spikes. When you have diabetes your endocrine system is messed up, so getting an average of 83 without meds is tricky. I think Dr B believes you should use all medications available drugs, insulin to get you close to that 83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PINK
Color me confused - I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a fasting glucose level in the 200s and an A1C of 9.5. Are you saying that, if I was able to bring those numbers down with diet alone, then I wasn't really .............. so what does that make me if not a type 2?

 

?

Jillybean, You are still a T2 whether you handle it with Meds or by diet alone. We manage the big D., we don't necessarily ever cure it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jillybean
Jillybean, You are still a T2 whether you handle it with Meds or by diet alone. We manage the big D., we don't necessarily ever cure it.

That's exactly my point. I was arguing his statement that if you're really a type 2, you can't control it with just diet and no meds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

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