Before JimKKins became JimKKKins
Some say it doesn't matter. I think that a group of Low Carbers -- near as I can tell, most are not even former LC'ers but currently following the lifestyle -- has resurfaced and weighed in on the Jimmy Moore David Duke controversy is a testament that it does.
Some think Jimmy's crusade against Kimmer was restitution for his part in her scam in a quest for redemption. It was not. Jimmy was knee deep in that whole scam. What Kimkins boils down to is this:
- Woman known as Kimmer (real name Heidi Diaz) goes on drastic low carb, low fat diet and loses weight and writes about it on popular LC Discussion board.
- Probably did have some real significant success but could not maintain it
- Gathered following on a mega thread on said popular discussion forum
- Saw opportunity and formed a diet site business
- Built that business with an affiliate program where those who got others to sign up received a portion of the membership fee.
- Diets were various versions of low carb, low fat, low cal diets. We're talking 500 cal/day range for the worst of them.
- Website used fake before/after pictures and fabricated success stories to promote the plan, including Kimmer's own fakeries.
- Some astute people noticed issues with these pictures and eventually Kimmer was outed and the rest was history.
The website still exists today (you can Google if you're interested, I'm not going to link), though to my knowledge Diaz is banned from being affiliated with it. Someone else is behind it now I think and the disclaimer below is at the page bottom in light gray font:
The California Riverside County Superior Court has ruled in Jeanessa Fenderson, et al. v. Heidi Diaz, Kimkins, Case No. 483005 that Heidi Diaz and Kimkins have engaged in false advertising and fraudulent business practices. The Court found that Defendants Kimkins and Heidi Diaz aka "Kimmer" during the class period, (January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007, hereinafter "Class Period") have falsely represented the success of the Kimkins diet in that Heidi Diaz, as creator of the Kimkins diet, lied about her representations concerning the amount of weight she lost on the Kimkins diet. The Court also found that the "after diet" images promoted to be Heidi Diaz aka "Kimmer" following the alleged use of her Kimkins diet, posted on the Kimkins.com website and advertisements during the Class Period were not Heidi Diaz, but were actually misappropriated images of models who were used to mislead the public into believing that Heidi Diaz aka "Kimmer" was successful in her weight loss. The Court also found that Defendants, Kimkins and Heidi Diaz aka "Kimmer" used false testimonials on the Kimkins website during the Class Period to mislead the public as to the success of the Kimkins diet. The Court also found that Kimkins and Heidi Diaz aka "Kimmer" used misappropriated photographs of 41 models that were used with false testimonials on the Kimkins.com website during the Class Period to mislead the public as to the success of the Kimkins diet.
I believe Diaz was also fined heavily and had to make some sort of public declaration on the dangers of very low calorie diets. That part I find odd because there are a number of VLCal programs out there that are "sanctioned".
Now I have to say that when I learned of this in 2009 when I found this community, I was a bit confused over what the big deal was. I mean folks get swindled out of $50 or so all the time with stuff sold on infomercials that doesn't look or work as claimed yet more and more are sold. Most people have probably signed up for some subscription service or another that they never ended up using, or got no value from, or even learned a harmful idea from. So what about Kimkins was so different? The membership cost was a one-time lifetime deal, no recurring charges that you can't get stopped either. I mean in a world where WW fees would total as much in a month or two, KK was a veritable bargain. All I could conclude was that the duping here was very personal, and thus motivated those harmed to bring her to justice where normally such would be written off as a mistake. I don't fault people for going after her, let me be clear. Indeed I applaud them. Perhaps Diaz just forgot that disclaimer you'll find at websites doling out medical and nutrition advice while claiming not to.
I must say that the moral outrage over the plan itself was excessive. Like, hello?, in 2007 there was anyone who didn't know there were risks for any very-low-anything restrictive diet? That someone, ANYONE, assured you it was OK despite your hair falling out and death breath somehow worked? I suspect that in the end (business partners and such aside), more were angry with getting suckered again than anything else.
Kimmer went down. But Jimmy Moore did not -- indeed he played off of the aforementioned sucker-induced-rage to his immense benefit complete with his deepest apologies. Now I don't think Jimmy made nearly the loot Kimmer brought in, but his hands were just as dirty in the hoax of it all. He made a lot of money as an affiliate and when he went off the diet and gained back the weight with his significant out of control overcompensation, he blamed it on creatine. After that he formed his discussion board to create a home for the KK refuge survivors -- somehow many did not see he was partly responsible for their need for a new home... Boldly hailed as legal proceedings moved forward. Anything but giving back any of the money or donating it to charity, or offering freebies NOT provided by outside sponsors but purchased directly by him. Pocketed and moved on. But I think the Kimmer interviews (beginning at Episode 70) and his "kiss off" podcast are probably a place to start if you want to get a better feel. BTW, here's what he wrote in introduction of that podcast.
When I agreed to interview “Kimmer,” the founder of the fraudulent diet scam known as Kimkins, back in July, I had no idea what a pathological liar she was. From claiming she was that skinny woman in the red dress (when actually that is a picture of a Russian model) to promoting her diet as just another “low-carb” plan, this was not an innocent little oversight by a woman who claims to be “just a mom.” Instead, it was a deliberate attempt to fool literally thousands of people into thinking Kimkins was the answer–myself included (for which I have apologized).
Realize, Jimmy's Kimmer interviews were his biggest hits to date at the time. He made more money off of this fiasco he had a huge hand in promulgating.
This was the origin of the failed "eat more fat" meme, and by failed I mean it has failed Jimmy and countless others. Oh yeah, it's "working" right now (5 years later after getting up to 306 lbs) because he's eating less overall, but don't look behind the smokescreen at his weight history over those past 5 years. He is almost the anti-Kimmer in a way. Yeah, lots of real pictures and true confessions here and there, but he gets away with flagrant lie after flagrant lie. How does his wife sit in the audience in Brisbane as he recounts his Slow, Steady Regain that began in 2006? No Jimmy is lying in plain sight and nobody seems to care. Only 5 years later I think some still do. The folks popping up going quack and using Duck monikers. The paleo community doesn't seem to be listening ... or maybe they are.
How many websites and blogs and such where the owners sell each other's goods can this paleo thing support? That market is finite, and people get bored easily and fads wane. Point being this community needs to market to the outside world and we're told that the motivations are to help people and reverse the horrible health trends in this country and around the world. That's not going to happen if the view from the outside even stays as it is. Jimmy Moore is, for now, a force to work with to reach within. He will never be a credible figure for reaching out. Recent events have demonstrated that ultimately Jimmy didn't learn from Kimkins, except perhaps tactics for damage control. He made promises in that apology -- sure, promises to a different audience, but promises nonetheless. He hasn't kept them.
Jimmy brings some great experts to the webwaves. He is also largely responsible for bringing us charlatans like Jack Kruse (and Krusegate was strike 2 for Jimmy, he shouldn't have been let off the hook for that one either), and he's busy promoting the heck out of what I call a bunch of B-list paleos, one of whom masquerades as a research scientist and claims to have your key to the promised fertile land. When he brings on experts and then backhands them (it's subtle, but he does it all the time) by ignoring their advice or downplaying those parts of their health message he doesn't like, that sends a horrible message to people. The casual consumer picks up on the "LDL is irrelevant" message for example, when there are some very serious examples of LDL gone wild in the community. Folks blindsided by declining metabolic parameters and assured by medical-disclaimer-protected charlatans like Jimmy Moore that there's nothing to worry about.
Krusegate -- I thought -- was the "apocalypse" needed to wake the community up to what happens when a community fails to police its own and turns its ire against those setting off the warning sirens. It seems so long ago, but it's hard to believe it was only 8 months ago. It's not like there wasn't substantial fallout afterwards either, but in the eyes of many that involved outsiders and troublemakers. One would think the ancestral community was smart enough to recognize just what a total circus that Safe Starches panel at AHS12 was ... Please tell me you see it? And here we are again. And real foodies, Jimmy Moore is coming for your neighborhood now too. Don't believe me? It took a while for some to notice, but well before he "went paleo" after AHS11, Jimmy Moore was attaching that label to his. The 2012 cruise, that Robb Wolf was supposed to headline and had many big names associated with paleo, actually had Paleo in the logo and all promo posts and such. It's gone this year (as appears to be the CarbSmart sponsorship? Please correct me on that if I'm wrong!). More recently Jimmy has been tacking the general "health" term to LC and paleo, and "real food". Oh ... as he is now sponsored by Chocoperfection bars. Kay.
A note to the Ducks out there. Please feel free to copy some of your "greatest hits" links you have shared here so this can all be in one place.
A note to those who think this David Duke thing is no big deal, I have a few things to say:
- It's about that, but also that Jimmy Moore lied about it. There can be no question about that.
- If we cannot all agree that linking to websites with links to white power neo-Nazi blogs or with content that is clearly of this bent is wrong, then I have no hope for this community, and don't tell me you just want to help people and stay out of the drama. I realize it is uncomfortable to "go there" and imagine that your friend, confidant, or even just your admired inspirational figure might harbor reprehensible views, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't "go there". Lots of things in life are not comfortable.
- How odd that "First they came ..." is so apropos to the other less-talked-about ugliness going on in this community. Maybe, just maybe, when folks think a little longer and harder on all of this, it will bring about meaningful changes.
Comments
I think you *should* give up hope for the LC/Paleo community. They are a dead loss, cut 'em loose.
A lot of them aren't very bright, and they are a community of believers. And even bright people keep to their beliefs no matter how they've been disproven.
The history of science shows this. Fred Hoyle never abandoned his Steady State theory even when the "Big Bang" supplanted it....was Fred Hoyle stupid? He was a genius.
"...one of whom masquerades as a research scientist and claims to have your key to the promised fertile land."
This shizzle is even worse than the diet scams. Infertile people are even more vulnerable than the obese. You are dealing with something very very deep here, and I truly feel sorry for anyone who falls for THAT little shyster's trash. She's so bad, she's "not even wrong."
Hey Diana just how deep does your dislike of LC go? Is it LC itself or just the cult that surrounds it? I'd likely agree with you about the cult but there again I would also include all people who push one kind of diet as superior to another especially if they are trying to make money out of it.
You see I'm 6ft 2in and weigh 185lbs (BMI 23ish) and was not obese at the time I was diagnosed T2 just over a year ago. I follow a LCHF regime to control my blood sugars. At diagnosis my A1c was 11.3% but a years worth of LC later its 4.8% so as you can imagine I'm quite impressed at what LC has done for me as is my doctor.
I have never read or bought any books by the LC gurus, never watch their podcasts, have no idea if my LC is Paleo compliant, couldn't give a damn if I'm in Ketosis etc as LC for a T2 isn't really rocket science is it? Its carbs that primarily raise blood sugars so just cut them down until your meter says your blood sugars have normalized. For me that means I end up eating around 65g of carbs a day but for other T2's I talk to some do less and others more than me depending on how screwed their pancreas is. I also (shock) count calories to keep near my BMR so as to keep near an ideal and healthy weight. I fully accept that if I fill my face with cream my weight will rise accordingly.
So why did I choose LC? Simply because the year before diagnosis I adhered to the standard advise that is handed out and went from pre diabetic to that A1c of 11.3% in less than a year. I decided enough was enough and that to keep my sight and feet intact I'd have to take control myself. If I followed anyone's advice then initially it was a combination of what I discovered would be recommended by the Swedish Health care system and the LC dietary recommendations I found on Annika Dahlqvist blog. It really hasn't been that difficult since that initial research and the few weeks it took me to get use to a LC regime. I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest.
So like I say I have no real time for any dietary guru but don't think its so easy to ignore the LC science especially if you're a T2 and your life depends on what you eat.
Take care
Congrats on your success - it appears that LC for you isn't a weight control measure (you are hardly fat) but rather targeted strictly to blood sugar control. That is what specialized diets are meant for - specific problems. Nothing else. Low Carb is not necessary for weight loss. Period. Anyone who needs to lose fat weight must regulate energy intake. Period. Regulating energy intake is hardly an eating disorder.
That's all I'm saying. And it was here, in the Asylum, that I received validation for my insights after a 16 pound weight gain (which I have since lost, eating carbs), which is why I am so grateful to Evelyn for all she does.
The only thing I'd ask is that you not generalize your experience to the rest of the world. Because I've also heard of people who regularize blood sugars by going strict vegan. To them I would say congrats as well - but don't generalize your experience to the rest of the world....just as I say that to you.
I have also posted in these comments a link to a study which is intriguing: some people are meant to be lower carb than others.
http://www.ilgenetics.com/content/news-events/newsDetail.jsp/q/news-id/213
Just curious - do you eat any carbs at all?
I wish you all success in becoming healthy. Health is the goal. "Health is wealth" as the yogis say.
Thanks for the reply. I'm pretty new to reading Evelyn's blog so please bear with me but had just noticed you seem to get a bit hot under the collar about LC. Obviously with my experience of it I see it from a different perspective. I therefore think your LC comments are sometimes a bit unfair and tend to blur the cult with what you seem to agree can be a successful and valid way for someone to manage T2 diabetes which is great!
Thanks for the link. I entirely agree that generalizing anyone particular dietary regime on the rest of the world is ridiculous. I can only really comment from a T2 perspective but feel there are a range of valid ways to manage the condition and any particular person needs to choose one that they find sustainable long term.
My only problem is that I feel none of those valid methods are actually given out to the majority of newly diagnosed T2's either in the US or the UK where I live (we base many of our T2 recommendations on what the ADA says). Given, for want of extreme simplification, that T2 is a condition where you become intolerant to carbohydrate why recommend a regime to the newly diagnosed that advocates eating loads of them. It certainly didn't work for me and turned me from being a pre diabetic to full on T2 in less than a year.
On weightloss, I agree with you entirely. As I said at diagnosis I was not obese but did need to lose around 35lbs to get back into the ideal weight BMI range. I found that easy to do on LC and never hit a stall point but agree that I could have done the same on a classic low fat regime too. The difference as T2 is LC can rapidly and effectively sort out your blood glucose levels (so long as you have some pancreatic function left) so to me it was the obvious choice once I did the research.
Do I eat any carbs at all? Yes! I obviously avoid most sugary things except for special occasions but also mostly avoid starchy carbohydrates (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, cereal and flour based products). Most of my carb intake is from green veg with some coming from full fat yogurt, low fat milk (don't like the taste of full fat milk) and controlled amounts of fresh fruit. I love Indian food and still buy in a takeaway Indian food once a week and have a small amount of rice but no Naan bread. If I eat potatoes then I prefer them roasted in oil as that slows down their blood glucose raising effect. Once you get your blood glucose levels normalized then many diabetics find that their response to carbs improves at least temporarily so I can cope with the occasional high(er) carb meal just as long as I don't keep doing it. For example over the Christmas period I averaged around 150g / day for 2 weeks and did pretty well up to the second week when my meter started to tell me it was time to get back on the wagon again. At the moment I'm doing a vlc sub 30g regime just until I get things back on track and then I'll up the carbs back to my normal 65g levels again. As I said in the previous post what works for me may not work for others and I don't claim anything special about my regime except that it works for me and is based on some decent 21st century scientific research.
If I were to evangelise LCHF to you (hope you don't mind) then I think I'd simply point out that the countries with the lowest incidence of T2 in the industrialized world are ones that seem to have a national diet tilted toward a low carb high fat lifestyle. For example look at the IDF's world diabetes map http://www.idf.org/atlasmap/atlasmap then filter for "high income countries" and select "diabetes prevalence % comparative" and sort the data. You'll spot the top two countries are Iceland and Sweden with Norway not far behind. All three are historically countries were the diet is intrinsically more LCHF than other countries.
Take care
BD
The standard dietary advice for T2 diabetics in the UK is no different to that given to the general population. The concept is a one size fits all approach. The recommendations go back to 1991 I think so they are now over 20 years old.
Effectively the advice is a portion control method called the "Eatwell Plate" that states you should base all meals around a 50% (or half) carbohydrate intake of which 33% (or a third) should be starchy carbohydrates. You should do a low fat approach for other 50% of your intake.
I don't have an issue with any of that for the general non diabetic population or even insulin using diabetics who can cover the carbs as effectively it's just trying to advocate a healthy diet where calorie intake is handled by portion size control.
For newly diagnosed T2's who are essentially (and simplistically) highly carbohydrate intolerant I don't believe it is a valid regime to hand out and I think the A1c failure rates and disease progression rates speak for themselves. To me telling a T2 diabetic to go eat half their intake as carbohydrate equates to telling an alcoholic to go drink loads of vodka.
Other countries such as Sweden do it differently. Since 2011 the Swedish health care system has implemented T2 diabetes treatment through a document called "Kost Vid Diabetes". It recommends a number of dietary regimes all of which are inherently lower carbohydrate regimes than those advocated in the UK (and I think the US too). It even goes as far as not stopping someone doing a vlc regime it just states that those doing vlc need to be monitored by their health care team. Effectively I have been trying to do my T2 control using those Swedish recommendations.
I actually reduced my A1c from 11.3% to 5.3% in 3 months by adopting a LC regime (it's now 4.8%) and many other T2's I know have reported similar results. I wonder how that success rate compares to those who follow standard advice and gradually have to take more and more meds to cope with the amount of carbohydrate they are consuming until their pancreas finally gives out and they have no option but insulin?
I have no issue with insulin use for T2. I see it as another completely valid choice a T2 diabetic can choose if they want to maintain a higher carb lifestyle. Diabetes runs rampant in my family (I have a T1 son and other T1, LADA and T2 relatives) so I'm also aware of the dangers of insulin use. Even so I probably think it's a better choice than spending years on a meds escalator desperately trying to obtain unrealistic A1c results and constantly being told you're "fat and lazy and its your own fault" In the end your pancreas gives out and insulin becomes inevitable anyway. It's very easy to blame the patient rather than address the underlying cause which is to me the advice that's handed out.
High carb on insulin or diet only LC in both instances you still have to choose a healthy lifestyle as even if you are in control of blood glucose levels unless you adopt a healthy way of life or you put yourself at risk of heart disease and strokes just like everyone else.
People vastly under estimate the dangers of T2 diabetes. A 13 year Danish study showed that from a group of badly controlled T2 diabetics (average age 50 I think) half were dead by the end of the 13 year study and of the survivors a fair proportion were blind or had lost limbs. Not sure what happens in the States but that kind of information is not told to people here in the UK.
You seem to be in general good shape at 6'2" and in the 180 pound realm, and despite this, you had a high A1C and blood glucose dysregulation that is often generalised on highly overweight individual, which is a generalisation that I think shouldn't be treated lightly. Hyperglycaemia is not a pretty thing and with the general dietary recommendations, it is the weight loss aspect of those recommendations that accomplishes reduced A1C and glucose response. In your case, such advice would be pointless. Sure, a substantially overweight or obese person could benefit from dropping about 50lbs of weight with better lipids and glucose results in return, but take that mass off you and what's one left with?
Anecdotes like yours are what I consider an important and honourable validation for low-carb plans and something worth exploring further, because there is a fraction of the population who are in outward good health--no weight issues, etc.--but declining on an underlying level without having a clue.
Browse PaleoBuzz.com, everybody is selling an e-book, everyone is a health expert, everyone knows the "hack" that your M.D. who has 8 years of training doesn't know about.
Might as well join Herbalife.
LOL. Yes, I plead guilty to that - I have been tussling with someone who isn't the good-faith, honest interlocutor you are, so I've blown my stack a couple times. Forgive me, it's in my genes!
Please bear with me, as well. We all have our histories. If I say, "I've written this before" it isn't a dig at you but an excuse to the people who have been here a while and who may be tired of reading the same thing from me for the gazillionth time.
Long story short, I had failed on LC for I don't know how many times. My last failure resulted in a catastrophic (for me, I'm smallish) 16 pound weight gain! Longer story short, not long after I ditched LC, I found the "Asylum" and it helped me enormously in (a) breaking some terrible, refractory habits which (b) resulted in losing 20 pounds and keeping it off.
One of my pet peeves is the unscientific phrase "broken metabolism" - not sure which LC guru made it up....but in any case, I suppose (please do not take this personally) that diabetes can fall into that category.
As you say, diabetes is a damn serious medical condition. You don't mess with it. I would not presume to tell a diabetic what to do. I'm not a doctor. In one post some time back, Evelyn referenced a British study which appears to have reversed T2 diabetes completely using a radical low calorie diet. In her post, Evelyn warned of the possibilities of eating disorder...my response at the time, which I did not post because it wasn't really relevant was: eating 600 calories a day to reverse diabetes isn't the same thing as eating 600 calories a day to look like Kate Moss. If I were diabetic, I would take that study to my doctor and have a talk.
To conclude, anyone with a legit medical condition, who gets good results from a restricted diet, should continue.
But that has nothing to do with losing weight. The two issues are completely separate. And on the subject of losing weight, LC is a cult and LCers engage in typical cult-like behavior.
Since you mentioned the LC cult issue, I hope you do not mind if I add a lengthy comment about it, about how frustrating it is to deal with it - esp. those of us who have said, "No thank you, I do not need or want to eat this way." I do so not to win a point, but as a warning. I hope you continue your journey towards improved health. But don't get caught up in dogma.
Low Carbers love to have it both ways about calories. One minute they say calories don't count, the next they say they do. They want it both ways. There are numerous examples of this in low-carb forums. One cult member, right here in the Asylum, quoted Gary Taubes thusly:
"I believe that calories are a useful measure of the energy contained in the foods we consume and a useful measure of the energy our bodies expend. (Just as I believe miles are a useful measure of how far I have to travel to get, say, from Oakland to Los Angeles.) Yes, I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and I believe, as I say in both my books, they always hold true. That’s why we call them laws."
Sounds nice, eh? No. Because Mr. Quoter left off the final sentence of the above paragraph:
"But, no, I do not believe that we can learn anything useful about why people get fat or why they get the diseases that associate with getting fat, by focusing on the calories they consume and expend. It’s not about the calories."
C'mon, BD, is that dishonest, or what?
Gary Taubes is probably the biggest name in the LC cult. It was his book that resuscitated their dying fad and gave it a glossy scientific sheen. He does not believe that calories explain obesity, full stop. The cult members cannot subscribe to church doctrine and deny it at the same time. But they do, to the point of cherrypicking quotes from their own gurus! I refuse to engage further with this bad faith, this rank dishonesty.
Here's more. Peter Attia, Taubes' collaborator:
"Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."
If you have read the low-carb forums, you will see that they are full of pathetic people, recounting their macadamia nut and cream cheese binges, wondering why they aren't losing weight.
Defense of this gets me hot under the collar, yes. That's my problem. I should cool down and figure out a better way to deal with them. But they are flat-out liars and con artists, and I won't stop shouting that from the rooftops.
I'm going to check out the fermentation books and some crock pot recipes for culinary curiosity.
The key thing though, speaking as a T2, is how you make up those calories in terms of their fat, protein and carbohydrate content. My issue with current US and UK recommendations for T2 diabetics is that they recommend a high carb low fat make up of those calories opposed to a low carb high fat approach. In the 200+ T2's I've talked to over the last year who follow a similar approach to me then obviously many were overweight at diagnosis however adopting LC and as Diana would say an "eat less move more" approach they rapidly normalized their blood glucose levels within a few weeks (some in days) and then went onto to lose weight on a LC regime whose calorific levels are sensible. I would add one other important factor I and many other I know have found which is to introduce in the early months post diagnosis a regime of self testing of your own blood glucose levels. I'm not sure what happens in the States but in the UK self testing is discouraged for T2's because "it will worry us too much" How patronizing is that!
That LC option is hardly ever explained to newly diagnosed T2's instead the default is to be told to go on admittedly equivalent calorie restricted high carb low fat diets which do nothing for their immediate Hyperglycaemia. When people "fail" the assumption is they hadn't tried hard enough whereas in reality if they had been given specific advice to reduce their sugar and starchy carbohydrates their A1c's would be far better. Most diabetic meds seem to give at most a 1% or 2% reduction in A1c (I don't count insulin in that) none can claim to lower A1c by the 6% I and many others have achieved simply by cutting down on sugary and just as importantly starchy foods. Like I say it isn't rocket science and I really don't see why LC isn't even given as an option in either of our countries. It makes no sense to me especially when you take into consideration the healthcare costs, cost of the meds, costs to the general economy etc.
I don't mind at all having diabetes described as "broken metabolism" it seems to sum it up nicely. No idea what guru said it either and really don't care. I do think that I progressed down a road of getting progressively broken however. I'm not one who necessarily thinks that all obesity or T2 is self inflicted by life style choices. I like the theory that effectively says you can gain weight simply because higher carb diets need more insulin to keep your blood glucose levels normal but insulin helps fat to form, which leads to insulin resistance, which means even more insulin is needed to process the same amount of carbohydrate next time so gradually over time you gain weight without fundamentally changing your diet. I honestly think that's what happened to me. I never had any weight issue until I started very gradually putting weight on in my 40's at the rate of about 3 or 4lbs a year. After 10 years that's 35lb's ish and BOOM T2. With the history of diabetes in my family I think I just got it earlier than most people do. I have always eaten a cook from fresh ingredients diet, very little sugar and consciously choose low fat products. I don't see that my dietary or exercise regime changed much in the 10 years prior to diagnosis and I suspect that many people would offer similar experiences.
I think on the subject of losing weight its not just LCers who engage in cults low fatters are just as bad its just they have establishment acceptance at the moment. That low fat rules view for example is the likely cause why LC is not recommended to me as a T2. The mere mention of LC has to avoided at all costs in the orthodoxy pushed by the US and UK health systems. It leads to ridiculous situations where those doctors and organisations like the ADA who do recognize the importance of carbohydrate reduction of some form still insist you must do low fat too. Well your calorific intake only comes from three sources carbs, fat and protein. You can theoretically do a low fat, low carb, low protein regime but its hardly sustainable long term as you end up eating at starvation levels of calories so unless you up the carbs and destroy your A1c (and potentially your eyesight and limbs) you have to up your fat as eating a prolonged high protein diet can end up causing kidney damage.
The diet you mention is called the Newcastle diet and I know two T2's who have successfully completed it. In one it did reverse their T2 to the extent they can now eat a normal carb regime but of course it needs to be at a healthy level of calories too. In the other person although they lost loads of weight it did not. T2 is a combination of pancreatic beta cell loss and insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is largely weight related so if you lose weight and your T2 is mostly caused by insulin resistance you can effectively reverse but if you have substantial beta cell loss then I would say it is not reversible.
On Taubes and the others I will respectfully ask permission not to comment as I haven't read them. I also will respectively decline commenting on other posters. It is self evident that I would agree with a lot of what any LC advocate says but I would expect any claims to be backed up by real science. If they are not backed up by science then to me they are worthless.
That's the point isn't it? LC does have some good science behind it especially the stuff done in the last decade by the Scandinavians regarding its use as a valid treatment of T2 diabetes. No amount of guru s taking and potentially corrupting or commercializing that basic LC message changes the validity of the underlying science.
Ducky says thank you for digging a bit deeper.
Amen to everything you say.
By the way, I didn't understand from your first post that you had started out overweight. I thought you were always 185lbs, 6'2".
As regards diabetes - and again, I am no expert on these matters - perhaps "Move More, Eat Less" should be the focus?? Just a question, because with respect to weight loss, the priority is definitely, "Eat Less, Move More."
Every study I've seen shows that exercising even without weight loss improves insulin sensitivity.
Of course, LC should be offered to diabetics as an option...but only one of many options. What if you are a diabetic who is miserably happy on LC? Should that diabetic be told that eating an apple is going to cause her blood sugars to skyrocket, her already broken metabolism to become more broken....
Instead I offer the following: cut the junk, period. More more, eat less, lose weight. Tinker and test. Maybe it's not the apples that are the problem.
How does that sound to you?
Maybe it was Freudian. When I LC'd and I was losing weight, I was indeed miserably happy. Happy to lose the weight, miserable overall.
I respectfully disagree with this. LC is a way of eating, not a cult. I agree that there are many LC fanatics that do engage in cult-like behavior, but there are many or more of us who do not. I eat LC because it's the most successful way for me to lose weight. I don't need to count anything, just eat what I know to be LC. If I gain weight I know it's because I'm eating too much, not because I need a fat bomb. It just annoys the hell out of me to be grouped in with such generalizations as "LC is a cult".
I'm just explaining that anyone who says, "I do not believe that we can learn anything useful about why people get fat or why they get the diseases that associate with getting fat, by focusing on the calories they consume and expend. It’s not about the calories." is peddling misinformation. He may be right about this or that, but about weight loss, no, worthless.
JMO. Your mileage may vary.
My weight taken when I was diagnosed was 223lbs so a BMI of 28 which as I said in my opening post means I was not obese at that time and quite light for most T2's. I had put on weight over the previous 10 years and to be honest thought most of it was just down to aging.
Losing weight if you need to is one of the best ways a T2 can help themselves as it will reduce insulin resistance and mean that what insulin you are producing can actually do its job effectively.
Exercise wise then yes I think "moving" is important and I walk around a mile a day but do no other structured exercise. I sometimes think that very strenuous exercise can be self defeating as it can end up leaving you feeling hungry and it can then be so tempting to eat because of the hunger it creates and can therefore effectively wipe out the good work.
Exercise and T2? I definitely think gentle exercise is important but as a "focus" no way. Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/health/in-study-weight-loss-did-not-prevent-heart-attacks-in-diabetics.html?_r=0
11 years into this large US government funded study on low fat high exercise regimes for T2's no difference in the rates of CVD were found for people in the regime or the control group in fact one reason the trial was stopped early may have been because the diet and exercise group were dying more than the control group. That trial was a flagship of the low fat exercise "gurus" and its early termination has caused a lot debate in the diabetic world on both sides of the Atlantic as it's implications go far wider than just T2 diabetes. To me the trial was doomed to start with. A low fat high carb regime will not adequately normalize Hyperglycaemia for the majority of T2's. I honestly believe a regime that restricted sugar and starchy carbohydrates and got people to just do some gentle exercise (more if the person wanted too) would have been far more successful but because that would mean admitting that maybe the LF'ers (low fatters) don't have all the answers when it comes to treating T2 diabetes not that the LC'ers have all the answers either.
"Should that diabetic be told that eating an apple is going to cause her blood sugars to skyrocket, her already broken metabolism to become more broken...."
The apple is a problem for diabetics as it has a high sugar content BUT as a diabetic you should be told how to eat that Apple safely which if the US is anything like the UK you probably wont be. With me that would be turning the apple into a fresh fruit salad by making it up with a range of other fruits and then eating no more than 120g of the combined fruit salad mix at anyone time. I'd consume it after my main meal ideally with some double cream which will further help slow down its blood glucose raising abilities. (The cream along with the stuff you've eaten with your main meal will effectively lower the apples GI)
See this is the difference between being a controlled T2 diabetic and dieting. My focus is really on obtaining safe glycemic levels, carbs, fat and protein are really secondary things. I have to do that for the vast majority of my meals for the rest of my life. It is why my meter is so important especially when I was newly diagnosed as it allowed me to learn how to eat that apple safely. The principle is called commonly called "Eat to your meter" here in the UK.
I really don't have a problem with a LC regime I find a wide range of really nice things to eat. It is difficult to give up the starches to begin with as you've been so use to consuming them all your life but a year in I really don't miss them at all but can understand its not for some people.
I agree on junk food and other highly processed and high sugar foods. Everyone should limit their intake of those and unless you have a broken metabolism then choosing from a broad spectrum of healthy foods and eating normal sized portions is probably the best approach to losing weight and keeping it off.
Cheers for the response.
Just to add: we're fellow country folk! ; )
Having that said, while I appreciate our health care and benefit policies, I do think the whole, "Don't try this as it'll scare you," tactics have gone a bit too whiny nanny for my liking. Don't test your blood. Don't use a Doppler monitor on your pregnant wife's belly. Eh. I just do it anyway, if required and they can insist all the want, but that's where it ends; I still make the choice and explore options outside their information web. As for knowledge of options; with the internet, most of the medical pamphlets are pointless if one wants to widen their knowledge.
Again, thanks for the response, which I agree with for the most part.
Apologies for not recognising (note the English spelling LOL) a fellow countryman. Yes would like to make it clear that I too am a firm believer in our health care system on most things except T2 treatment which is pretty dire in loads of countries so we're nothing out of the ordinary. Would just like T2 treatment moved into the 21st century and base itself on research done in the last decade not stuff from the 1970's and 80's.
I actually got the "you can stop doing that right now!" lecture from a very angry diabetes specialist nurse I met who spent the entire 30 minute appointment berating me. The sum total she added to my db experience was tell me testing blood sugars causes depression and anxiety - I told here well it didn't seem to do that to my T1 son. She also insisted despite me showing her a set of near normal blood glucose readings that I should up my carbs back to 200g / day and accept my levels would rise accordingly and "oh expect to put the weight back on you've lost" Madness! Luckily my doctor and diabetes nurse are far more accepting of my weird LC ways and are very supportive. Weird yes? The doc wrote on my last cholesterol blood test form "On weird Atkins style diet" as some kind of hint to the pathology guys.
Take care
That account about the angry diabetes nurse doesn't come as a surprise. They've got quite a legion of condescending twits speaking with even more conviction than actual doctors.
And yes, the doctor support is weird although I am not surprised and they should be happy so long as you're keeping shape and maintaining an a1c that even some normo-glycaemic folk can't boast. Actually, I know someone who suffers from type 2 diabetes and oddly enough, their doctor recommended a substantial lowering of carbohydrate to 'see what happens' along with a calorie cap. I think at some level, a change is taking place among individual practitioners, but again, on the general level, most patients are still faced by the same stubborn brick wall with no additional solutions or options.
You mirror my thoughts entirely. With the up and coming healthcare changes T2 is largely being handed down to gp's who will get a boost in government funding for each T2 on their books. When that happens the profit motive will come even more strongly into play and anything that allows the practice to minimize the cost of T2 treatment will be viewed favourably in my opinion. At present I cost my GP just under £20 ($32) a month in meds and test strips with around another £10 (16$) a quarter for the various blood tests I get so call it around £300 ($480) pa. I think at the moment he receives an additional £2000 ($3200) pa for the privilege of having me as a T2 on his books. After the changes I think he is set to get £5000 pa ($8000) so he stands to make a profit of around £4700 ($7520) pa on me by not doing what I'm supposed to! If he sees I can do it and I do admit I evangelise LC to him (I email him lots of research papers) then I am hoping he will begin to advocate LC to other T2's and show his gp collegues how to get on the money train. I think that is a far better way to get LC given as an option to patients than any attempt to persuade change at government level.
Some people see these improvement on low-carb, but others do not. Jimmy Moore being an example. 300+ LDL. That's just terrible. And his A1C isn't stellar either for someone who is not diabetic and claims to have been on this diet since 2004. He apparently blames the protein, which he equates to chocolate cake and also blames for his 50lbs+ weight gain.
So yeah, I think some people need to realise that a diet is good and all, if it is improving them across the board. If it's failing on most points, then they need to reconsider the diet, or their own approach.
viewers of blogging, that in fact how to do blogging and site-building.
Here is my web page: diets that work
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..