Maybe Glycation isn't so bad after all
Higher HbA1c levels predict better outcomes in advanced heart failure with diabetes (free registration required)
"We're finding that in heart failure [plus diabetes], higher HbA1C levels are associated not with worse outcomes, but with better outcomes," lead investigator Dr Tamara Horwich (University of California, Los Angeles) told heartwire. This suggests that for patients with both diseases, "the focus should not be on lowering the HbA1C levels to as low as possible," she said, adding that "aiming for a midrange of 7.2% to 8.2% may be very reasonable."OK, this is in people with established heart disease and diabetes, but lower is, apparently, not always better. And what is it we keep hearing about all these damaged metabolisms and all ...
"in someone with advanced heart failure who may be having difficulties with hypoglycemia or other adverse effects of diabetic medications, less stringent glycemic control (HbA1C <8%) may be acceptable," he said. On the other hand, "if patients are tolerating the medications without difficulties, current glycemic guidelines should continue to be followed as we await further information from prospective clinical trials."
The lower the mean, the lower the blood glucose level goes at the dips, causing more fatalities.
The higher the mean, the higher the blood glucose level goes at the peaks, causing more damage.
On low-GL/keto diets + low/no insulin doses, there are no large excursions in blood glucose level from the mean. Therefore, the lower the mean, the better the outcome.
There was also that trial recently that was agressively lowering BG with medication and had to be stopped as people were dying in the intervention arm.
I don't think this is a case that 'more glycation might be good', just 'more drugs might be bad'
I don't know, what? [Argument:unfunny joke] ratio is pretty low 'round heah about the existence of metabolic damage or derangement. Is it a made up thing, or not? Is Mat Lalonde a dumbass? I'd sure like to know.
"You ain't leadin' but two things right now, Jack and sh*t, and Jack left town." - Ash
To be clear, I'm not saying glycation is good, just that it may not be so bad. Or another way to put it, lowering glucose by any means may not be the be all and end all. People seem to get this re LDL.
As regards metabolic derangement -- that is real, and when it occurs with obesity (in all but rare genetic cases), the obesity -- or rather the chronic caloric excesses and/or overfilled adipose tissue -- causes the derangement, no the other way around. The "damaged metabolism" may be possible, but trying to micromanage hormones through diet and supplements seems more a lucrative endeavor for the purveyors of this notion. Woodey is right I think, when you look at who is pushing this most -- beginning with Taubes in WWGF and interviews and including overweight low carbers like Jimmy -- it's easy to see through it. It's a quick fix explanation as to why the rest of us should do as they say and just accept this is the best we can do for ourselves.
I am in full agreement with SamAbroad here. The paper, I believe, is about diabetic patients already on significant amount of medication. When they "lower their glycation", or in other words lower their Hb A1c, it is through more medication which often results in more hypos (i.e., dangerously low blood sugar levels) which, needless to say, causes the "outcome" (in terms of health and mortality) to be worse.
Type 2 diabetics like me who control their blood sugars primarily through diet and exercise never have hypos -- our blood sugar levels do not dip to dangerously low levels. I lower my glycation (i.e., lower my A1c) through eating better and exercising better. The "outcome" in our case is always better, the lower the glycation (A1c).
Doug McGuff, for example, and other high-intensity exercise proponents suggest exertion causes fat loss through a better hormonal environment, not through a simple # of calories burned. For example, this horseshit is STILL on McGuff's website:
In your estimation, is McGuff a liar, or is he stupid?
The LCers would say that the amount is too small too matter and that glycosylation creates more methygloxal than ketosis does. Whether or not that is true (I don't know), there is a third argument that methygloxal does more good than harm, e.g. in cancer. That sounds interesting and relates to this article topic.
There is also the consideration that proteins are damaged in three main ways: not only glycation but also oxidation and nitration. Since this happens naturally regardless, the body has builtin mechanisms to eliminate and replace irreversibly damaged proteins. The trick is have replacement not be less than damage, so that AGEs etc do not accumulate.
Replacement of such damaged proteins creates the necessity for a basal rate of protein turnover, even in the sedentary who have no need to replace proteins that are damaged via exercise.
Btw, one means of reducing AGEs is via acetaldehyde dehydrogenase - which is the same enzyme that breaks down the primary metabolite of ethanol. It's possible that accounts for the health benefit of alcohol.
SENS5 - Increased damage to proteins in ageing
which I was led to through http://www.fightaging.org
Laboratory studies in healthy young volunteers have shown that experimental sleep restriction is associated with a dysregulation of the neuroendocrine control of appetite consistent with increased hunger and with alterations in parameters of glucose tolerance suggestive of an increased risk of diabetes. Epidemiologic findings in both children and adults are consistent with the laboratory data.
Maybe we just don't get enough sleep??
c'mon, google - give us the facility to edit comments already - it's not so hard to implement
(correct sp = keratoconus)
Take Jimmy Moore for example. A single serving of sweet potato results in a slightly but not dangerously elevated blood sugar and bingo...this healthy, wholesome, and inexpensive food is bad and scary. Back to the hot wings and cheesecake it is with no fear despite obviously bad outcomes.
Bah, I love sarcasm. It makes the world a better place. :)
Unless someone has a chronic ailment that cannot be fixed by diet or medical procedure (surgery or physical therapy among others) then obviously they need to take the meds. What I do find happening more often than not is people treating the symptoms and not the problem. Instead of taking a prescription med for heartburn, stop eating the food that is causing it. Unless of course its from something else, which hopefully your doctor will look into if he/she is good.
For myself I took blood pressure medication for years blaming my obesity for it. I went low carb and my blood pressure dropped and I stopped taking them. I did so under doctor advisement, I didn't just declare myself free from them on my own. I'm still a tubby, but the change in diet has eliminated a few things that I only thought possible unless I was thin.
I would say instantly...or as quickly as it would take for people like Fat Head, Sisson, and Moore to approve.
I've always felt that he has the same eating disorder that a lot of us have, in that we simply don't manage our diets as well as we should. Or the lack of commitment that turns many weight loss stories into weight regain stories. He latched on to a dietary approach that is sold as self-regulating; that you don't have to manage your diet or count calories or control your impulses. I think that his struggles should come as no surprise to anyone who doesn't believe (or no longer believes) that LC is a self-regulating magic diet.
But there's the rub of course. It's not a needle in a haystack...it's a needle in a stack of needles. You have to get the obvious stuff out of the way for the outlier issues to be visible.
Like fungus to damp dark places, so it goes for people who love to eat and see the low carb mantra of 'don't exercise and eat as much as you want.'
I had to find out the hard way that this is not going to work unless I cut calories and exercise. It went against everything that I believed, but I saw people's results and read WWGF and watched Fat Head. From that moment on I was hooked, then yo-yo'ed. Fortunately I have not gained it all back and I am reworking my plan. But it wasn't examples or advice from Jimmy that has helped me work things out, its people like Carbsane and others comments on here. Carbsane is more than a clever ID.:)
I'm like anyone else in that when I have a health issue I want it solved immediately and the temptation can be to think the doctor is a quack if it doesn't get taken care of right away. Sometimes its justified, sometimes not. My mom spent months in pain with something wrong with her shoulder and arm. One doctor said it was something in her nerves, another something else. Finally a doctor sat down and was thorough with her shoulder, took x-rays and got a cat scan done. Had nothing to do with nerves but a torn rotator cuff which required surgery. When she told the doctor what she had previously been told he just shook his head.
Sleep deprivation and disrupted day/night cycles, like those experienced by shift workers, can slow metabolism and suppress the body's production of insulin, according to research published in Science Translational Medicine.
Basically someone tried to tell Jimmy that he finds it hard to believe he gained five pounds in a month by eating 1200-1500 calories a day. So someone responded with that by using the "we all are different" yadda yadda and that he gained eight pounds in a month by eating only 800-1000 calories a day. Ummmm well I guess its possible, but unless there was something else going on that made this happen its bunk.
Now, what motivates your lies? Well, they might be for financial gain, or you could just be evil, or perhaps even a terrorist. That last bit is for you to figure out.
If you're stupid, I guess you're motivated by cake, or hugs, or something.
"he is too good in explaining away failures." From what I read so are his fans. I should probably avoided making a comment, but a person got attacked who constructively tried to help Jimmy out. It pissed me off.
I think this is one of those things that we say to seem polite and reasonable [There could always be that one weirdo who just shows up to rub your face in your own ignorance with an offended stomp huff and sniff, right?] that actually undermines the position of SANITY and creates a vulnerability/failure to discriminate when necessary. If I can't call bullsh*t on an 800 cal a day weight gain I'm in trouble when neurosurgeons start claiming to have injected themselves with MRSA then performed operations on themselves w/out anesthesia all on account of their cold adaptation without evidence.
Unless we are "different" because one of us lives in an alternate dimension or is an alien hybrid the more likely explanation is that one of us is wrong.
This what he now recommends
Hunter-Gatherer Diet Guide
1. Vegetables, herbs, and spices, including roots, bulbs, stems, leaves, mostly cooked.
Emphasize green leafy vegetables because these have the highest nutrient density of any foods, including a high protein content.
Eat as wide a variety as possible.
Proper cooking increases net nutrient delivery.
2. Fruits and berries (includes avocados and olives).
3. Nuts and seeds (almonds, coconuts, walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, brazil nuts, macademias, pumpkin, sesame, sunflower, hemp, etc.)
4. Legumes (beans and peas, including soy and peanuts)
5. Whole cereal grains and whole grain products (rice, bread, pasta, pastries, etc.) and grain-like seeds of dicot plants (quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, teff, etc.
Take at least ~80-90% of your diet from the list above.
Minimize or Avoid
1. All types of fish, eggs, poultry, dairy products, and red meat, no matter the feeding strategy.
2. Separated animal fats and fruit or nut oils (olive, avocado, coconut, palm, almond, etc.), oil seeds and seed oils (corn, safflower, sunflower, sesame, hemp, etc.)3. Refined sugars, including cane sugar (white, brown, organic, whatever), honey, maple syrup, rice syrup, agave syrup, etc.
4. Any food to which you have an allergic reaction.
There's one to grow on for ya, CS.
IF the word "stupid" is too strong for you -- wow, but OK -- let's just say feeble-minded (to include all manner of lazy thinking, groupthink, clinical idiocy, etc.)
But the fact is, McGuff wrote a book, for MONEY. So, when he wrote something incorrect, which happens to be in his favor, did he fall victim to lazy thinking, or is he deliberately fraudulent? They are obviously incorrect ideas that oh-by-the-way put money in his pocket, after all.
He might think that he's helping people but at some point, his convenient falsehoods need to be exposed to sunlight. These pseudoscientific ideas about exercise are really dangerous, aren't they? Don't let him hurt more people! Silence is compliance.
I don't have time to assess every scammer out there. If you think McGruff is a scammer, why don't you start your own blog?
I don't think the word stupid is too strong. I'm saying that you are giving people two choices with your words. Either someone is f'n stupid or engaged in chicanery. I think in most cases there are other options ... right? Next you'll be asking me if I stopped beating my cat.
If I were to take that same logic then I would have to say its not true, because I didn't experience that. This is what can be misleading about personal experience, it can't be applied to everyone, it's not universal, after living 40 years not much is.
This is a common theme I have seen within various groups and not just with the low carb community. It would be safer to say that the sweet tooth diminishes, but even then you can't apply it to everyone, not even to the majority. Seven billion people in the world and low carb is a very very very very small community, in the big picture of things its insignificant.
Religion does the same thing. In Western cultures Jesus is the way, in the Middle East its Muhammad, the Orient its Buddha. Yet their is a battle over who is right and wrong, a battle that is absurd and built on arrogance more than fact.
The issue I am having is people like Jimmy, Tom, and Gary make claims and then say they aren't scientists and more studies need to be done, but they as well as their followers run with it like its gospel. I know because I was a part of it and I did run with it.
I won't deny your experience and that's great that you lost your sweet tooth. But its not a universal truth. Even if 10,000 people did its still not a universal fact. Ask yourself this question, why are artificial sweeteners so often used by the low carb community if the sweet tooth is truly dead? Why did Tom recently post on Facebook a low carb dessert recipe if the sweet tooth is truly dead?
I eat some sweets too but in small amounts, less sweetened and not every day. When I am in an unfrequent decadent mood, I cut halt of banana in slices, put some pats of almond butter on it and have it with my coffee. It tastes very sweet now.
I don't agree with everybody and everything in a LC community, if some people capable to take as a gospel something what GT or JM are saying, it is just too bad. I had to find my own path to get the result I wanted. I am not a religious person, and not in the search of the group I want to belong. Since I left my native country, I got used to be on my own.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..