Started calorie restricting and eliminated grains and sugar from my diet almost entirely, and all pre-diabetic symptoms disappeared within a month or two. Zero GERD, zero heartburn, no longer obese, no more disturbed sleep, lots of energy.
I think in most cases type 2 diabetes (and most symptoms associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome, etc) is a disease people inflict on themselves through poor diet. Particularly by eating refined carbohydrates (especially wheat and sugar) and being genetically predisposed to not metabolizing those very well.
The food industry spends a lot of money skewing the research on this and pushing people toward exercise so they can wash their hands of it all, and they have the cooperation of the USDA (just look at that ridiculous pyramid ffs). So you kind of just have to explore this diet on your own through a lot of noise and people telling you you're wrong. In my case it was an outright cure for a lot of health problems, and it didn't take very long to confirm that either. I don't read public health journals or articles about nutrition anymore.
Like gergnz, pop is really sweet! Unbearably sweet. Actually most sweets are just overwhelming concentrations of sugar, and they feel weird to eat.
Sweetness is something that your body adjusts to. Once you're used to eating a brownie a day, brownies no longer seem so sweet to you. But go without sweets for six months and suddenly you'll realize just how pointlessly sweet they are.
The thing that really drives me crazy is how _so much_ food is sweetened, even things where it makes no sense. It's like everybody's palette is so accustomed to sugar that now restaurants have to add sugar to their savory foods just to make them taste normal. It's a disturbing trend.
Reminder: the US government spends $2 billion a year on sugar subsidies.
Because there's just not enough sugar!!
Yeah.. thats restricted to US :) Visiting US from India, I ended up throwing away a loaf of bread cause it was as sweet as chocolate
In most stores there will be a few choices in the bakery section that don't have added sugar.
In a vaguely similar vein, I pretty much exclusively drink "diet" drinks (i.e. sweeteners rather than sugar, not that I think they are particularly healthly). Now, whenever I have the non-diet versions (which is very rare), I prefer the taste somewhat, but find them to be unpleasantly sticky and syrupy. It almost feels like they need more water adding to them, even if it's from a can/bottle so presumably mixed correctly.
 Unless it's a mixed alcoholic drink, but those are so different anyway
Also, people are so clever now, finding recipes like your mousse has been a great joy. I now mostly prefer the more wholesome alternatives. For instance, that mousse is a huge hit, and most people wouldn't know it's non-dairy.
"Started calorie restricting and eliminated grains and sugar from my diet almost entirely, and all pre-diabetic symptoms disappeared within a month or two. Zero GERD, zero heartburn, no longer obese, no more disturbed sleep, lots of energy."
A serious, well-intentioned question for you and your parent:
How has this changed (or not changed) your views towards classifying obesity/diabetes/metabolic treatments (as opposed to your cure) as unnecessary medical interventions ?
How does this change, if at all, your perception of the responsibility of others to fund those treatments ?
 Congratulations on this achievement and your good health.
Distinguishing those people from the people who can just decide to make it better is probably impossible.
So I see some validity to all approaches.
The problem with treating it as purely a medical issue though is that, by doing that, society is being more permissive of the poor decisions people make. People who can choose to eat better and improve their health that way might never find that out, if they're just told it's all medical and we're dust in the wind.
The problem with treating it entirely as a choice is your prescription becomes punitive toward people who genuinely can't control themselves.
So I think the right approach is a balance between the two. Having said that, I think the current climate favors the dust in the wind hypothesis too heavily, and I think a lot of people are hampered and harmed by a complete lack of criticism and concern as they make and keep themselves obese.
Aside from just the economic side of it, it is exceptionally difficult to lose weight. It drove me to tears and severely impacted my mental state (despite also being treated for my mental illnesses) and that's even despite being very motivated to succeed. I don't look down on anyone looking for an easier route, whatever that may be; if I saw one, I would've taken it myself.
Eating whole food plant based diet with moderate exercise usually reverses T2 diabetes and definitely prevents it.
What did work for me, a little, was increasing the amount of beans I eat, and with it grains (rice), and curries, and not eating meat for at least two days a week. My bloodwork got better across the board (cholesterol, glucose) despite gaining 10 lbs.
Dude, that's a really bad misrepresentation and very unhelpful to all the people who do need one. Many of them already struggle with self-worth issues, and seeing (whether intentional or not) lies like that spread, or worse, parroted back at them by others later does not help that.
It's made a lot worse by the alternative being to gamble on suffocating in your sleep, or doing brain damage to yourself with prolonged apnea periods that drop your blood oxygen, or at the very least, having a shit life due to low energy levels every day from having been 8 hours with the blood oxygen level of a 90 year old.
You're still breathing entirely under your own power with CPAP devices. All they do is basically balloon you up a little to keep your throat from closing up in your sleep, by providing a continuous flow of air pressure higher than the ambient air pressure. Yes they have an up/down rhythm that matches your breathing, but that's not because it breathes for you, but because it literally matches your breathing patterns so it won't obstruct your own breathing.
> put my bed at an angle so I could sleep through the heartburn/reflux
Also, to be honest, this is ridiculous. Medicines to help your body regulate gastric acid exist and aren't particularly expensive.
Unfortunately it didn't help me that much (even with it, I would still not breathe properly which was reflected in my O2 sat. IIRC) and it aggravated other health issues, so I stopped using it after 4-6 months (which, when one of the first things I read after diagnosis was along the lines of "Rarely, CSA may result in sudden death", isn't a choice I made lightly!).
And a lot of CPAP devices have a "encourage the user to breathe by doing some flutter" mode.
There are many other health devices that are (likely) obviated by proper health status in life, and maybe more importantly, in utero. Two that come to mind that affect me are glasses and braces.
For myopia, there is weak evidence that it is caused by lack of sun exposure at an early age.
So, you can blame your parents for giving you a bad diet low in fat soluble vitamins in your childhood, and not making you go outside. Other than that, you can try to prevent it in your own children.
As for myopia the effect is probably due to some combination of lack of very bright light exposure and a infrequent need to focus far away or too much time spent focusing close without breaks. As you say the solution is to spend more time outdoors as a child, and alternate relatively shorter sessions of desk/screen work with more active interludes, making sure to glance around the room with some frequency.
Also note, as i stated: "intentionally or not" It doesn't matter what the intent was when lies are spread. The end result matters.
And walterbell is exactly right. Would love to see an answer to that.
The most important thing is to see your calorie intake, not as a goal in itself, but as the control variable in a feedback loop, with your weight as the process variable that you're trying to control. (If you really wanted to get hardcore about it, you could use a PID controller to set your daily calorie intake. :)
When you reach your target weight, keep doing whatever you were doing and just gradually increase your portion size until you stop losing weight. If you're gaining weight again, gradually reduce portion size until you get back to your target weight. If you're losing weight, gradually increase portion size until you get back to your target weight. That's literally all there is to maintaining a target weight.
If I want carbs, favor sweet potato / regular potato over grains. Generally avoid that altogether though.
No beer, favor wine and liquor, all in moderation.
So that’s how I select, then from there I restrict to the calorie goal. If I do have pasta or cake, I go a little harder on myself the next day (or in the days prior). That’s rare though.
It’s been really easy. Hardest day was day 1, second-hardest day was day 2. Sustained for about a year so far, and I’m not struggling at all.
The only saving grace I see is that at least it still has the fiber, fruit juice discards with that and just leaves the sugar.
Association of raisin consumption with nutrient intake, diet quality, and health risk factors in US adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2012.
It's also similar to nuts/cheese in that if I allow myself unrestricted access, I tend to overeat them.
They're probably not that bad though.
If you’re on a different team, you’re an attack on their dietary beliefs. If you’re on any team, you’re a pain in the ass to anyone who hasn’t picked a team yet.
People also have a tendency to form part of their identity around how they eat. “I’m a ______.” So now you’re not just questioning their dietary beliefs, you’re casting judgment on their identity.
So I get why people are so sensitive about it. And like politics and religion, I try to keep it to myself.
Going vegan is definitely helpful.
I had great success with what I considered low C, but what would be considered high C by the Atkins, paleo, and keto folks. I aimed for 40% of less of calories from carbs--low by the standards of the average American.
I was not even trying to cut calories. I just wanted to lower blood sugar, and was trying to see how much changing carbs affected that. However, I found that because the food was now more satisfying, I ended up cutting calories as a side effect.
I picked 40% because (1) it is significantly lower than what I was doing before, and (2) it is really easy to check on a nutrition label--take total calories, divide by 10, and if that number is larger not larger than the number of grams of carbs, the item is 40% or under calories from carbs.
If I wanted to eat something that was over 40%, I would fix it by adding fat or protein. For example, suppose I wanted a ham sandwich. Before I would have ordered that with cheese, assorted veggies, and mustard. No mayo to try to keep the calories down.
On the "40% or under" diet, I would order that ham sandwich as before, but would go ahead and add mayo (full fat mayo...none of that lite crap) and/or order it with double meat. That would raise the calories by about 50%, but it would bring the carb percentage down from about 45% to about 30%.
Not all foods could be tweaked easily to bring them under 40%, but if I ate such a food I would try to pair it with other foods that were enough under 40% to bring the total for the meal under 40%, and if a meal was a little off I'd fix it in the next meal.
You can pretty easily keep a running total of how you are doing, by on a food by food basis keeping track of how many grams over or under you are. So if I had something that was 300 calories and 20 grams of carbs, I'd mentally think "300/10 = 30 grams of carbs to be 40%. 20 grams is 10 under, so add -10g to my running total".
If at the end of the day the running total is not positive, I've met my 40% goal for the day.
To reduce the risk of getting to the last meal or snack of the day and being too far over to correct, I put in some effort to make sure breakfast put me a fair amount under 40%.
A nice thing about this approach is that 40% (I actually ended up at around 35% once I found a diet soda that I actually started to like, and so cut full-sugar Pepsi out) can be done without giving up most fast food restaurants. You might have to give up some items on their menus, but a lot of their main items can be brought under 40% by tweaks like I did for my sandwiches. E.g., if you want a burger and fries, you might be able to get the combo down to 40% of you go for the double burger and extra cheese and mayo. Pizza can be gotten under 40% with enough meat and cheese.
That makes it much easier to stick to it compared to diets where you have to plan ahead for all your meals away from home.
Result: over about 18 months, I lost 140 lbs, and then mostly leveled off. A1C went from 8.1 on 4 different diabetes medicines to 4.8 on no diabetes medicines. Also got completely off cholesterol medicines.
Not saying there aren't an abundance of diet fads that find roosts the minds of uncritical hopefuls (like anything else, really), but being more conscious of what you eat and how you feel is a good thing. If the diet seems zany and tenuous but promotes portion control and variety to people who've been feeding themselves and their families out of cans and whatever is closest and cheapest, I'd tolerate if not encourage their new interest.
Some people's enthusiasms are just difficult to put up with day in and day out, whatever they might be. But in the grand scheme of it, I'd rather they be obsessed with salads than Scentsy.
it pops up everywhere, sports, operating systems, code editors, vehicle manufacturers.
and it is actively used by and encouraged by all sorts of power structures.
Junk, Fast, Frozen, and Artificial :)
I'm a type II diabetic (my A1C was 8.7 when diagnosed) who is technically "cured" (my A1C ranges between 5.8 and 6.0), but my doctor said to me, "Make no mistake, the minute you go back to eating the way you used to, all the symptoms will return."
I don't take any medication, but I remain on my diet. And I never cheat.
I don't practice calorie restriction, but I follow my doctor's and nutritionist's guidelines: I avoid the four horsemen of the diabetic apocalypse (bread, rice, potatoes, pasta), no desserts, no dried fruit or fruit juice.
I dropped 10 lbs. when I changed my diet (I'm at 150 lbs. now), and I've never really felt the same sense of fullness as I did when I ate carbs. I'm mildly hungry all the time.
When I was at school, we were taught, by full-time, qualified educational professionals, that if you were hungry you should bulk up your meals with these 4 because it's impossible to eat too much of them.
I totally get the willpower argument but I am also aware there are many people who try to eat right who are simply acting on bad information from supposed authority figures.
I've been debating how else to tackle this problem. So far calorie restriction seems to be a way I can decrease my intake across the board (including the four horsemen, which unfortunately are all foods I love) and start losing weight again.
It's just become incredibly difficult to stick to any plan. My longest run was four months low carb.
Does this exist for non-diabetic patients? I recently had weight gain for the first time of my life after reaching 30yrs of age and always being underweight. I've been meaning to look into some diet-based approaches that would be supported by science, but Googling it has always been a deluge of pseudo-science.
The Keto diet(s) are pretty popular for weight loss and general health too. The subreddit  is pretty active and has lots of people vouching for it. I don't know how scientifically sound or safe it is, because I haven't researched it, but you might find some answers there.
It's a great sub. The keto diet helped me lose about 30 pounds this year, and I was only fully committed to it about 20% of the time.
The rest of the time, I do my normal diet of mostly fast food, too much candy, and no exercise. I might drink a little more water than I used to in this period, but no major changes.
Sorry if there was a better way to phrase this.
Note that keto flu only occurs when your body is switching from carbs to fat, but disappears when your body is keto-adapted.
It will also help provide warnings about sugar, etc.
My understanding is that you are using a diet plan that the literature warns as being dangerous, (for example losing more that three pounds a week in cases of morbid obeisity) and a doctor is monitoring your vitals and blood work to make sure you aren’t damaging your organs in the process. Essentially they are red-lining your weight loss.
In the most drastic case I’ve ever heard of (second hand) you can actually check into a hospital and they will literally meter your food. If you have a proper metabolic dysfunction they will know because your calories in doesn’t match your weight loss and they can prove it.
"Weight loss was induced with a total diet replacement phase using a low energy formula diet (825–853 kcal/day; 59% carbohydrate, 13% fat, 26% protein, 2% fibre) for 3 months (extendable up to 5 months if wished by participant), followed by structured food reintroduction of 2–8 weeks (about 50% carbohydrate, 35% total fat, and 15% protein), and an ongoing structured programme with monthly visits for long-term weight loss maintenance."
Thank you for the book recommendations, ordering two of them.
Overall, I went from somewhere over 400lbs (my scale wouldn't go above that) to 280lbs in around 9 months; my wife went from 258 to 198lbs in the same time. After she became pregnant, we fell off the bandwagon and both regained a decent amount (I'm around 330lbs now) but plan to start back on New Direction as soon as she gives birth, any day now.
I don't know if it would reverse diabetes for anyone but me -- there'd need to be more done to study this, for sure -- but I can absolutely say it saved my life. I frankly can't wait to get back on this diet.
I'm not saying it's a miracle diet, in the end if you lose weight it's because you're consuming less calories.
What made keto work for me is that, because of it's very restrictive nature, I became acutely aware of everything I put in my mouth.
I could have only 20g of carbs max per day, so I started reading in detail all the nutritional sheets on every food I bought. Of course, I also stopped buying basically all processed food. Not because they where high on calories or because they were unhealthy, just because they had carbs.
It's been years since I went off keto, but I still read everything about the food I buy.
Part of overeating/mindless eating is ignoring any data about what is being eaten. I am far more mindful now.
> "A radical low-calorie diet can reverse type 2 diabetes, even six years into the disease, a new study has found."
- Removal of all beverages aside from water, unsugared coffee, tea
- Removal of all rice, grains, potatoes, corn
- Chicken, Pork, and Beef (in that order) became my primary food product. Sous Vide allowed for a more convenient method of food preparation that made it feasible for my schedule (throw it in in the morning, done when I get home from work)
- Vegetables other than the ones above became my secondary source of food.
- Don't care about fat, just about carb intake. My personal target goal was under 30 grams of carbs per day, which I was mostly able to adhere to. Now that I am stable under 6 A1C I have loosened it to about 45.
- My caloric goal has been to stay under 1600 calories. I feel like all the other steps helped drop my A1C, but this alone was what made me actually lose the 90 pounds of weight itself.
And when you say "worked for [you]" do you mean lost weight or helped with your overall vitals?
From what I've gained, low carb diets are great short term strategies for burning fat but not healthy in the long-term for overall balanced health.
Low carb diet lowered my weight by 25 lbs, made my GERD disappear, no more taking omeprazol 'for the rest of my life', my gallbladder stopped acting up, and I have more energy as if I was 10 years younger.
This was enough to convince me that I'm not going back to eating carbs as I did before.
But typing on my phone, and too busy to provide more references. You can start in the publications I linked to earlier though.
Generally people eat mostly fat if a keto diet is higher calorie.
Since OPs was lower calorie it would be mostly vegetables and protein.
"But show me the clinical study"
Yeah yeah, keep on saying that folks. You must realize universities and pharma companies have very little incentive to put this to the test, because the LAST thing they want is to admit water fast cures diseases they tell you will need to be medically treated for the rest of your life.
"Modern science" when it comes to diseases such as T2D, Crohn's, IBS, arthritis, and many others is the biggest con in modern history.
It's really unfortunate that T1 and T2 diabetes have the same name, since they're completely different diseases that just happen to share some symptoms.
The doctors I saw immediately diagnosed me as Type 2 and treated with Metformin. Between that, starving myself, and exercising like a maniac I was able to keep my blood sugar roughly under control for another year or so.
Then everything really went to shit and additional tests were like, "Whoops, guess it was Type 1 after all."
With doctors having a hard time getting past their own biases and experience, it's no wonder the average person does, too.
But the type 2 diagnosis didn't feel right, and I pressed them for more testing, and found out that I was actually type 1. However, it's been four years now and I'm still not on insulin. Apparently the honeymoon period for adult onset type 1 is highly variable, and they don't have much data on it. So who knows when I'll have to go on insulin, but have felt pretty lucky so far.
I go to the doctor every few months and demand free insulin samples when I'm there. I also got them to fill out paperwork saying I'm disabled (this is technically true by the letter of the law in the US). I used that to get a reduced fare bus pass and free entrance into National Parks. Figured I got fucked over and am going to milk what I can out of it.
Overall though it's not that bad. It's more of a hassle dealing with the routine than anything else.
Since starting insulin I've gotten a bit better. Able to run and train more than ever, better mental clarity, eat like a more or less normal person, etc.
But my dr mentioned to me that I might be leaking protein into my urine stream and that I need to lose even more weight and make my diet even more strict. If I continue to leak protein into my urine stream then I need to have my kidney and liver looked at. I already just eat vegetables and meat 90% of the time. I watch my sugar intake and I turn away anything with more than 1-2g of sugar per serving. I don't eat any treats except maybe an RxBar is I crave something sweet.
Can anyone explain if I could develop type 1 diabetes still?
That's $6.66 per test! Here in Australia I recently purchased a blood glucose tester for approx $50 and 100 test strips for $50, that's full retail price. If I had a diagnosis from a doctor I would probably be entitled to a diabetes card thingo which gives a significant discount.
I am traveling in China right now and needed Prednizone after coming into contact with nickel. 100 pills was 4rmb which is only $0.64usd
$60-100, maybe you meant $120
Only a doctor can tell you if you need to go that route though. I'm assuming they make that decision based on your HbA1c being high or going higher despite being on a metformin, diet and exercise regimen.
You want to avoid this.
As a very tired parent of a type 1 diabetic I beg you to do whatever you can about your situation. You are lucky to have type 2 because it's something you can do something about. You have choices. You should exercise those choices.
About your type 1 child....just realize that your efforts are important and your child will be better off because of them. Although they might not realize it now :-)
Are you aware of the research linking diabetes and inflammation?
Chik-fil-a advertises that they use 100% peanut oil and I suspect Jack in the Box uses peanut oil. I don't eat at either one, not even to get salad.
Thanks for mentioning that peanut oil might be in nuts. I eat nuts everyday. I will check the labels.
Just look at cancer, depending on where it originates it can have a multitude of causes. But MSM is likely to report every new finding as just cancer, with zero details about the type involved.
I'm a parent of a T1D and if I had a dollar for every time I've heard "My cousin cured his diabetes with diet!" I'd be a very rich man.
Or, and this may sound petty, but listening to someone equate their struggles as a type 2 with the struggle of a type 1 makes my blood boil. I would gladly swap my son's type 1 for type 2 any day of the week.
That is going to be a brutal 3-5 months. Worth it in the end though.
Also, c'mon, a range of 825-853 calories? Nobody is counting calories that accurately and it would have been better to say "roughly 850 kCal per day".
> ... total diet replacement (825–853 kcal/day formula diet for 3–5 months), stepped food reintroduction (2–8 weeks) ...
That sounds to me like participants were given a professionally prepared formula to consume instead of food, so the calorie counts might be that accurate.
Total Cals - 836
2 eggs - 156 calories
2 cups of spinach - 14 calories
1 cup of bell peppers - 39 calories
200 grams chicken breast - 226 calories
1 banana - 105 calories
1 cup of broccoli - 31 calories
Here's my fasting plan: 1 Meal/day
100 cals - 1 lb of Spinach
60 cals of tuna (1/2 a small can)
1/2 lb of cauliflower
That total comes out to about 200 cals and meets aboout 100% of 1/2 of all the micronutrients and roughly 50 to 100% of all the other micronutrients. The Tuna (Selenium,b3,b12,b6) nicely complements the Spinach (high in A,C,E,K,Iron, Magnesium). And you get a relatively high amount of protein and fiber (normalized for cals)
Also, you can use something like Crono-meter to measure all your nutrients.
And btw, just because someone is eating 2000+ cals doesn't mean they're getting all their nutrients. Most of the foods people eat are so devoid of any nutrition, they minus well not even count.
I miss the pancake batter taste of Soylent, don’t miss being fat.
Too many carbs are too many carbs.
Keto Fuel http://superbodyfuel.com/shop/keto-fuel-sample/
Keto Fuel http://superbodyfuel.com/shop/keto-fuel-sample/
That range might represent the precision of data they have for the formula mixture (if e.g. macronutrient data is only given to the nearest gram or half-gram and you consider the possible rounding error in both directions).
After a time, however, the process that was killing them off in the first place often reappears and insulin is required again.
The biggest factor I've seen in previous cats with diabetes - dry vs wet food. Switch from free-feeding dry to measured, timed canned portions made a night/day difference.
Of course, by following a time-restricted eating pattern, you naturally consume less calories, but in general, calories are largely irrelevant when you are adhering to a consistent circadian eating cycle and eating clean, whole foods. Healthy insulin resistance directly negates fat/weight gain by telling your body to simply dispose of the excess energy rather than storing it as fat. Calories-wise, the body only uses what it needs and gets rid of the rest. To keep insulin resistance in a healthy range though, you obviously need to not consume things that will spike it and reverse the feedback loop. Following the body’s natural circadian rhythm contributes to keeping it in a healthy range as well, and it is significantly easier to adhere to than restricting calories only.
For the curious, here are a few resources that I have found super helpful in learning to better control my diet and health.
The Obesity Code by Jason Fung, MD
Found My Fitness Podcast with Dr. Rhonda Patrick
People want easy solutions in forms of pills, and there is no money to gain from prescribing caloric restrictions.
- That Sugar Film
- Fed Up (on netflix)
- Sugar Coated (on netflix)
I tried my first multi-day water only fast around 2005 after reading about it in a book written by an M.D. who used fasting to treat various illnesses. I can't remember the name though.
The article has some shocking statistics but most shocking to me was that the youngest person in the study was 20 years old, type 2 diabetic at 20.
I think the reason that drugs are the usual solution is simply that it is really really hard to get people to change their diets and/or fast.
But I'd really like to know if this is any _more_ beneficial than more normal, gradual weight loss, like a 2000 calorie diet that gets you down to the same weight.
And the heavier you are, the easier it is to lose weight because it takes energy to just maintain all that extra body weight.
Point being, there are certainly some people would not lose weight on 2000 calories/day, but I would guess that isn't true for most of the people in this study.
Well, the higher a calorie intake you are likely to be able to maintain and still lose weight, which is very much not the same as “the easier it is to lose weight.”
The basics of it are that there is a condition that has the same symptoms of type 2 diabetes, but isn't, and that "real" type 2 diabetes is a genetic defect that does not have as much of an impact as the type 1 defect. If correct you might say it's a nomenclature issue, which seems to happen from time to time in medicine.
If this hypothesis is correct, then people who are overweight and "cure" type 2 by losing weight are really just improving their health (which they should do). They never had diabetes to begin with. As I said before, I haven't done the research and only have anecdotal evidence from my own situation with diabetes. To elaborate, I've never been overweight and have always had fairly well balanced, low-sodium diet, yet was still diagnosed. Most men on my father's side of the family have been diagnosed with diabetes, so it seems genetics might come in to play. I manage my diabetes through diet, exercise, and medicine (not insulin).
I suppose the research I would like to see is a study of treatment controlled for the initial weight and lifestyles of the patients. If weight wasn't a factor to begin with, how did diagnoses take place and how did changes in diet and lifestyle affect it? I'm also curious of heart disease and kidney function actually correlates with diabetes only because of obesity (or in other words, actually only correlates with obesity).
Also, the article states, "Rather than addressing the root cause, management guidelines for type 2 diabetes focus on reducing blood sugar levels through drug treatments. Diet and lifestyle are touched upon, but diabetes remission by cutting calories is rarely discussed". Maybe that's true in the UK, but in my case, per doctor's orders I went to the diabetes control center and had a class on how to change my diet, which included meetings with a RN and registered dietitian who specializes in diabetes treatment.
In Denmark we call diabetes "sugar disease". I read a pamphlet from the The Diabetes Foundation where it said that it was 'a lifestyle disease' and made no connection with sugar or carbs. Rather, I got the impression it was still about reducing your weight, which has usually been a battle against fat contents. I asked my doctor about these statements and the connection with sugar, only to have him say "well, some studies make a connection but nothing official".
Which brings me back to the article. The point is the connection is becoming more clear: High carb diet (e.g. sugar) seems to trigger Type 2.
It's not news, but science is not about news - it's about rigorous testing to confirm our theory.
I wonder if there's also comorbidity of obesity and mental health troubles which is helped by both of these aside from the diet.
That's even skipping all the vegans.
I had a whole host of health problems before caloric restriction and cardio + weightlifting. High blood pressure, arthritis, and asthma all disappeared after an active lifestyle and CR.
I never took the Norvasc that was prescribed by my primary care doctor because my cardiologist told me I was too young to be taking any medications. Had an EKG and blood work and everything came back normal.
Type 2 diabetes is basically overloading your body so your pancreas doesn't work effectively. Removing those stressors and improving insulin sensitivity allows your body to work normally.
You can achieve similar results from any diet that someone would stick to and lose a similar amount of weight.
About 4-5 years ago I was very unhealthy and experiencing symptoms of type-2 diabetes. It scared the hell out of me and I cut out all sugar and started running multiple miles per day.
The result was significant and I lost something on the order of 60-70 pounds. After that, all of my symptoms subsided.
Your height, Your weight, Your daily calories, Diabetes status ie Blood glucose level with units.
I will create a webpage with anonymous data. That is no email addresses. Each participant will have an anonymous Participant #
I plan to post a table
Participant # - Date - Height, Weight, Calories Eaten Today, BG level
Also some people find leaches useful for cleaning wounds.
Common knowledge is like a common cold. You just don't want it.
What a great news ! Now we should get rid of all overweight problems, right ?
I had a VSG procedure 6+ months ago.. prior to it my (bad) cholesterol was high, I felt like lethargic s__t most of the time physically/mentally, and I'm pretty sure I had metabolic syndrome.. was also borderline hypertensive.
As age increases, none of this gets better, and quite frankly, no amount of exercise is truly going to reverse weight. What's needed is resetting the metabolic set point we all have, and unless you dedicate a significant chunk of your time/life by paying attention to everything you eat (e.g. probably low carbs/high protein for most like me), coupled with keeping in shape (e.g. 30 mins/daily exercise, nothing strenuous but enough to break sweat)... 90% of the time you're going to go back up to your metabolic set point weight, or worse, rebound above it if you lost the weight too fast.
This was shown to be the case with more or less 80-90% of Biggest Loser winners, whom were monitored 5 years down the road and determined to have regained all the weight and worse, more in some cases.. The ones who kept it off do so at a great expenditure of time as I pointed out above.
Top this w/the fact if you have a FT job or a business to run and a family to take care of... you will see the impossibility of losing weight to stave off all the potential diseases (type 2 diab included).
I've got your answer - but you won't like it because you have to give up your food addiction - bariatric surgery.
I've lost nearly 40 pounds since my VSG and am at a weight at 40+ years of age that I was in my late teens. Blood pressure, cholesterol, all normalized... energy through the roof. Moderate exercise, and I only do it because I feel like it now whereas before I felt like I was forcing it when I was obese/heavy.
Please look into this (ASMBS.org), and make a life altering choice that will possibly extend and -definitely- improve your quality of life as well as reverse type 2 diabetes and many other diseases related to being over weight.
If insurance won't cover it because you are not TOO FAT (like 35+ BMI), bariatricpal.com has doctors from all over the world, Mexico included that have performed successful surgeries with glowing reviews from Americans and Canadians for less money than what you'd pay in the USA (e.g. obesitycontrolcenter.com being a prime example, where I had mine).
Life's short... don't let being overweight ruin it.
This entirely leaves aside the notion that diabetes (abbreviating as DM2 for diabetes mellitus type 2) is a solved problem. If you can maintain a low calorie diet or a water fast, then yes you will improve and may not benefit from medication. The number of people who can do that sustainably is rather small, as evidenced by the number of people who get the disease in the first place. It's not like it's a mystery that excess caloric intake and weight gain are the major risk factors for DM2.
It's also not a mystery to the patient, they know they should probably cut back a little, but it turns out that diets are extremely difficult to maintain long term. See:
So for those people who have difficulty maintaining drastic weight loss for whatever reason, I think it's ok to have a pharmaceutical industry that tries to find alternatives. If an individual patient can do without the drugs, that's great too. In the end, lives will be saved with both approaches, they are not in conflict.
I wouldn't be able to do my job if I did an 850kcal fast for 3 months.
Doing intermittent fasting isn't even that taxing once you adjust. I have been doing it for around 4 years and I work as a developer. My most productive hours are still in the morning, and I don't even eat until noon-1pm on most days.
But to your point, yes, a drastic implementation of a clinical approach can be impractical. Fortunately there're a lot of ways to fix type 2 with diet which aren't as taxing.
So the problem is solved. It's just that most people would rather take insulin than change their diet.
We found a similar problem with smoking. Numbers of smokers have reduced with public education plans and limitations on marketing. Perhaps there are similar things that can be done to help reduce the number of people suffering obesity related illness. Perhaps it's something that will have a net positive impact on society as a whole?
There is of course a balance interfering with individual dietary choices is a slippery slop, freedom must be preserved at all cost.
Do you see where that goes?
You need to pay the same as that person, so that the insurer does not have to know every tiny detail that separates the low-risk person from the high-risk person.
Do you really want 24-7 surveillance tracking how often you drink Coke, and tattling on you if you smoke? Or do you imagine that the guy who dips fries in his milkshake is going to self-report derogatory information to their insurer? And do you think that you will be the one deciding which behaviors will be considered high-risk? Do you think that they will all be firmly grounded in science rather than morality or politics?
People who do not take care of their own bodies burden the system significantly more than people who lead a healthy lifestyle. It does not take a genius (or a clinical study) to figure this out. They simply should pay more for the resources they consume.
As another poster commented, this already works this way with life insurance. Should my life insurance premium be the same as a person who skydives every weekend?
One of the only ways to get people in this country healthier is by exposing their financial burden on the system. When you know you are paying $2000 for the same insurance your healthy next door neighbor gets for $250 - you pretty quickly figure out you're doing something wrong.
Skydiving trips are not public record. Wingsuit flights are not public record. I don't think insurance companies should know more about you than one of your casual acquaintances. So I don't think that it is justified for them to charge thrill-sport adrenaline junkies more than stay-at-home bodies for their life insurance. This currently does not stop insurers from refusing to do business entirely unless the customer first divulges their private information, because the practice does allow them to make more money. For me, that only raises the issue of whether or not a scheme to collectively mitigate risk should be for private profit, private mutual benefit, or an inherently governmental function. At a certain level, you are essentially enforcing an implicit mandate that only rich people are allowed to have fun or get high.
The actual effect of what you propose is that people go uninsured, rather than pay the grossly inflated premiums. Healthy/safe people may also go uninsured, as their risk is so low that they might be able to cover their entire risk by saving the money that would otherwise go to premiums. The high-risk people then eventually suffer a crisis and can't pay their own costs. Those have to be shouldered by society anyway, or you stand by and say, "You deserve to die, because you were too weak to not be a sugar addict, fatty." or "You deserve to die, because you were too weak to not be a nicotine addict, filthbreather." or "You deserve to die, because you chose to unnecessarily jump out of perfectly good airplanes, chutepacker." Raising the cost of something always prices someone out of the market.
What you are saying about risk is unequivocally true. Unhealthy people are a higher risk, and the expected value of their medical care is higher, and their projected life expectancy shorter. But consider also that externalities from data breaches and non-overt but still unlawful discrimination are also not factored in to the costs of providing insurance. If you want drinkers and smokers and fatties to pay more for insurance, I will also want insurance companies to be fined $X per breach, every time that a single datum of personal information is disclosed to anyone outside the company, or anyone inside the company that does not need to know it to do their job. If you need to invade my privacy to do your job, your job is also to protect my privacy from being invaded by others.
And those companies also need to be able to prove that they aren't charging black people more than white people, even if the claims statistics indicate that black people should be charged more, mathematically, because they really are at higher risk for injuries and death. We, as a society, have collectively decided that some types of discrimination are not okay, and you can't hide behind the math to do it anyway. Suck it up and fudge the numbers to make it work, because we have all decided to pretend that people of different skin colors are de jure equal, even if the de facto equality hasn't happened yet.
If those challenges make running an insurance business impossible, that's fine. They don't actually have a right to always make profits.
What you have done is provide a simple solution to long-standing problems in a very complex business, and gave no thought to the unintended consequences of your proposal. It only works in a simulated world, full of numeric representations of people, that are all programmed to act in the ways that you have already anticipated.
Note that we already do this for life insurance, and fully accept doing so. You cannot even get a short term policy without a blood test. Why should health insurance be any different?
1/3rd of Americans (over 100 million people) have, or are well on their way to having, Type 2 Diabetes. This is one o the largest cash cows of Big Pharma.
They don't want to fix it, their bottom line depends on this never being fixed, and they will do anything in their power to make sure it is never fixed.
Bullshit. They want to solve it in a way that doesn't involve hard behavioural (exercise, dieting) or industrial changes (nutritional) for the average person. A very rational pursuit given the obvious difficulty in the other factors being slow changing.
There is nothing wrong with offering medication and personal health analysis tools (blood glucose level monitors) which help manage an illness which affects a huge percentage of Americans.
That doesn't mean they are actively making diabetes a widespread condition.