Slashdot Mirror
Gut Bacteria Can Control Diabetes
Shipud writes "Insulin resistance is the harbinger of metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is when the body cannot use insulin effectively. As a result, blood sugar and fat levels rise. Therein lies the path to morbid obesity, diabetes, stroke, and heart problems. A group of Brazilian researchers have taken a strain of mice normally known to be immune to insulin resistance, and made them insulin resistant (pre-diabetic) by changing their gut bacteria. They then gave the mice antibiotics, and by changing their gut bacteria again, reversed the process, curing them of the disease. Their research shows just how influential the bacteria living in our gut can be on our health."
I think i'm missing something here. Obviously the cure for diabetes is giving people antibiotics so they reset their gut bacteria? I mean, i know i'm going out on a limb here trusting a slashdot editor approved summary submission but...
Like all things in life, the solution to this problem can be found through eating (beneficial gut bacteria)
Maybe it's just me but the obvious question would seem to be: what causes insulin resistance in the first place?
Insert spam for gut bacteria pills that cure diabetes here.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
As a pre-diabetic myself I'm wondering if this will need to be FDA approved?
I mean aren't active yeast cultures okay in non-FDA approved yogurt? Since these are (I presume) non-pathogenic bacteria, couldn't they also be made available over the counter in pill form (packaged as dried spores?).
I guess you'd still need a prescription for the anti-biotics to clear out the existing flora in your gut though.
That's not pedantic - it's a simple fact that seems to be lost on people. Sure, there are factors like diabetes and glandular issues that can make it easier to put weight on... but you still have to eat more than you use!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Which are conditions that exist for virtually the entire population already.
Dutch scientists found something similar. They transplanted poo:
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2010/10/19/6914/transplanted-feces-from-thin-people-improve-insulin-sensitivity-in-people-with-pre-diabetes/
Bert
Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are so easy to prevent by not eating the wrong kinds of foods that it's more accurate to refer to those conditions as lifestyle choices rather than diseases.
Here is a story of a woman who lost all her gut bacteria and almost died because she couldn't digest her food. They injected some of her husbands and cured her almost instantly. http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/26178/
Of many animals both available in abundance and ones that people don't feel too bad about possibly killing, mice and pigs share enough DNA and inner workings to make them both adequate test subjects. Animal testing works very well for many drugs, though of course we won't know how it will exactly react with people just as reactions will differ from person to person. Unlike animals, we interact with other drugs, activities, eating habits, and existing conditions.
But I'm sure people with Diabetes are happier with your "[make] sure you are hungry" remedy. /sarcasm
Just out of curiosity, are you also an antivaxxer? Psuedo-science is not "like" science. It is the opposite of real science.
I8-D
While mammals have many things in common the gut fauna of humans is different of mice's. They were immune to diabetes to begin with, so I think they are not a good model at all for these studies. Sure, the researchers found a way to give them diabetes, but that doesn't mean that human diabetes has the same cause.
Think about it: all the McCrap you can eat, yet your blood sugar level remains normal (although you still grow fat).
I think about how closely the description of "McCrap" and HFCS resemble the grain that starved the Tribbles to death on Star Trek.
It's a common oversight in reporting about Diabetes not to recognize that there are two separate diseases with the same name. Type I ("One") Diabetes, also called Juvenile Diabetes, is caused largely by genetics and some unknown environmental factors. It is an auto-immune disease in which the immune system attacks the pancreas, causing the body to produce no more insulin. It's the type that requires insulin injections multiple times per day as well as constant monitoring.
Type II ("Two", Adult) Diabetes is caused by genetics in combination with unhealthy lifestyle habits such as unhealthy diets. It's triggered when the body forms a resistance to insulin, normally due to its high concentration in the body resulting from unhealthy eating. It can often be managed by improving diet and/or oral medication, though in some cases it requires insulin injections.
Both diseases result in high blood sugars, and thus the same symptoms, which is why they share a name.
As a Type I Diabetic, it's frustrating when people assume I had an unhealthy childhood or poor eating habits as a young adult due to shoddy reporting that conflates the two diseases due to their horrible naming. I remember there being some call to rename one of the diseases to help avoid this confusion. But I can't seem to find a reference on the Wikipedia articles.
When discussing Diabetes in the future, please be careful to specify which type you are referring to as they are really separate diseases.
Wouldn't it be more like over charging a battery thereby damaging it?
To maintain the car analogy the battery could be in your chevy volt.
If you over fill a gas tank it splashes out at you, more like vomiting, perhaps more akin to a bulimic?
No brain, no pain.
Mice aren't people. Most animal testing doesn't work because humans are different from the animals experimented with. That is why phase 1 (human testing) trials are so dangerous.
As far as type 2 diabetes goes, it is the result of chronically overeating. It is like continuing to pump gas into your car long after the tank is filled.
You can prevent type 2 diabetes simply by making sure you are hungry ( stomach rumbling ) before you eat, not eating crap and getting some exercise.
That has got to be the most asinine statement ever.
If type 2 diabetes is the result of over eating; then explain all the non-overweight type 2 diabetics.
Sure, there are differences, but the principle is important because it should be both easy and safe to do follow-up research on humans to determine whether there's an analog. We could actually see clinical application in less than 5 years if folks get on the stick.
disclaimer: Just my opinion, IANACR.
I'm sure that over eating is the only possible cause of type 2 diabetes just like it's the only cause of heart failure and smoking is the only cause of lung cancer and drinking is the only cause of liver failure. Do you also believe that AIDs is the wrath of God? Correlation != causation. While some people are able to control their diabetes through diet and exercise, there are plenty of fit, active people that cannot.
I've read about similar results from fecal transplants to replace colon flora. If I understand it correctly, there are actually doctors that will "reset" your colon flora by giving you a high dose of antibiotics and then basically stick someone else's poop up your butt. I'm sure it's more scientific than that, but it supposedly repopulates your colon with different flora and the people that have undergone the procedure swear it made them lose weight or recover from other problems, etc.
Wired wrote about it too, but I haven't read that specific article yet: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/fecal-transplants-work/
The way we eat certainly impacts our blood sugar and can accelerate type II diabetes, but it is -not- the only cause.
Take a read here:
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php
There are LOTS of different types of diabetes, not just I and II.
Genetic disposition makes a huge, huge difference. A few examples:
(1) Identical Twin Studies: If one twin has Type 2 Diabetes, the chance that the other will have it also are 4 out of 5. This is even if they are raised in different households, so it's not just an environment issue. Also, non-identical twins did not see this correlation.
(2) Genetic markers - Beta cell glucose sensitivity is decreased by 39% in non-diabetic individuals carrying multiple diabetes-risk alleles compared with those with no risk alleles.
And lots more at that link I posted above. In short, eating high carb / sugars / fructose / etc accelerate type II diabetes for those that are genetically inclined to have it, but does almost nothing to those who have fully functional bodies.
That said, somewhere around 30% of the US right now is in a pre-diabetes range, so we need to address the food issue ASAP.
in Soviet Russia people like you would be sent to concentration camp for posting this shit constantly
CBC TV in Canada aired a show focusing on Autism and links to gut bacteria. http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Nature_of_Things The episode is titled The Autism Enigma.
Well worth watching.
Considering that the bacteria in our bodies outnumber our own cells (numerically) it should not be a surprise that when they get messed with we get messed up.
In other words --
kids, go outside and eat dirt like when I was a kid!
Studies into the gut flora and how it impacts various aspects of our health is an exploding field. Diabetes, Ulcerative Colitis, Crohen's Disease, and c. Diff are all conditions that studies like this one are increasingly linking to imbalances in the gut flora.
Amazingly, actually fixing the imbalance seems to be both attainable and relatively easy in some cases- but the current strategies are... a little gross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy
Basically you get poo from a healthy donor (usually a family member) with a "balanced" flora, screen for parasites, mix up a poo-enema, and squirt it up your butt. Seriously. In theory, the influx of properly balanced bacterial colonies replaces the depleted strains. At the moment this is not an FDA-approved therapy (obviously), and doctors in the US won't touch this except for a few small trials for specific illnesses, but some doctors in Australia have been experimenting with this for c. Diff with some impressive results (http://www.cdd.com.au/). This has the potential to be an extremely easy "fix" for variety of diseases that could significantly improve quality of life for many, many people; as a sufferer of Ulcerative Colitis myself, I'd be more than happy to squirt some poo up my butt instead of taking a cocktail of drugs with all kinds of unpleasant side effects for the rest of my life.
Sadly, the gross factor is probably turning off a lot of serious research. It'll be interesting to see if any of the US drug manufacturers can put this into a pill form, thus becoming incentivized to fund all the trials necessary.
No joke. There are existing therapies where individuals who have seriously disrupted gut bacteria colonies basically take a poop pill. The idea is that you re-seed the GI track with the desirable flora in order to establish a healthy and balanced community. Of course the source of the donated flora is something that you might not want to dwell on too long.
Of course other animals do this all the time voluntarily.
Eventually, pharmacology will focus on the use of indigenous microorganisms for treatment of most human ailments. It may not seem obvious now, but once the patents start churning out, it will become as plain as the snot-filled, puss-covered nose on your face.
You so missed an ExLax brownie joke there.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
conditions like ulcerative colitis, I don't think this is due to the accidental depletion of normal GI flora, such that it could be remedied by re-application. It is due to life-style issues which are non-conducive to those organisms. Just because we are willing to submit ourselves to some of the things we do, doesn't mean that certain critical passengers will be willing to. We need to pursue critical life-sustaining activities and quality rather than so-often depending in medical miracles, which are often temporary band aids at best.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
"A system for the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease" How is this homeopathy? Just because something doesn't suggest that the only way to help someone with a disease is to throw pills at them until something happens, doesn't make it homeopathic.
does out number you. Seriously.
I almost believe we evolved to carry bacteria around~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can prevent type 2 diabetes simply by making sure you are hungry ( stomach rumbling ) before you eat, not eating crap and getting some exercise.
I think the eating less crap and exercise more are the important bits there. There seems to be a lot of debate over the healthiest way to eat (smaller meals throughout the day is the one I subscribe to) but I think ultimately even if you only eat one huge meal a day, if you are exercising and eating reasonably healthy food, you are going to be fine.
I used to be fairly heavy, and I found that just cutting down on the most unhealthy stuff, paying a little more attention to what I was eating, and getting a little exercise every day started making a difference right away.
All the information around what you should eat and how much and when overcomplicates the simple fact that if you cram junkfood and sit on your ass all day, you get fatter. When you stop doing that, you get thinner. Once you are healthy and want to get to the extremely healthy category all that nutritional science probably has it's place.. but if you are 250 just cutting out the soda and chips is going to do a world of good.
Maybe it's genetics and some people are wired to have a much harder time losing weight.. but I personally found it surprisingly straight forward.
You need to quit giving medical advice. Type 2 diabetes has several causes, and those that you mention are simply not sufficient to identify the disease.
Many people will eat too many Calories, eat too many simple carbs, fail to exercise, and do so for 50 years and *still* not contract T2. In addition to diet, genetics and physical activity play very large roles in developing Syndrome X and T2.
For example, Arthur Ashe, Thomas Edison, Robert Guillaume, Billie Jean King, Jackie Robinson, Ernest Hemingway, and Ben Vereen are or were T2 diabetics. Halle Berry too is diabetic, and like many, her onset, symptoms, and therapy aren't classically T1 or T2.
LOL... Wow, worst car analogy ever.
grep -iw skynet
If your body can only convert 20% of the food you eat to energy, what would it be doing with the other 80% that it can convert it to fat? Processing the food is a prerequisite to converting it to anything..
Like almost all of the "natural" remedies, it didn't work at all. I've heard the same story from 3 other people. I wouldn't be surprised if the only people that reported it to work weren't just experiencing the placebo effect. Double blind studies seem to confirm that it doesn't help at all for cholesterol: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15841092
My prescription medicine for IBS started out as a "natural" medicine made from a plant, except that it works and is now western medicine instead of alternative medicine.
If you have diabetes, you should consult your doctor before you go experimenting with natural remedies. Some of them, like St. John's Wort, can interfere with the action of the medication that's actually doing something. "Natural" substances aren't inherently safe.
(BTW: Buidling your house inside out is hardly a qualification.)
But, hey, since it's so easy you should get a grant for your ideas and make billions (yes with a B).
You could show all these dummies in the several buildings around where I'm sitting (major university biomedical research departments) how easy it all is.
And to think, they had to get PhDs and work for decades in biochemical and medical research. The fools.
You just have to do is put everyone in a monitored and enforced lifestyle like lab rats are. So easy. All you have to do is ignore social rights, and the impact of a biological control system that's wired into both the survival and reward systems.
Who'da thunk it.
it's fine, let him rant. It's always the same argument, without thought.
If the human body was a perfectly working machine, it'd be just what's said. It isn't, unfortunately.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Homeopathy has nothing to do with trying to fix the problem directly.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
And the homeopathic crowd goes wild!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
On my sideboard I have apple juice with kefir grains inside.
Over the course of a few days this bubbles until it is full of bacteria. It's tastes nice like cider! It has been revered as a gift from god in many cultures.
I drink this.
I have never had any illness of any kind while drinking this at least every 3 days. No colds, no coughs. I always get coughs and colds around the season changes to and from winter.
Since doing this I have had no colds.
I am beginning to believe that practically every infection can be prevented to some degree by drinking this.
Yet everyone thinks I'm a health loon. No one will drink it when I offer it. And they suffer. Each to their own.
But I still don't understand how this relates to diabetes.
A blog I run for the wealth
Studies that have generally failed to be replicated in others or are quoted out of context. The paleo diet doesn't stand up terribly well under scrutiny compared to others. As before, Any diet with sufficient vitamins and nutrients that reduces calories will work if stuck to. That's the problem.
Paleo's been around since the 70s, and hasn't shown the revolutionary benefits claimed. Primal is the same thing. It's a new name but still the same old magic.
Sisson's also saying that much of the reason for the problems are the agra/food industries and the FDA being subborned by them. Again, that's a mark of dubious science.
Of course, just like a devotee of a religion, my arguing against it likely makes you more determined that's it's the answer.
A better clue to the motivation behind it is indeed on Sisson's site prominently displayed:
"This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere." yada, yada...
Add to that the paleo diet cookbooks, etc.
But wait, he's different because you said so.
Well, I've heard that about the Maharishi as well.
oh come on .. why do all these 'i for one ..' comments get modded down?
of course this meme is a little bit old and maybe slightly overused, but still no reason to mod it down i think
Actually it's a bit of over-simplified claptrap. The 'simple' fact is that absorbing and converting more calories than you use will cause weight gain. The complex part, generally ignored by people who for some reason love to claim that losing weight is easy, is that eat != absorb. Some people don't absorb very much of the calories that they eat. Others absorb practically all of them. The next complexity is that some people have a much higher resting metabolism than others to the point that they may go through more in a day just being a couch potato than others who actually do things.
Then, of course,m there's metabolic disorders where the consumed calories are stored as fat even when the body is short on energy. That will sure make you fatter AND cause you to have to eat more just to not feel like a famine victim. Technically, it's still true that they are absorbing more calories than they are burning through, but it's also true that they cannot avoid that without actual starvation.
That's not pedantic - it's a simple fact that seems to be lost on people. Sure, there are factors like diabetes and glandular issues that can make it easier to put weight on... but you still have to eat more than you use!
I disagree. It may be more correct to say "you still have to eat more than your body uses", but its misleading to think you can eat whatever and just work off the extra calories. It doesn't work that way, despite science ignoring the rapid increase in the number of overweight people since the 1980's when they changed their advice from "fats are good" to "fats are bad, eat carbs". Humans have been eating meat and fatty foods since the dawn of time, yet in the 21st century we declare fat as the enemy and then wonder why so many people are putting on weight...??
the eat less/do more thing doesn't seem to be working very well does it? With so many people on diets, how come none of them have any willpower?
I'll give you a clue, people get food cravings because their bodies tell them they are hungry. Is there body trying to hurt them? no, its trying to stay alive.
Why would people feel hungry when they are actually not starving? from eating carbs. our bodies are not designed to eat the amount of carbs we do - it just cannot cope, so the mechanisms that tell us when we are full/hungry are not working properly. Start eating real food, not processed stuff, and you can bring your body back to life - and find out what it is really capable of. It can burn its own fat, it doesn't need your help. You just need to give it a chance, by stopping the carb intake which is what's making you fat in the first place...
Read this: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/weight-gain-is-about-fat-stored/
There are much better articles on that website too, spend some time reading that and you'll know more than most dietitians/nutritionists in the world.
If it really was just about how much you eat vs how much you do, then how do we have people who are thin who can eat loads of food without weight gain, and others who are fat who will put on weight eating half that amount?
Starvation diets will plateau, as your body always adjusts its energy needs to match energy available. If you eat less, your metabolism slows down so you use less. There is nothing you can do about this - your body will keep itself alive at any cost. If you continue to eat less, your body thinks you're on a desert island, and attacks your muscles since these are more "expensive" than fat, and this can reduce your energy needs further, thus keeping you alive longer.
Do the opposite - eat the right amount, but eat well. Eating well means limit carbohydrates to only the amount your body will actually use, which unless you're an athlete, will be under 100g per day, probably under 50g per day.
Its easy - carbs increase your blood sugar, which in turn causes your body to produce insulin, which then causes your body to store fat.
No carbs, no blood sugar increase, no insulin, no stored fat. Actually there may still be some blood sugar increase from proteins but not enough to be worried about.
Your body can live without carbs. It cannot live without fats, and it cannot live without protein. it can turn protein into glucose when needed (so you get exactly the right amount, not a flood of it), and it can get energy from fat. in fact fat is more energy-dense than carbs, so this is why your body stores its own excess energy as fat - hint: its not trying to kill you. it just stores energy in case you might need it later.
also, no carbs = no bloating. fat/protein helps you feel fuller for longer, so you wont crave sweets (after a week or two). keep off the sugar, it is killing you.
read some more from zoe harcombe - i hope you find this useful :)
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Worth skimming if you're diabetic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_diabetes
Slashdot = Sarcasm
i give my mother cucumber,which has drastically controlled and reduces her sugar level in blood, another way is to drink curry leaves boiled in water
mod: hall of fame
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
I disagree. It may be more correct to say "you still have to eat more than your body uses",
Now THAT is pedantic!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Technically, it's still true that they are absorbing more calories than they are burning through, but it's also true that they cannot avoid that without actual starvation.
I'm not familiar with this condition, but I think it is safe to say it is an edge case.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Let's say your body's metabolism degrades such that you can only convert to useful energy 20% of the food you eat,
Your body has to convert it to "energy" before it can build fat cells. If you are only processing 20% of the calories that you eat, you will have to eat more or lose weight.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's not perfect, but it's also not a free energy source. The energy to build fat cells has to come from somewhere - and that somewhere is food.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yeah, diabetes almost never happens, I don't even know why we're talking about it.
The real test would be for me to eat a load of it and then see if eating someone elses infected crap would effect me.
But I can't bring myself to do it.
Can you think of an easier way to test?
A blog I run for the wealth
Adult-onset diabetes? Type 2?
Considering that the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes is exercise and diet management, I think you might have something mixed up about its mechanism.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Many diabetics end up overweight in spite of the diet and exercise. That's what they mean by metabolic syndrome. I think you just don't have the whole picture.
The power of -1 for a true ( that is why it is unpopular ) and unpopular opinion. I can't get a lower score. I'm free from harm. LOL.
Many diabetics
That's the edge case I was talking about. Most type-2 diabetes is itself a result of obesity (and a genetic predisposition), irreversible though it may be. Most type-2 diabetics who actually try it see their condition improve as a result of exercise, and to a lesser extent perhaps diet - though that area is quite contentious. There are also drugs, of course - and insulin.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you want to call it an edge case, OK, but that's not usually what it means.
Please read this: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I just don't think untreated or untreatable type 2 diabetes is that common. The only way you will have elevated glucose that is unusable is if you aren't treating your diabetes or if you have some form that is untreatable. In general, a diabetic that is gaining weight is either not treating his condition properly or is eating more calories than he is burning (though it is more likely to be a she).
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I never claimed there is no treatment, only that the treatment is only partially effective.
Well, that's certainly true - though even type 1 patients aren't trapped in some endless spiral where they all end up obese. Then again, type 2 patients tend to be obese to start with when their diabetes begins.
Can we just agree that diabetes sucks, so try not to get it by avoiding too much in and not enough out?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That's reasonable enough.
a small distinction on the surface, but a huge one in practice.
Your body may well use more or less energy regardless of what you do and regardless of what you eat. You can eat more food, and your metabolism may increase to match it, even without exercise. If you eat less food, your metabolism may slow down...the fact is we just dont know enough about metabolism to simply say "eat less energy than you use" in order to lose weight - because we just dont know how much energy we actually derive from what we eat (vs how much is discarded) and we dont know how much energy our body is using at any given moment.
instead of trying to use more energy than you consume, thinking that will create a net deficit and force your body to burn fat for energy, one should instead think of food as fuel, and allow the body to do its job effectively without trying to overthink it.
The fact is, if you do try to create an energy deficit, rather than start burning fat, your body will instead get very tired once you run out of glycogen (energy from carbs, stored in your muscles) and you will have very little desire or ability to keep on exercising. The body is a bit lazy, in that if its used to getting energy from carbs, then it will refuse to get energy from fat, and instead it will just try to slow you down and make you hungry for more carbs.
Once you realise that the cravings are just your body's survival mechanism telling you to eat more food (which is why you crave sweet things, or foods high in fast energy, ie. refined carbs/sugar), you will be able to resist them with that knowledge, and turn to more wholesome food instead.
I'll cut it short: Want energy? Eat protein/fat. Meats, fish, eggs, yoghurt, etc will give you far better energy and will keep the hunger away longer than any carbohydrates will, and the best part is they will not make you fat.
No sir, its impossible to get fat from eating meat, fish or eggs. Eat as many as you like. No carbs, no insulin, no stored fat. It really is that simple. It just takes your body a few days/weeks to get used to getting its energy from fat/protein rather than carbs. Its easier to get energy from refined carbs, but we know the energy doesn't last long and makes you feel worse afterwards. Get used to fat/protein as an energy source, and you'll never have weight problems again.
Still think you can eat that burger and then exercise it off? You might like to try and calculate just how many hours on the treadmill it takes, or how far you'd have to run - hint: you'll be gone a while. long enough that you'd need to think about packing your next meal...oh wait - that's what we're trying to burn off...
Its far easier to just not eat the bad stuff to begin with. And by bad stuff I mean refined carbohydrates (sugars, white bread, flour, white rice etc).
I hope I have got you thinking (anyone who cares to read it). The health officials have it wrong. If they didn't then the obesity rate wouldn't be skyrocketing. Do you really think people suddenly stopped being active in the 1980's. Rather, I'd say that they started eating unhealthy on a large scale, but without realising it. How? because they were following the diet advice given to them by the health officials, telling them to base their meals on carbs, and "eat less". As a result they get hungry, and eat more carbs, putting them on the path to rapid weight gain, and no idea how to reverse it.
Its time to spread the word. Fat = good. Cholesterol = vital for life (look it up). Protein = good. Carbs = ok. Refined carbs = bad.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
you need to change your thinking.
you will lose weight by starving yourself, that is evidenced by viewing any people who are literally starving.
However, that is not healthy and really not what you want.
The reason you get hungry is because your body is wanting more fuel. Its food cravings - and if you read zoe harcombe's blog you'll find enough info to work out what those food cravings are. It isn't normal to be hungry all the time.
If you get your energy mainly from carbs, then you may feel energetic but you will need to exercise to use the energy, or it will be converted to fat.
When you say that if you eat fat you will return to your previous weight, I assume you mean "in addition to carbs". Because fat on its own cannot make you fat. It is impossible. The ONLY reason you get fatter is because your body produces insulin, and the job of insulin is to convert your excess energy reserves to stored body fat. Without insulin your body will not store excess energy as fat.
And the only reason your body creates insulin because your blood sugar level is increased, and the easiest way to increase your blood sugar level is to eat carbs. Nothing else affects your blood sugar level enough to make a difference. Only carbs will.
The only downside to not eating carbs is that you will find it difficult to do intense exercise. For sports, or any intense exercise, you need carbs - because your muscles cannot get the energy fast enough from fat for intense exercise. glucose energy is delivered much faster than ketones (energy from fat) so this is why athletes need carbs. The rest of us do not need carbs, and any time you are not exercising, carbs will only give you energy you wont use and it will turn to stored fat.
Eating less will reduce your metabolism, and if you think you can play sport on less energy than your body needs, you're fooling yourself. Sport does increase your metabolism, so your energy will be burned up faster (simple isn't it?) , which means you'll get hungry for more energy sooner. Your body wont let you starve, which is why you get hungry. Its your natural survival mechanism kicking in. You'll get lethargic, and you'll need to eat. Actually, many people turn to energy drinks, which is a big shot of refined carbs, instant energy, and your muscles will go crazy for it, but it will not last and afterwards you'll feel more lethargic.
If you do switch to protein & fat, you will get massive withdrawals from sugars and carbs. Many articles claim that high fat/low carb diets leave you without energy, but the side effects they list are almost all withdrawal symptoms from sugar and refined carbs. Stick with the low carb/high fat diet long enough, and the withdrawal symptoms pass, your body learns to derive energy from fat and protein, and you'll feel more healthy and more vibrant than ever before.
I'll sum it up by saying the only people who need carbs are athletes and people who do intense physical exercise. I'm not talking about a walk down the road or a jog around the block either...
For the rest of us, our bodies actually work better on fats and protein, which is what people have been eating most for many thousands of years. We have done a diet u-turn in the last 30 years and then are scratching our heads wondering why the world is getting fat.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
btw, I forgot to congratulate you - 30kg is a very good achievement and one you should be very proud of. If your diet/exercise is working for you then stick to it, but please dont feel you need to starve yourself to stay slim. Never before in history have people been so madly trying to cut down on food in order to stay in shape - it is a problem unique to our day and one I believe we have created by our insistence on eating so many carbs.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Not that I disagree with what you said, but the same advice doesn't work for everyone's body. Humans are not immune from evolution, and depending on your ancestry you might be predisposed to a different kind of diet. Your body also responds to food and exercise differently as you age. I'm lucky because I can just reduce the quantity of what I eat and the pounds go away (the reverse is also true...). Other people don't have the same reaction. When I don't alter diet but just exercise, I don't get any weight loss but I feel much better. Probably this is because whatever muscle I gain offsets the fat weight reduction, but I don't really know. As you point out, it is very hard to alter diet AND exercise at the same time - exercise makes you hungry. If I try this route, I usually drink a ton of water or tea to keep my stomach full - but you need to be prepared to visit a bathroom every 30 minutes!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If thermodynamics worked the way you think, then try creating a 500 calorie deficit every day for a year, and then add up the kilos you lost.
calorie theory says that 1lb of fat = 3500 calories, so I'd assume that after 1 year on this diet you should lose exactly 52 pounds, or 23.6kg.
If 10 people ate a 500 calorie deficit diet every day for a year, they should all lose the same amount of weight right?
in fact experiments have been done - where the weight lost was barely even a 10th of what calorie theory says.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2009/12/the-calorie-theory-is-everywhere-and-wrong/
Basically you're interpreting thermodynamics wrong.
Sure, energy in = energy out. But how do you know exactly how much energy your body is taking in? if your cells dont absorb calories because you have food intollerances, or if something isn't working, then there is no energy in.
You have no way of knowing what your body does with the food you eat. Will it glean the nutrients from all of it? half of it? how much will it discard as waste?
Also, you have no way of measuring "energy out" either. What if your metabolism speeds up - that's greater "energy out" right? even without you doing any exercise...
thermodynamics is true, yes, but you just cant relate it to food in vs usable energy out (ie. exercise/sport). if you have a metabolic disorder, then i'm pretty sure you could eat lots of energy foods and still not feel energetic...and some people can eat a lot of food and still lose weight rapidly if they have a disorder.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
um, a 100% carb diet will see you dead in a day or two.
actually there's no such thing - there will always be protein.
but you also need fat, and cholesterol. Without fatty acids you will die quickly. without cholesterol you wouldn't even be alive to begin with, let alone have a chance to die...
you can live without carbs - but you absolutely cannot live without protein and absolutely not without fat.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
um, a 100% carb diet will see you dead in a day or two.
OK, I admit - I actually laughed out loud. If that was your intent - good job. If not - I call BS.
its actually probably impossible to find anything that is 100% carbs, so really the point is moot.
But it is true that you cannot survive without a sufficient quantity of both protein and fat (or "essential fatty acids" to be precise).
Protein is great for muscle and fat is great for overall wellbeing and health. carbs are good for giving you sickness, heart disease, and diabetes...
Well, you can eat well on carbs (no refined carbs like sugars, white bread/flour etc) but who really does in practice? athletes need carbs for instant energy release, but the rest of us can get plenty from mostly protein and fat, and 50-100g of carbs a day.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.