Slashdot Mirror
Fasting Diet 'Regenerates Diabetic Pancreas' (bbc.com)
According to a new study published in the journal Cell, a certain type of fasting diet can trigger the pancreas to regenerate itself. Of course, the researchers advise people not to try this without medical advice. BBC reports: In the experiments, mice were put on a modified form of the "fasting-mimicking diet." It is like the human form of the diet when people spend five days on a low calorie, low protein, low carbohydrate but high unsaturated-fat diet. It resembles a vegan diet with nuts and soups, but with around 800 to 1,100 calories a day. Then they have 25 days eating what they want -- so overall it mimics periods of feast and famine. Previous research has suggested it can slow the pace of aging. But animal experiments showed the diet regenerated a special type of cell in the pancreas called a beta cell. These are the cells that detect sugar in the blood and release the hormone insulin if it gets too high. There were benefits in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the mouse experiments. Type 1 is caused by the immune system destroying beta cells and type 2 is largely caused by lifestyle and the body no longer responding to insulin. Further tests on tissue samples from people with type 1 diabetes produced similar effects.
And we have the HFCS to thank for this unfortunate condition
The link between HFCS and diabetes is very, very weak. It is more myth than reality. One study found a correlation at the national level between countries that use a lot of HFCS and also have higher levels of type 2 diabeties, but that is a weak link with very few data points that could have a lot of other explanations rather than direct causality. AFAIK, no study has found a causal link between HFCS and diabetes in humans. If the link was really as strong as many corn critics claim, then it would be very easy to show causality, yet that hasn't happened. I am very interested in this topic, so if someone can cite a study, I would be very interested to see it.
Disclaimer: I try to avoid HFCS (and other sugar as well), but I am not a fanatic about it.
This comment sums up an alternative to the Fuhrman approach that is more fat heavy: ... based on what I've read and the lectures I've listened to over the last year, I'd say that the low carb, high (healthy) fat, moderate protein (LCHF) diet works for more people with type 2 diabetes than Fuhrman's diet, BUT his diet DOES work well for type 2 diabetics too. Which diet works best for you likely will be influenced by what your ancestors ate. If you enjoy eating grass-fed, pastured meat, free range poultry and eggs, and wild seafood, try the LCHF diet first. If you prefer a whole food, plant-based diet (vegan or vegetarian) try Fuhrman's diet first. Of all the books written on the low carb diet, Mark Hyman's book, The Blood Sugar Solution, is probably the best because it goes into greater detail on all aspects of a healthy diet, not just low carb. ..."
https://www.amazon.com/review/...
"
Basically, the "Fat makes you fat" meme (which led to eating lots of refined carbs) has been terrible for our health! Our brains are mostly fat. Healthy fats are an important part of any diet, although we can argue about the best sources of them.
The "Banting diet" (later variant is the Dukan diet) builds on that protein/fat alternative -- but a problem with that approach healthwise is that too much protein and meat from badly raised animals can cause other health issues in the long-term (as well as ethical issues). Of course, it still may be better to get rid of diabetes first anyway you can and then worry about preventing cancer later when you feel better...
I also think Fuhrman is probably low on his iodine and vitamin D recommendations. And his general advice may not be a good match some few people with specific needs from genetics or microbiomes.
In general, Fuhrman's history as a world-class athlete in training may also bias him towards expecting so much that some people give up entirely (so, there is social / psychological aspect of all this that is somehow missed -- perhaps intentionally) whereas they may have done better with a lesser approach. I also agree it is very easy to backslide when only one family member makes the change and is constantly confronted with other people in their space with SAD eating habits.
Another interesting discussion with a specific disagreement with Fuhrman vs. McDougall even within broad agreement:
http://lanimuelrath.com/mcdoug...
"The similarities between these 2 doctors and their dietary approaches are far greater than their differences."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Furthermore HFCS and cane [table] sugar are essentially the same thing and both are highly processed. In the case of cane sugar the glucose and fructose molecules are bound together creating a crystalline structure whereas with HFCS the molecules do not share a bond and therefore the substance is much more pliable.
Really eating any excessive amounts of any type of sugar is bad a person's health but there is a huge financial incentive for producers of cane sugar to discredit the much cheaper HFCS even though they're both highly processed, plant based and, practically, have identical chemical composition.
The daily recommendations for caloric intake is 2000 calories. This is for average person who probably doesn't exist. But still it is a good baseline.
1000 calories is a fasting condition for many people as it is usually the amount of calories you burn all day just surviving. If you actually get out of bed and do stuff you will burn more calories. At the gym for an hour work out I can burn about 900-1300 calories.
The thing is you probably eat more then you think. Unless you measure every item you eat and record its calories. You are probably eating more calories then you think due to having bigger portions adding additional sides, that snak you may have during the day. You may still be slim but chances are you are taking in over 1000 calories.
Sure a person can survive for a long time on 1000 calories but the body is on starvation mode so it will try to limit your activity to prevent you from burning good body parts.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
is having a family in the first place rather than being single and child-free considered poor "life choices"?
Perhaps it's time for the first world to consider child insurance. It's not fair for the rest of us to have to foot the bill for the breeders' decisions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The author is essentially correct. HFCS and sucrose, are so similar in their biological effect, that they are for practical purposes identical. HFCS consists of free glucose and fructose in an approximately 50:50 ratio (there is a some variability, but infrequently enough to be relevant). Sucrose is a molecule with a glucose and fructose group covalently bonded, hence an exactly 50:50 ratio. The time scale for hydrolysis of the glucose-fructose bond in sucrose is as fast, if not faster, than the time scale for the absorption of the glucose and fructose. The bond is weak, and the energy requirement to break it is negligible (far below 0.5%). Hence there is very little difference in the overall physiological effect, in terms of both quantity and rate of absorption of glucose and fructose, and overall energy release.
If all refined sugar consumption is lumped together, then there is a strong correlation between population sugar consumption and population prevalence of T2 diabetes. Additionally, changes in population t2 diabetes prevalence follow and correlate with changes in population sugar consumption.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
While this is not absolute proof of causation, it is nevertheless provides strong evidence that sugar consumption is an independent risk factor for T2 diabetes, even after correction for other known risk factors.
Hell.. 1000 calories is nothing like fasting.. you can easily live on that 365 days a year..
Baseline for zero activity adult patients is 1800 calories per day. This assumes a hospitalized patient in bed all day. 1000 calories is just over half of what you need so it IS "fasting" even if it's not "starvation". You can NOT survive 365 days a year on 1000 calories per day.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Appropriate energy intake for critically ill mechanically respirated patients ~1900kcal/day. That is adjusted for the body weights etc.
https://health.gov/dietaryguid...
Shows that 1000kcal is appropriate for a sedentary 3 year old, 2400kcal for an average 18 year male and 2000kcal for average 18 year female. That is for moderately active people, sedentary people need less and those with high activity need more.