Joined
·
66 Posts
Reversing Diabetes
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Joined
·
66 Posts
It was a good read. Another popped up @ FB...
BBC News - White rice 'raises diabetes risk', say US experts
2 people on FB were discussing the Oriental and their rice and how "sticky rice" was made to eat with chop sticks...now I know how they did it. Has to be a different kind of rice, cause I never rinsed mine either. I'm so lost not eating rice and it's just not the same with brown rice.
Believe me, I'm not on any other diabetes forum; the links to this and the other were added by metal detecting friends.
Shanny, you try those "shirred/baked eggs" yet?
I DID make those a coupla times & it's really good. I don't have a toaster oven anymore, so I made 'em when I had something else going in the big oven & they turned out well - I like 'em a little runnier, so had to watch carefully. Then I tried the microwave once, but that cooked 'em way too much.
I've made sticky rice for sushi, but I didn't realize plain rice was called sticky rice too. Sushi rice is seasoned with sweetened rice vinegar & then fanned while folding it gently to evaporate the moisture, leaving the rice grains kinda glazed/shiny. I think maybe sushi is what I miss most from my former way-of-eating.
(and I do look in on a couple of other diabetes forums now & again . . .
)
Joined
·
609 Posts
But would it be worth it if the end result was no more diabetes? Of course even if that were true we'd still need to eat as if we still had it, otherwise it'd come back.
I think it would be worth it. If you read the article, the "norm" was achieved in ONE WEEK. Not telling if they had to do the full 8.
Sticky rice is stickier b/c it is starchier. It is a medium-to-short grain variety. The antithesis of long-est grain, like Basmati. No accounting for why Bengali Brahmins have the world's highest rate of T2Dm, there! (They are generally pesco-vegetarians with a lower-fat and VERY starchy diet!)
Sticky rice is stickier b/c it is starchier. It is a medium-to-short grain variety. The antithesis of long-est grain, like Basmati. No accounting for why Bengali Brahmins have the world's highest rate of T2Dm, there! (They are generally pesco-vegetarians with a lower-fat and VERY starchy diet!)
I only ate brown rice for many years. I still got diabetes. I think if you are sensitive to carbs any carb is going to be bad for you. I used to think I always needed a rice, pasta or potato with every meal, but when you have diabetes that has to change. Recently I was reading one of Gretchen Becker's blogs and she was commenting how when you eat carbs like rice you have to eat them with a sauce, because they don't taste good by themselves. I never thought of it that way, but she is right. You are always adding butter, tomato sauce, stir fry sauce, etc. Once I gave those things up and swapped them for extra veggies I really didn't miss the rice or potatoes. Also I remember way back when I was eating those carbs I was never satisfied with just a little. Since carbs are addictive you tend to eat much more than 1 serving.
As far as the study check out Jenny's recent blog from Blood Sugar 101
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/
As far as the study check out Jenny's recent blog from Blood Sugar 101
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/
Joined
·
460 Posts
Here is the PDF of the full article: Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol...
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
On another thread I've ... hopefully not too obnoxiously ... expressed deep concern about how one can function on such a diet, and about total health afterward.
A new objection that comes to my mind is the emphasis on weight as the major factor in causing and advancing Type 2 diabetes. ("All ya gotta do is diet!")
My own experience tells me that for at least some of us, it's genetics that plays the starring role.
In addition, I'm not convinced that overweight always causes diabetes, but may, rather, be an early symptom of metabolism gone wrong. If that is true, the underlying metabolic disorder may still linger after symptoms are relieved.
I also suspect that, just as we're discovering varying forms of Type 1, we will also find there are varying forms of the disorder we now call Type 2.
A new objection that comes to my mind is the emphasis on weight as the major factor in causing and advancing Type 2 diabetes. ("All ya gotta do is diet!")
My own experience tells me that for at least some of us, it's genetics that plays the starring role.
In addition, I'm not convinced that overweight always causes diabetes, but may, rather, be an early symptom of metabolism gone wrong. If that is true, the underlying metabolic disorder may still linger after symptoms are relieved.
I also suspect that, just as we're discovering varying forms of Type 1, we will also find there are varying forms of the disorder we now call Type 2.
You know, if I went to a new doctor right now and didn't mention my insulin resistance or diabetes, they would not diagnose me as a diabetic. So, I guess you could say I "reversed" my diabetes with diet only?
A 600 calorie diet is dangerous. It's starvation.
I'd much rather live with a low carbohydrate lifestyle for the rest of my years.
A 600 calorie diet is dangerous. It's starvation.
I'd much rather live with a low carbohydrate lifestyle for the rest of my years.
The reports didn't say so specifically, but I think these must all have been pudgy diabetics. (I'm a skinny diabetic.) They might have only been eating 600 calories, but they are getting all they need to make up the deficit by burning fat.
If you have fat reserves, There won't be any shortage of calories at all. Unfortunately, having diabetes for 23 years there's not much hope for a revival for me.
Joined
·
609 Posts
Well, the article isn't advocating a 600-calorie diet for life. It does say it took about a week of that restriction to see a reversal and then people went back to eating "normal" which I interpret as eating low carb whereas before they were eating crap.
I for one would sure love to know how some Type 2's keep their bgs under 100 all the time, especially without meds.
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
Actually, the full program is 8 weeks, with results seen after the first week. (On 600 cals, even I could probably do normal levels for a full week. Only problem is, I wouldn't be able to do anything else!)
But yeah, I'd love to know how some Type 2s do it without meds ... my levels aren't too bad, but they're not that good!
It was for eight weeks, yes...I know it's not for life. But even for eight weeks, you could do some damage to your body.
And yeah, they say they went back to a "healthy" diet, and I'd love to know exactly what that entails. If they are following portions sizes, then it's possible that alone could have "reversed" their diabetes without having to go through the starvation period. As the doctor quoted said - if everyone was put on rations, we'd all be thinner and healthier. Because that would be a restriction of all food, including carbs.
It is possible to keep your numbers in control with a low-carb diet. I'm sure not every diabetic can do it...it depends on the severity of beta cell damage and probably a hundred other thing.
Unless I eat 1/2 a pie, my numbers stay under 120, even with pasta or baked potatoes... as long as I eat a reasonable serving of carbs, I do not see a spike. I have no desire to keep it under 100 all the time...under 120 is enough for me and emulates a "normal" person's glucose control.
ETA: My under 120 goal is for 1 & 2 hours after a meal. I am usually in the 80-90 range in between meals.
And yeah, they say they went back to a "healthy" diet, and I'd love to know exactly what that entails. If they are following portions sizes, then it's possible that alone could have "reversed" their diabetes without having to go through the starvation period. As the doctor quoted said - if everyone was put on rations, we'd all be thinner and healthier. Because that would be a restriction of all food, including carbs.
It is possible to keep your numbers in control with a low-carb diet. I'm sure not every diabetic can do it...it depends on the severity of beta cell damage and probably a hundred other thing.
Unless I eat 1/2 a pie, my numbers stay under 120, even with pasta or baked potatoes... as long as I eat a reasonable serving of carbs, I do not see a spike. I have no desire to keep it under 100 all the time...under 120 is enough for me and emulates a "normal" person's glucose control.
ETA: My under 120 goal is for 1 & 2 hours after a meal. I am usually in the 80-90 range in between meals.
Joined
·
609 Posts
I'm not on meds myself, and I'm staying between 110-120 most times, but I'd sure love to get down to "normal" numbers.
There has to be something more to that program - if these people did it for two months at 600 calories, I'm sure they went about their normal lives and weren't bedridden. I wonder what was in these liquid shake meals they had . . .
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
Whereas if I smell a pie, I'd better have my insulin kit with me!
Every one of us is so different ...
Joined
·
609 Posts
Well, I got lucky today, I tested eating a banana and only shot up a few points. Surprising because bananas supposedly have 34 carbs.
Going for my first A1C Friday since dx, fingers crossed!
Yes we are! Some of us could do 20g carbs a day and still have high numbers, others can do 100g a day and have normal numbers. That's one reason I don't really believe in a cure. Maybe that's grim, but it's how I feel.
I do see a difference in my numbers when I have a naughty weekend, my numbers are higher for a couple days, but then when I'm good again, they're back to normal ranges. It only takes me about three days to see the change, so yeah, I can believe if restricted to a 600 calorie diet that they'd see the difference in a week.
And yeah, I'm a fluffy diabetic, and I lose weight eating 2000 calories a day... I don't need to starve myself to see weight loss. I would be miserable on 600 calories and would be afraid of further damage to my body. It's not just as simple as the extra fat in my body making up the calorie difference. We need a certain amount of calories to keep our bodies functioning...go lower than that and you could do some damage. If you put a fat person on a deserted island with no food supply, they aren't going to be going about their regular day as if nothing was wrong as they got skinnier... fat people can starve too.
Joined
·
609 Posts
I would just love to know what's on a 600-calorie a day menu besides liquid shakes....
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Join the discussion
