Back to Current forum index
| Back to Main forum index Back to Current forum index |
| Author | Topic: diet & diabetics |
| karen 08-19-2002 11:30 AM | Wai wrote: this post is taken from the first post of this thread Dear Wai, I am so convinced of this diet, that I guess I´d like to get others involved to recover health... I asume, that this diet is not only ment for people suffering from acne or overweight, is it? ...a relative of mine suffers from diabetis; what about your diet for diabetics? (Any restrictions or modifications?) If you do in fact recomend your diet for people like them, could you breefly give us a small explaination as to why and how it would work? Sincerely Karen. |
| Wai 08-20-2002 12:56 PM | quote:Indeed. Luckily, by following this diet, you will hardly ingest any bad substances anymore, such as heterocyclic amines, N-nitroso compounds, opioid peptides, beta-carbolines, trans fatty acids and oxysterols. And since these bad substances can cause a variety of diseases, it is healthier for everybody not to ingest them. |
| Wai 09-03-2002 10:25 AM | quote:Diabetes is caused by exhaustion of the insulin system. Insulin is secreted to stimulate the conversion of glucose into glycogen or glycerol, of fatty acids (and glycerol) into bodyfat, and the uptake of amino acids in muscle tissue (and organs). Especially dietary glucose, but also dietary fatty acids and protein stimulates the secretion of insulin (so that these nutrients are processed in the body) ANALOGY As if your body is a factory, where the supply of raw materials determines how fast the processing engines work; the more raw materials are transported into the factory, the faster the engines work. The supply of raw materials is determined by the demand for the end-products. For example: In a high-tech (hypothetical) shoe-factory, the supply of leather is determined by the demand for shoes by consumers, and the more leather is transported into the factory, the faster the machines work, automatically. Diabetes is caused when this processing (insulin-) system is lastingly impaired. In the analogy: If the demand for shoes is decreasing, but equally much leather is transported into the factory anyway, the machines will work faster, but are slowed down by signals that the shoes are not leaving the factory; there is a conflict of signals: the high supply of leather versus the low demand for shoes. This messes up the computer that regulates the production in the factory. From the analogy back to human food consumption: The supply of leather is an analogy for energy intake. The shoe-making machines is an analogy for the insulin stimulating conversion of glucose, amino acids and fatty acids. The demand for shoes is an analogy for the need for energy. So, in your body, the intake of energy needs to be according to the need for energy; if you regularly consume food while there is no need for energy, you may eventually mess up your insulin system. Back to my diet & diabetes A normal diet can easily cause diabetes because it always contains appetite enhancers (beta-carbolines and opioid peptides), which make you eat even when there is no need for energy anymore. You can easily tell: While you were on the normal diet, you only needed to eat about 3 meals a day, simply because you consumed a lot of energy in one meal. with this diet, you need to keep on eating, again and again, simply because you don't absorb much energy per meal. So, with a normal diet, you easily overeat regularly. That doesn't mean that diabetes always comes with obesity, because you can also regularly eat too much AND regularly ingest too little energy: If one is compensated by the other, you will not gain weight, but your insulin system WILL get exhausted. In conclusion With this diet, it is far more difficult to overeat, and thus, the intake of energy will not exceed the need for energy, not impairing the insulin system. quote:Yes. Diabetes patients need to make extremely sure that they consume sufficient fat with EVERY meal; fat stabilizes the blood sugar level. |
| etwald 09-03-2002 12:03 PM | Hi Karen and Wai, I've researched this matter myself also. I hope you don't mind that I also give my opinion, which is slightly different from Wai's. I've tried several diets in the past and one of them is very interesting for people with diabetes. Check my book reviews here: http://www.newtreatments.org/books.php3 . One book, Life without Bread by Lutz says that Diabetes II can be cured by going on a low-carbohydrate diet for about 6 months. The insulin resistance is caused by repeatedly eating high-glucose foods (especially starches as in bread and potatoes, corn, etc). Studies (http://www.newtreatments.org/hypo.php) show that high blood glucose levels causes the flushing of different minerals, among which magnesium. The intracellular levels of magnesium start to get lower and lower in all cells. In normal cells this causes insulin resistance. The insulin-key doesn't open the glucose-gate of the cell anymore: The insulin has become ineffective. In the cells of the pancreas, this causes overshooting of insulin. Over time, this gets worse and worse. Insulin gets less and less effective, intracellular magnesium levels drop lower and lower and Diabetes II is the result. By eating a low-carbohydrate for some months, the magnesium levels of the cells can be replenished. This can actually cure Diabetes II. On a low-carbohydrate, high saturated fat (animal source is the best) diet it's even possible to stop using insulin alltogether. At least, that's what a Polish doctor claims on his website. http://homodiet.netfirms.com/index.html One catch is that high bloodsugar levels over time kill off the beta-cells of the pancreas. If too many cells are destroyed, the Diabetes has turned permanent and actually equals Diabetes I (different cause however). I understand Wai's diet is also very beneficial for treating Diabetes II, but I think it might be more effective to first restore the insulin resistance. I think that even the fruits cause overshooting of the pancreas, as the magnesium levels of the pancreas aren't restored yet. Sure, the starches are the worst for the pancreas, but once the insulin-system is damaged it's better to first restore it fully, before you start eating fruits. Wai, what do you think of that ? Also, another remark: I think diabetes is impossible to get when you don't eat too many carbohydrates. The diet in Life without Bread and The Diabetes Solution are low-carbohydrate (30g to 70g max a day), but they are not raw diets. Calorie restriction is of no concern, as eating a high fat, moderate protein diet causes very low insulin levels and very stable bloodsugar levels. Besides the appetite enhancers, it's primarily the fluctuating blood sugar levels that cause hunger. Alas the SAD (Standard American Diet) is very rich in starches and refined sugars, causing many fluctuations of blood sugar levels. Wai, sorry for promoting my website, but I think you'll agree it might be valuable information. Ed, The Netherlands |
| Wai 09-05-2002 04:56 AM | quote:You make one essential mistake: you are confusion the cause with the means: Sugars are not the cause, but the discrepantion between energy intake and energy requirements. In other words: there constantly needs to be sufficient glucose in the blood, and this glucose comes from dietary energy, and therefore ALWAYS triggers insulin release, which is totally natural, and not a problem at all. The problem begins when the energy intake is not according to the blood glucose level / need for energy. That is where the problem lays. Matches are not the cause of forestfires; the person that starts the fire is the cause. Do you understand the difference? quote:The essence here is "high". Glucose does not cause too high glucose levels, but TOO MUCH energy intake causes too highg blood glucose levels. What makes people overeat? THAT is the key quastion. quote:No, no, no. Glucose is essential, for the brain and the muscles. And high glucose foods can be perfectly fine. The only thing that matters, is that you need to prevention overconsumption, which is the only cause of too high blood glucose levels. So, what cause overeating? Your theory totally ignores this essential issue. quote:No. Energy intake always triggers insulin release, because the energy needs to be processed. So far, so good. Only if you would eat more energy than you need, you would over-trigger insulin release. It is impossible to overeat on fruits. Just try it. Triggering insulin release is not bad at all. Over-triggering insulin release is bad. I hope you can see the difference. quote:Not at all. The only thing that needs to be restored, is the balance between energy intake and energy requirements. So, one only needs to prevent overeating. (whether or not combined with undereating) quote:Not true. Don't you know that fat and protein trigger insulin release too? There are people that always eat foods without sugar, and get diabetes anyway, simply because they overeat on protein. It is like stating that you cannot get fat if you don't eat carbs. If something can make you fat, it can also cause diabetes. Or are you claiming differently? |
| Wai 09-05-2002 11:09 AM | In diabetes, not the one-time insulin triggering influence of each glucose molecule is of importance, but the repeated triggering influence of THE SAME molecules. I think that if ONE single molecule can trigger the release of insulin MORE THAN ONCE, it has far stronger diabetes-causing effect, right? Well, that is exactly what happens when you overeat: If you overeat, the glycogen stores (in the liver and the muscles) are already completely filled up (about 1,600 kcal), and then also the need for amino acids in various organs has been satisfied. So, hwat happens to the amino acids and glucose that keep being absorbed from the intestines AFTER the need for glycogen and amino acids has been satisfied? They remain in the blood, and/or are stored as fat in adipose tissue (glucose and sugar-like amino acids as glycerol). Since bodyfat can only be stored as triglycerides (3 fatty acids with every glycerol molecule), a relative lack of fatty acids prevents the storage of amino acids and glucose as bodyfat, THUS CAUSING THE BLOOD GLUCOSE AND THE BLOOD AMINO ACIDS LEVELS TO REMAIN HIGH. So, you need to consume 3 fatty acids for every molecule (glucose and most amino acids) that can be converted into glycerol. So, when overeating on protein and/or carbs), your blood protein and/or glucose levels may remain high. And then the real danger (regarding the insulin system) happens: The high blood-protein and blood-glucose levels keep triggering the release of insuling, while the lack of storage room prevents the decrease in these levels, which keep on triggering the release of insulin, followed by the release of glucagon, which counteracts insulin. again followed by the release of insulin, etc. etc. So, the same molecules in the blood KEEP ON TRIGGERING THE RELEASE OF INSULIN. The same is also possible when overeating on fat in the relative absence of protein and/or carbs: In the absence of molecules that can be converted into glycerol, the fatty acids cannot be stored as triglycerides, and thus THEY WILL KEEP ON TRIGGERING THE RELEASE OF INSULIN. Conclusion: the intake of energy, no matter what it's origin, can cause diabetes if that intake is not according to the need for energy. So, the cause of acne is that what causes us to overeat regularly. (no matter whether in combination with undereating) |
| etwald 09-08-2002 11:12 AM | Hi Wai, I also received this message from another HealingCrow reader. So, although fats in the end cause some insulin as do proteins, it's negligable compared to carbohydrates. I also think it's impossible to get overweight on a low-carb diet. I've seen this. My parents both are on a low-carb, cooked diet (yes, with the appetite enhancers), but they are never hungry. One high-fat, moderate protein meal lasts for 4-6 hours without hunger. I think it's important to eat only very small amounts of non-raw foods and especially watch out for grains, corn, potatoes and other high-glycemic starch foods. These can overload the glycogen stores easily and *then* the bloodsugar levels will fluctuate a lot. I will follow your diet 100% raw, as I am concinved of the big advantages. The message is below: You may find this interesting, from a biochemist who knows much more about endocrinology and nutrition than I do. This is in response to a question about whether fat can induce an insulin response or not: "Mammals cannot convert fats into glucose. The only way this could happen is by gluconeogenesis from fatty acids with odd number of carbon atoms, and branched-chain fatty acids, which can be metabolized to produce an intermediary of gluconeogenesis. Even when that intermediary is a gluconeogenic precursor, it is unlikely that gluconeogenesis from them be quantitatively significant in physiological terms. As mentioned, glycerol is a by-product of fatty acid degradation and it can be used to fuel gluconeogenesis, which is the making of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources like amino acids, for example. Now, that is not to say that since one of the by-products of fat degradation is used to make glucose, then fat can be converted into glucose. In fact, to get an insulin response, glucose needs to be metabolized inside the beta-cells of the pancreas. Calcium is also involved in this process. In this case, glucose enters the beta-cells not through the transporters that are activated by insulin but from insulin-independent transporters. Once inside, glucose is metabolized and a rather complex series of reactions lead to the production and further release of insulin. Fats cannot do that. Proteins, although some claim to have a significant increase in insulin due to gluconeogenesis, is not likely to induce a significant insulin response just because some amino acids are used for gluconeogenesis. The hormonal scenario is also important here, not just the utilization of amino acids. In certain cases of uncontrolled diabetes or certain diseases related to overproduction of glucagon, however, one of the common problems is the excessive gluconeogenic state, which could lead to a significant increase in insulin, but not in the normal case. It's tempting to conclude that if glucose increases then insulin must increase as well, but glucose can be taken up by tissues expressing GLUT2, a glucose transporter that is not dependent on insulin. That is probably why diabetics benefit from exercise, as this improves their glucose uptake by skeletal muscle. Here, insulin is not increased by a transcient increase in blood glucose." |
| monica 09-08-2002 11:15 AM | i just thought that i would mention there is now a new index called the 'insulin index' that is supposed to me much more accurate than the 'glycemic index' in indicating the response of insulin to foods consumed. I looked at it once and there was quite a discrepancy between that and the glycemic index numbers. It probably has to do with what your biochemist friend said about some foods not requiring insulin at all and seemed to be absorbed directly into the muscle tissue. Unfortunately, i don't have a copy of it any longer. |
| Wai 09-08-2002 12:48 PM | quote:No, it is not the carbs, it is the overeating, caused by beta-carbolines and opioid peptides, and appetite enhancers added to food products. It is not the issue how much stronger carbs trigger the release of insulin than protein or fat, because none of these is the cause of diabetes. Suppose the insulin-releasing effect of carb molecules is "5", and that of fat molecules is "2". (very generalizing of course) The intake of sugars according to your need for sugars in the blood and glycogen depots will never over-stimulate the secretion of insulin, since it is only a one-time trigger. Now, given the situation that one is overeating on carbs; then the glucose molecules in the blood will keep on triggering the release of insulin, since that glucose cannot be converted into glycogen nor glycerol (not enough fatty acids available to compose triglycerides). Then the insulin triggering effect of one glucose molecule will be : 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 etc. Now given the situation that one is overeating on fats; then these molecules in the blood will keep on triggering the release of insulin, since that fat cannot be converted into gluces (it can be that originates wastes that inhibit this process)nor triglycerides, due to a lack of glycerol (lack of glucose). Then the insulin triggering effect of one fat molecule will be : 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 etc. And thus it is not about the source of the energy (5 + 5 + 5 etc, as well as 2 + 2 + 2 etc; both can cause diabetes), but about overeating: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 etc. is way more than 5. So, it depends on the size of the overeating how much damage is done to the insulin system, not the source. Consuming carbs or fat according to your need for energy does never cause diabetes, while regularly overeating on any of these can very well cause diabetes. So, stop blaming the carbs and start blaming the overeating. quote:Not true. Consuming too much fat and protein, this is stored as body fat. quote:Ed, PLEASE. That is like saying: My grandpa smokes 2 packs cigarettes a day since 70 years, and he is very healthy, so smoking cigarettes cannot be dangerous Some people are extremely susceptible to those appetite enhancers (obese people), while others are not. Some people get addicted to drugs by using it once, while others can experiment for a while and then simply stop using it... quote:What does this say? That that one high fat, moderate protein meal supplies you with so much energy that it lasts for hours. Which means that more energy is stored as body fat than when consuming a meal that supplies you with less energy (lasting less long). quote:Does this guy really not know that glucose can easily be converted into glycerol to enable the composition of triglycerides? Glycerol is certainly not just "a by-product".It is an essential element in storing body fat. quote:Not true. If that would be true, the blood-fat level could keep on increasing when consuming much fat. To prevent this, fat stimulates the release of insulin, which stimulates the conversion of fatty acids and glucose into triglycerides. You don't need glucose to impair insulin metabolism!!! quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: |
| Wai 09-08-2002 01:09 PM | quote:It is not just about the direct influence on the secretion of insulin... Such an index is an over-simplification and does not help you to prevent diabetes. |
| etwald 09-10-2002 04:41 PM | Hi Wai, I again forward a reply from the HealingCrow webmaster, Seth: His reply: Why is cooking bad ? I know quite a bit about protein denaturing, etc. Every protein has a different melting point, some higher than others. A melting point is defined when 50% of a protein in a solution is unfolded and 50% remains folded - it is a thermodynamic property. Unfolding a protein is actually beneficial to you digestive tract because it makes the protein more accessable to our digestive enzymes. You can achieve protein denaturing through many mechanisms, temperature, pH, salt, etc. In fact, your digestive tract wants to denature proteins in order to digest them. So physically unfolding a protein is not really a problem as I see it. However, having chemical changes, crosslinking, breakdown of aromatic amino acids, could definitely be a problem. I would think that boiling a food would minimize the chemical breakdown but achieve the physical unfolding of the protein. That is why I wanted to know if Wai has anything against boiling or not. If so, why? Also, I read over some of her site on weight loss and was interested on the glycogen part. I personally agree on a lot of what she says on the weight loss issues - a lot of it is the same as in the book "lights out" and a paleo diet. But the glycogen store issue I had problems with. A low carb diet depletes glycogen stores. Physiologicaly, your body will not make ketone bodies in abundance (detectable by the urine strips) unless glycogen is depleted. A low carb diet is a great way to deplete glycogen (ask any body builder). So why is she against low carb diets? End of message I hope you have time to answer this one. Thanks in advance (I know how much time it takes to keep such a forum running). Ed, The Netherlands Still doing fine after 2.5 weeks on your diet |
| karen 09-10-2002 05:51 PM | Whow!!! Exhausting. I guess I have to digest all that info first. Wai, thank´s for the detailed reply.(Concerning diabetis) I must say, that when you read so many opinions, after a while it only becomes confusing, and as I am not an expert (neither will I ever become one), the only thing that has worked for me is follow my instinct (as you have suggested before, Wai) I guess eating this "WAI" has not harmed anyone, has it? So if my main goal is acheived (concerning acne), it must be better than anything I´ve tried so far... same with all the other people on this page who are grateful for sharing your knowlege with us, thank´s Wai. As for you Ed from the Netherlands let us know how you are doing on the diet, and put some trust into it, ok? I know, I know you cientific minds have to always find the golden thread... When you guys get to a conclusion that all the rest of us can "understand" let us know. ...Just kidding... Cheers Karen.(mexico) |
| Wai 09-11-2002 11:27 AM | quote:I guess you then also know the Maillard reaction? quote:Who said I was talking about 'unfolding'? Heat does not leave protein intact, only unfolding it... Heat can cause all kind of damage to protein, add an atom here, or make the molecule lose one or more. Heat can create totally new substances. Please read: http://www.13.waisays.com/cooking.htm quote:So, in your view, heating does not originate heterocyclic amines? quote:I'm not against a relatively low carb diet (what is low?), as long as it contains raw natural foods only, and as long as sufficient glucose is consumed anyway. I advise to eat sufficient fat with every sugar meal, with no limit to the amount of fat consumed. I do advise against high (even raw) protein intake, because that can cause acne / cellulite. |
| monica 09-12-2002 07:49 AM | Before i found Wai, my diet was extremely low carb with LOTS of raw meat/raw fat and almost no fruit at all! ![[Eek!]](../eek.gif) I can be one of your testimonials that states:A LOW CARB DIET CONTAINING HIGH LEVELS OF PROTEIN (EVEN IF RAW) THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT FRUIT & RAW FAT IS NOT HEALTHY AND DOES CAUSE CELLULITE, WEIGHT GAIN CONSTIPATION, BLOATING AND LACK OF ENERGY. PERIOD. Since i have been eating as Wai has recommended (only 1 week now!) I have lost considerable cellulite, over 5 lbs on the scale, have a flat tummy (no bloat), and ZERO constipation. ENOUGH SAID. |
| Carolyn 10-04-2002 02:27 PM | Wai i have a problem convincing my mother that she is wrong in saying that by consuming all the fruits i am eating at the moment i will not have problems due to too much blood sugar. Is diabetes a risk in this diet? Thanks Wai wrote: This is the end of page 1, but this thread contains more than one page! Click here for the next page |
| Wai 10-04-2002 02:28 PM | Have you read page one? link |
| RyanK 04-18-2003 04:44 PM | Hi Wai, My parents and Aunt are still concerned about me getting diabetes or having some other problems with this diet and I am as well because there's so much information out there about bad effects of high carbohydrate diets and especially how refined sugar is horrible for one's health. Such quotes as the following are what scares me: "If you look at the statistics for sugar consumption in the USA and the percentage of the population with Type II (Adult Onset) diabetes, you'll see they track pretty much one-for-one. " http://www.mindconnection.com/library/health/diabetes.htm So to really understand the whole diabetes thing, I thought up a few more questions concerning this diet and diabetes that will make me feel much better about going ahead with this diet: 1) If we were to drink OJ with all that sugar but no oil added, would we still be safe from diabetes or is the reason we’d be protected from diabetes because of the oil balancing out the sugar? 2) What if we were to consume all that fruit and refined sugar and led a sedentary lifestyle? Would balancing out the sugar with fat also be sufficient if we are sedentary? 3) What about if we eat mostly fruit but still include a lot of the SAD diet foods (after determing that we can eat a lot of “normal” foods without breaking out) and then we drink OJ with a lot of added sugar? Would it then be too much sugar and would our ability to determine that it’s too much be compromised because we are including “normal” foods in our diet as well? 4) Could you either explain or provide links to information explaining exactly how consuming fat with sugar stabalizes the blood sugar? I'm interested in knowing a bit more of how that actually works as far as the chemistry/biology of it. Thanks so much! RyanK |
| Wai 04-18-2003 04:48 PM | quote:that is not proof, but a statistical correlation sugar consumption also statistically correlates with overeating Incidentally, or more regularly overeating causes diabetes (even if combined with undereating) quote:you wouldn't be safe; it is the oil that protects you, and that is absolutely necessary quote:yes but if you never utilize your glycogen depots (by not being physical active at all), you are more likely to incidentally overeat (no empty glycogen to fill up with redundant energy) quote:then you wount be safe, since the SAD foods over-trigger your appetie, and you will likely consume too large meals incidentally quote:no, it is not about the sugar, but about overeating (incidentally) and about not balancing the sugars with fats quote:please read this entire thread first... |