# Starch Based Diets- the best diet?



## BarryO

This guy thinks that starch based diets are the best. I personally gain more weight on starch based diets, But whats your take


----------



## Snakecharmer

He's a dumbass.

That's my professional opinion (I'm a nutritionist).


----------



## DiamondDays

Ehh, well i can't seem to loose fat at all if i have more than maybe 30% of my calories from carbs. I'd say it's different from person to person what works, but he does seem a bit extreme.


----------



## PowerShell

A starch based diet is the opposite we evolved to eat (see Paleo diet). He's probably looking for a new angle to sell a book.


----------



## Red Panda

PowerShell said:


> A starch based diet is the opposite we evolved to eat (see Paleo diet). He's probably looking for a new angle to sell a book.


citations needed


----------



## PowerShell

Red Panda said:


> citations needed


Paleo Diet Recipes | Paleo Do's and Don'ts |


----------



## Red Panda

PowerShell said:


> Paleo Diet Recipes | Paleo Do's and Don'ts |


I meant a scientific research presenting facts that we aren't evolved to eat a lot of starch.


----------



## bluekitdon

I don't think research on actual consumption and weight gain or loss corresponds to starch being a good thing. This study from over 120,000 people over about 20 years is the most comprehensive one I've found, see below for how they show foods affecting weight gain or loss on average each year. Starchy foods like potatoes are at the top of the list for weight gain each year.



> The dietary factors with the largest positive associations with weight changes, per serving per day, were increases in the consumption of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb). A secondary analysis of potato subtypes showed that weight changes were positively associated with increases in the consumption of french fries (3.35 lb) and of boiled, baked, or mashed potatoes (0.57 lb). Weight gain associated with increased consumption of refined grains (0.39 lb per serving per day) was similar to that for sweets and desserts (0.41 lb per serving per day). Inverse associations with weight gain, per serving per day, were seen for increased consumption of vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits (−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb).


Full study below, also points out things affecting weight like sleeping too much or too little, exercise, watching TV, drinking, etc.
MMS: Error


----------



## Red Panda

bluekitdon said:


> I don't think research on actual consumption and weight gain or loss corresponds to starch being a good thing. This study from over 120,000 people over about 20 years is the most comprehensive one I've found, see below for how they show foods affecting weight gain or loss on average each year. Starchy foods like potatoes are at the top of the list for weight gain each year.
> 
> 
> 
> Full study below, also points out things affecting weight like sleeping too much or too little, exercise, watching TV, drinking, etc.
> MMS: Error



Well, it's understandable because starch is condensed energy. But losing and gaining weight is based on energy balance, so not necessarily what you consume but rather how much. It is probably much more difficult to base a diet on starchy foods and maintain a negative energy balance, than other grains rich in fiber. It could be viable but not by consuming processed foods. Potato chips and french fries for example are full of fat, so I don't think them being starchy is the leading factor for their high score in the research (didn't read it whole though). 
All green plants and grains are a source of starch anyway, so we kinda do base our diet on starch. The Chinese and Japanese don't have much weight problems even if their base of diet is rice. It's all about how much you eat really, when it comes to weight.


----------



## MsBossyPants

bluekitdon said:


> I don't think research on actual consumption and weight gain or loss corresponds to starch being a good thing. This study from over 120,000 people over about 20 years is the most comprehensive one I've found, see below for how they show foods affecting weight gain or loss on average each year. Starchy foods like potatoes are at the top of the list for weight gain each year.
> 
> 
> 
> Full study below, also points out things affecting weight like sleeping too much or too little, exercise, watching TV, drinking, etc.
> MMS: Error





> The dietary factors with the largest positive associations with weight changes, per serving per day, were *increases in the consumption of **potato chips (1.69 lb)**, potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb)*. A secondary analysis of potato subtypes showed that weight changes were positively *associated with increases in the consumption of french fries (3.35 lb) and of boiled, baked, or mashed potatoes (0.57 lb). Weight gain associated with increased consumption of refined grains (0.39 lb per serving per day) was similar to that for sweets and desserts (0.41 lb per serving per day). *Inverse associations with weight gain, per serving per day, were seen for increased consumption of vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits (−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb).


What the man in the video is talking about when he says a "starch based diet" is essentially a vegan diet. This consists of plant based WHOLE foods - foods eaten to as close as their natural state possible. No processed foods, no added oils or butters. No refined grains. No meat or dairy.

The bolded part above has nothing to do with what he is suggesting be eaten. Potato chiips are fried in oil. So are french fries. Baked and mashed potatoes typically have butter or other dairy products added to them. Refined grains are not the whole grain starches he is talking about. 

The part in red with the inclusion of beans and legumes is what he means by "starch based with the inclusion of fruits and vegetables". As evidenced in the study you cited, people who ate this way actually LOST weight.


----------



## Red Panda

MsBossyPants said:


> What the man in the video is talking about when he says a "starch based diet" is essentially a vegan diet. This consists of plant based WHOLE foods - foods eaten to as close as their natural state possible. No processed foods, no added oils or butters. No refined grains. No meat or dairy.
> 
> The bolded part above has nothing to do with what he is suggesting be eaten. Potato chiips are fried. Baked and mashed potatoes typically have butter or other dairy products added to them.
> 
> The part in red with the inclusion of beans and legumes is what he means by "starch based with the inclusion of fruits and vegetables". As evidenced in the study you cited, people who ate this way actually LOST weight.


Well not necessarily vegan, but certainly not to the extent of today's consumption of animal products. I agree with you.
BTW I think he kinda over-simplifies the reason's why our diets make us ill, it's not about missing starchy foods, but mostly about processed foods. Wheat and other grains are pretty much everywhere, so it's not about not consuming starch.


----------



## MsBossyPants

Red Panda said:


> Well not necessarily vegan, but certainly not to the extent of today's consumption of animal products. I agree with you.
> BTW I think he kinda over-simplifies the reason's why our diets make us ill, it's not about missing starchy foods, but mostly about processed foods. Wheat and other grains are pretty much everywhere, so it's not about not consuming starch.


I mentioned a vegan diet because he is a well-known advocate for the diet. 
@_Red Panda_, this isn't directed at you personally, it just a comment to anyone reading this:

Full disclosure here, I'm a vegan. I'm not militant about it. I don't care what others eat. And, I don't want to get into a flame-throwing contest with anyone about it. I'm just saying that it's a strawman argument to say ... "look it says right here potato chips and refined grains make you fat, so see ... starch is bad." That's clearly not what he is advocating. 

Also a serving of starch is;
1/2 cup cereal, cooked pasta, rice or other whole grain,
1/2 cup potato or corn. 

That's not much. Most people eat far more than that per serving. It's not a "bowl" of pasta, a "serving" should be hard to fit in the palm of your hand. 

A "baked potato" - that giant thing you get at a restaurant, can be 3 or 4 servings of starch 
Pour yourself a 1/2 cup of cereal. It's tiny. 

For most people, starch probably isn't the enemy. Overeating starch is.


----------



## bluekitdon

MsBossyPants said:


> What the man in the video is talking about when he says a "starch based diet" is essentially a vegan diet. This consists of plant based WHOLE foods - foods eaten to as close as their natural state possible. No processed foods, no added oils or butters. No refined grains. No meat or dairy.
> 
> The bolded part above has nothing to do with what he is suggesting be eaten. Potato chips are fried in oil. So are french fries. Baked and mashed potatoes typically have butter or other dairy products added to them. Refined grains are not the whole grain starches he is talking about.
> 
> The part in red with the inclusion of beans and legumes is what he means by "starch based with the inclusion of fruits and vegetables". As evidenced in the study you cited, people who ate this way actually LOST weight.


To be honest I didn't watch the video, just went off the title of the thread. Potatoes are one of the foods highest in starch was the point I was trying to make, and those occupy the top spots in the paper I cited for weight gainers. Most people I know don't eat potatoes raw, they add something to them, fry them, salt them, butter them, etc. Maybe if you ate them raw the outcomes would be different.

I'd probably lose weight on a vegan diet too, since I hate most of that, lol. I think I'll stick to my routine though, I'm well within the healthy range just by avoiding some of the foods on the top of the list and exercising.


----------



## MsBossyPants

bluekitdon said:


> To be honest I didn't watch the video, just went off the title of the thread. Potatoes are one of the foods highest in starch was the point I was trying to make, and those occupy the top spots in the paper I cited for weight gainers. Most people I know don't eat potatoes raw, they add something to them, fry them, salt them, butter them, etc. *Maybe if you ate them raw the outcomes would be different.*
> 
> I'd probably lose weight on a vegan diet too, since I hate most of that, lol. I think I'll stick to my routine though, I'm well within the healthy range just by avoiding some of the foods on the top of the list and exercising.



Raw? No. Cooked (boiled or baked) Just not drenched in salt, butter, cheese, sour cream.


----------



## Blystone

Fascinating, but I disagree. 

*Some basic principles:*
- Insulin is the primary hormone which regulates serum glucose and fat stores.
- Starch = Carbohydrates = Sugar.
- Sugar raises insulin.
- Protein raises insulin, not as strongly as sugar.
- Fat does not raise insulin. 


*Scenarios:*
Assumed caloric intake:2,000(20%fat,20%protein,60%sugar)
-Increased Sugar consumption -> Insulin secretion increased-> fat stores increase -> caloric requirements increase. 

Assumed caloric intake:2,000(60%fat,20%protein,20%sugar)
-Increased Fat consumption -> Insulin response reduced -> fat stores deplete -> caloric requirements decrease or maintain the same.

*Conclusion:*
Paleo is the only logical diet. Thankfully one doesn't need to prove Homosapien evolved to consume meat to prove the fundamentals behind glucose/fat regulation indicate such a circumstance.


----------



## Red Panda

I like my potatoes in the oven with olive oil, oregano and lemon juice.


----------



## Red Panda

JSRS01 said:


> Fascinating, but I disagree.
> 
> *Some basic principles:*
> - Insulin is the primary hormone which regulates serum glucose and fat stores.
> - Starch = Carbohydrates = Sugar.
> - Sugar raises insulin.
> - Protein raises insulin, not as strongly as sugar.
> - Fat does not raise insulin.
> 
> 
> *Scenarios:*
> Assumed caloric intake:2,000(20%fat,20%protein,60%sugar)
> -Increased Sugar consumption -> Insulin secretion increased-> fat stores increase -> caloric requirements increase.
> 
> Assumed caloric intake:2,000(60%fat,20%protein,20%sugar)
> -Increased Fat consumption -> Insulin response reduced -> fat stores deplete -> caloric requirements decrease or maintain the same.
> 
> *Conclusion:*
> Paleo is the only logical diet. Thankfully one doesn't need to prove Homosapien evolved to consume meat to prove the fundamentals behind glucose/fat regulation indicate such a circumstance.


Fat storages are almost zero metabolically active, thus raise BMR minimally, so they don't increase caloric requirements nearly as much as muscle gain or elevated organ function. So that argument is null.

Also, starch needs to break down to glucose before it can be absorbed in the intestine, which takes time, so insulin levels don't spike as much as eating raw sugar. It's just not the same.
Having reduced insulin response can lead to hypoglycemia. Insulin/Glucose down/up spikes are the problem, not the existence of insulin in general.

You say it's the only logical diet, but there is no adequate scientific research to back you up.


----------



## Blystone

Red Panda said:


> Fat storages are almost zero metabolically active, thus raise BMR minimally, so they don't increase caloric requirements nearly as much as muscle gain or elevated organ function.
> Also, starch needs to break down to glucose before it can be absorbed in the intestine, which takes time, so insulin levels don't spike as much as eating raw sugar. It's just not the same.


The increase in caloric intake does not result from metabolic activity, it is a result of cellular starvation. 

Starch is a chain of glucose molecules; when digested it is broken down into the individual glucose molecules. This process is neither intensive nor extensive. 


If you have a look at the chart you will see the glycemic index for multiple common vegetables, for the purpose of our 
conversation we'll be focusing on the potato's, because they contain a high amount of starch.
Source:Glycemic index and glycemic load for 100+ foods - Harvard Health Publications

*FOOD**Glycemic index (glucose=100)**Serving size (grams)**Glycemic load per serving*
 
*VEGETABLES**Green peas, average
**51**80**4**Carrots, average**35**80**2**Parsnips**52**80**4**Baked russet potato, average**111**150**33**Boiled white potato, average**82**150**21**Instant mashed potato, average**87**150**17**Sweet potato, average**70**150**22**Yam, average**54**150**20*



*Coca Cola®, average 
**63 **250 mL**16
*

*Sweet potato, average
**70**150**22*

As you can see, the lowest glycemic load of a potato is 70, the highest being 111, 11 points higher than pure sugar.
When compared to Coca Cola, the least impactful potato; the sweet potato, has a higher glycemic index than Coca Cola.

Clearly, starch does in fact raise serum glucose by an arguably dangerous amount, and in some case even higher than pure sugar.

To say it's just not the same, is a copout really.


----------



## Red Panda

JSRS01 said:


> The increase in caloric intake does not result from metabolic activity, it is a result of cellular starvation.


I was referring to what you said about increased caloric requirements because of increased fat stores.



> Starch is a chain of glucose molecules; when digested it is broken down into the individual glucose molecules. This process is neither intensive nor extensive.
> 
> 
> If you have a look at the chart you will see the glycemic index for multiple common vegetables, for the purpose of our
> conversation we'll be focusing on the potato's, because they contain a high amount of starch.
> Source:Glycemic index and glycemic load for 100+ foods - Harvard Health Publications
> 
> 
> As you can see, the lowest glycemic load of a potato is 70, the highest being 111, 11 points higher than pure sugar.
> When compared to Coca Cola, the least impactful potato; the sweet potato, has a higher glycemic index than Coca Cola.
> 
> Clearly, starch does in fact raise serum glucose by an arguably dangerous amount, and in some case even higher than pure sugar.
> 
> To say it's just not the same, is a copout really.


The GI is nearly useless by itself, you have to take in consideration the amount of what you eat. And that's because GI uses 1 gram of glucose (=100) as reference, but the serving of potatoes are 150grams - a full meal. So maybe starchy foods are in the high category of GI, but if you take into consideration how much you will eat during the day the load isn't that much. Not to mention how important satiety is. This seems much more useful than GI/GL Insulin index - Wikipedia, the free ************


----------



## MsBossyPants

JSRS01 said:


> The increase in caloric intake does not result from metabolic activity, it is a result of cellular starvation.
> 
> Starch is a chain of glucose molecules; when digested it is broken down into the individual glucose molecules. This process is neither intensive nor extensive.
> 
> 
> If you have a look at the chart you will see the glycemic index for multiple common vegetables, for the purpose of our
> conversation we'll be focusing on the potato's, because they contain a high amount of starch.
> Source:Glycemic index and glycemic load for 100+ foods - Harvard Health Publications
> 
> *FOOD**Glycemic index (glucose=100)**Serving size (grams)**Glycemic load per serving*
> 
> *VEGETABLES**Green peas, average
> **51**80**4**Carrots, average**35**80**2**Parsnips**52**80**4**Baked russet potato, average**111**150**33**Boiled white potato, average**82**150**21**Instant mashed potato, average**87**150**17**Sweet potato, average**70**150**22**Yam, average**54**150**20*
> 
> 
> 
> *Coca Cola®, average
> **63 **250 mL**16
> *
> 
> *Sweet potato, average
> **70**150**22*
> 
> As you can see, the lowest glycemic load of a potato is 70, the highest being 111, 11 points higher than pure sugar.
> When compared to Coca Cola, the least impactful potato; the sweet potato, has a higher glycemic index than Coca Cola.
> 
> Clearly, starch does in fact raise serum glucose by an arguably dangerous amount, and in some case even higher than pure sugar.
> 
> To say it's just not the same, is a copout really.


This argument is always made with a white potato as the example. 

From the same chart:
Brown rice (50 g.i./16 g.l.) 
Quinoa (53/13)
It takes you longer to break down the rice than the potato or the coke because it is a whole grain. You don't just eat rice or a potato by itself. Paired with a small amount of nuts or another healthy fat, it takes even longer.

Also the serving size used is 150 grams. That's a whole day worth of carbs. A serving of carbs is generally 15 grams.


----------



## Blystone

sleepyhead said:


> Type 2 diabetes is _not_ a precursor to Type 1 diabetes. They are two very different diseases, usually with very different causes. The only similarity is they both involve insulin. Type 2 diabetics typically never lose their ability to produce insulin, but rather produce either insufficient amounts or are insulin resistant (meaning they get _some_ of the insulin needed, but not enough).
> 
> The main difference between the two types is that I (type 1) would *die* in a matter of weeks (if not less) and a type 2 diabetic may not be in good health, but could likely go on for years.
> 
> Type 1 diabetes exists for multiple reasons - there is not one cause, but Diabetes Mellitus is most often caused by an immune response. *There are no preventative measures for Type 1 diabetics. * Insulin responses are usually normal in these people until the immune-response happens and the pancreas stops producing beta cells. This usually occurs in earlier childhood (I was 10 when I was diagnosed) but is also seen in some adults. It was nothing to do with "glucosis" or ketosis.
> 
> Diabetics get ketones and go into diabetic-ketosis when they don't have enough insulin - the body uses whatever available fat is there for energy and you continually pee out any excess sugar. Diabetic Ketoacidosis is entirely different from ketosis and ketosis has nothing to do with triggering the autoimmune response in type 1 diabetics. Putting the body in ketosis has _so far_ been found to be somewhat helpful for type 2 diabetics, but it's a very different kind of disease than type 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of ignorant thing other kids parents would tell them when I was a kid - "Oh, see? That's what happens when you eat too much sugar/carbs/etc." That has absolutely nothing to do with how type 1 diabetes is triggered and it pisses me off and my nurse educators, dieticians, endocrinologists, and fellow type 1 diabetics incredibly to see that people actually still believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> Type 2 diabetics almost never fully stop producing insulin and unless they've stopped producing insulin from something like autoimmune type 1 diabetes, surgery, complications of other diseases, etc they never stop being type 2 diabetics - even type 2 diabetics who take insulin are still type 2 diabetics because their bodies still have the ability to produce some insulin. Type 1 diabetics do not have this ability.
> 
> The very definition of a Type 1 diabetic is someone who, typically from an autoimmune response, is not able to produce insulin naturally. Type 2 diabetes is defined as someone who has insulin resistance.


TL,DR. Skimmed the post. Will go back if necessary. 

Type 1 diabetes is defined by the body's inability to produce insulin. A type 2 diabetic is a person, who has a healthy functioning pancreas which does produce insulin. The problem for the type 2 diabetic is the serum glucose. Too much blood sugar. So the pancreas creates and releases insulin to bring down the serum glucose to manageable levels. 

After years of abuse from this process, the pancreas will fail. When this happen the type 2 diabetic can no longer produce their own insulin and is now dependent on insulin injections. They are now type 1 diabetic. 

Ketoacidosis is the result of too much sugar in the bloodstream in a type 1 diabetic but can occur in a type 2 diabetic as well. The body cannot properly deal with the sugar or use it as energy, due to the inability to produce insulin, so it instead floods the body with ketones as a fuel source, but because the serum glucose has not been properly managed, the ketones cause the blood to become acidic. 

Side note: The last thing you'd want to do to a type 1 diabetic is give them any form of sugar, for obvious reasons.


----------



## sleepyhead

JSRS01 said:


> TL,DR. Skimmed the post. Will go back if necessary.
> 
> Type 1 diabetes is defined by the body's inability to produce insulin. A type 2 diabetic is a person, who has a healthy functioning pancreas which does produce insulin. The problem for the type 2 diabetic is the serum glucose. Too much blood sugar. So the pancreas creates and releases insulin to bring down the serum glucose to manageable levels.
> 
> After years of abuse from this process, the pancreas will fail. When this happen the type 2 diabetic can no longer produce their own insulin and is now dependent on insulin injections. They are now type 1 diabetic.
> 
> Ketoacidosis is the result of too much sugar in the bloodstream in a type 1 diabetic but can occur in a type 2 diabetic as well. The body cannot properly deal with the sugar or use it as energy, due to the inability to produce insulin, so it instead floods the body with ketones as a fuel source, but because the serum glucose has not been properly managed, the ketones cause the blood to become acidic.
> 
> Side note: The last thing you'd want to do to a type 1 diabetic is give them any form of sugar, for obvious reasons.


That is not how type 1 diabetes happens - type 2 diabetics never become type 1 diabetics, _unless they've developed autoimmune type 1 diabetes._ Type 2 diabetics never completely lose their ability to produce insulin unless through other means like surgery or other diseases that affect the pancreas. Type 2 diabetics never become Type 1 diabetics, even if they are insulin dependent. Their bodies will always produce _some_ insulin.

Type 1 diabetics can not produce insulin at all. Type 2 diabetics can always produce *som*_*e *- even if they become insulin dependent. 

_I've had Type 1 Diabetes for 17 years and believe me, I know how it works_. _I can eat anything I want, so long as I manage my disease. I just ate a granola bar and drank a smoothie. I had some cookies last week. I had an overload of Easter chocolate. And my A1C's have all been under 7.5% ever since I was diagnosed in 1996.


----------



## Blystone

Now we're getting somewhere.



Red Panda said:


> That's why it has to be managed by dieting, which means that if one type 2 diabetic has a good lifestyle he may never reach that point in his lifetime. It's not the total amount of carbs, but the type and time of consumption that plays a bigger part.


Type 2 diabetes absolutely has to be managed by diet. It is in fact a curable "disease". While the type of carbohydrate is important(Carrot vs Banana vs Candy bar), it is not as important as the fact that sugar is being consumed period, and the amount does matter significantly. 



> You can't make such claims without scientific evidence to back it up really, especially since you don't seem to know all that much about the physiology of metabolism. Your "validation" was very vague.


The mechanics are scientifically proven. I will restate my first post:

*Basic principles:*

-Insulin manages and regulates serum glucose.
-Insulin regulates fat loss and fat gain.
-Higher serum glucose results in higher Insulin response. 
-Higher serum Insulin results in fat storage.
-Sugar, carbohydrates, and starch raise insulin.
-Protein will raise insulin if in excess.
-Fat will not raise insulin.

*Scenario:*
_Assume the person is a type 2 diabetic_

Caloric ratio20%fat,20%protein60%sugar)

Sugar is consumed. Large amount of Insulin is needed to regulate serum glucose. Insulin response results in cells not obtaining proper energy and fat retention begins. Caloric needs increase.

Sugar is consumed again. Larger amount of Insulin is needed to regulate serum glucose. Insulin response results in cells not obtaining proper energy and fat retention continues. Caloric needs continue to increase.

This process will continue until 1 of 2 things happen. 

1. The person's pancreas fails and stops producing insulin. This will result in death if not treated.
2. The person changes their diet to one low in sugar, high in fat. This will result in insulin stabilization and fat loss. 



Caloric ratio60%fat,20%protein,20%sugar)

Fat is consumed. Little Insulin is needed to regulate serum glucose. Cells obtain proper amount of energy and fat is released. Caloric needs do not increase. 

Fat is consumed again. Insulin response is minimal. Cells obtain proper amount of energy and fat loss continues. Caloric needs do not increase. 

This process will continue and the person will remain without adverse health affects. 

This video sums up the process nicely:


----------



## Blystone

sleepyhead said:


> That is not how type 1 diabetes happens - type 2 diabetics never become type 1 diabetics, _unless they've developed autoimmune type 1 diabetes._ Type 2 diabetics never completely lose their ability to produce insulin unless through other means like surgery or other diseases that affect the pancreas. Type 2 diabetics never become Type 1 diabetics, even if they are insulin dependent. Their bodies will always produce _some_ insulin.
> 
> Type 1 diabetics can not produce insulin at all. Type 2 diabetics can always produce *som*_*e *- even if they become insulin dependent.
> 
> _I've had Type 1 Diabetes for 17 years and believe me, I know how it works_. _I can eat anything I want, so long as I manage my disease. I just ate a granola bar and drank a smoothie. I had some cookies last week. I had an overload of Easter chocolate. And my A1C's have all been under 7.5% ever since I was diagnosed in 1996.


If type 1 diabetics are defined by their inability to produce insulin, then yes it is 100% possible for a type 2 diabetic to become, by definition, a type 1 diabetic.

Type 2 diabetics can, and do, stop producing insulin. It happens.


----------



## sleepyhead

JSRS01 said:


> If type 1 diabetics are defined by their inability to produce insulin, then yes it is 100% possible for a type 2 diabetic to become, by definition, a type 1 diabetic.
> 
> Type 2 diabetics can, and do, stop producing insulin. It happens.


That's just not true. Type 2 Diabetes either does not produce enough insulin or doesn't absorb it properly. Over time they may produce less, but they never stop producing insulin except due to one of the reasons I stated above (underlying autoimmune response, surgery, cancers, etc) - they may not produce enough insulin to function without synthetic insulin, but they never completely stop producing insulin.

To say that they do is just continuing to spread misinformation about these two very different diseases.


----------



## Blystone

sleepyhead said:


> That's just not true. Type 2 Diabetes either does not produce enough insulin or doesn't absorb it properly. Over time they may produce less, but they never stop producing insulin except due to one of the reasons I stated above (underlying autoimmune response, surgery, cancers, etc) - they may not produce enough insulin to function without synthetic insulin, but they never completely stop producing insulin.
> 
> To say that they do is just continuing to spread misinformation about these two very different diseases.



Miss information? Seriously? It's a common occurrence. I really am baffled by your comments.

"Moreover, most type 2 diabetics eventually stop producing enough insulin, and often cease insulin production altogether."
https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/vod/vod_22_4/vodfal0712.htm 


"they gradually stop producing insulin."
Type 2 Diabetes | Diabetesnet.com

Many other sites note how insulin effectiveness becomes severely inhibited, but to say a type 2 diabetic will *always* produce insulin is truly misinformation.


----------



## sleepyhead

JSRS01 said:


> Miss information? Seriously? It's a common occurrence. I really am baffled by your comments.
> 
> "Moreover, most type 2 diabetics eventually stop producing enough insulin, and often cease insulin production altogether."
> https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/vod/vod_22_4/vodfal0712.htm
> 
> 
> "they gradually stop producing insulin."
> Type 2 Diabetes | Diabetesnet.com
> 
> Many other sites note how insulin effectiveness becomes severely inhibited, but to say a type 2 diabetic will *always* produce insulin is truly misinformation.


I can concede that I was wrong about type 2's being able to not produce insulin, but that *does not*make it type 1 diabetes. To say that again, causes misunderstandings of the disease. Even if a type 2 is no longer producing insulin, they are dealing with very different factors in regards to their health - even with synthetic insulin they are often still dealing with insulin resistance, the causes of the diseases are very different, and the way they're managed overall is usually very different. 

An endocrinologist cannot treat a Type 1 and Type 2 diabetic patient the same, even if neither can produce insulin. They're both dealing with very different issues related to each type of diabetes.

It would be a lot less confusing if they both weren't called "diabetes" - both diseases are very different, despite some similarities. Not to mention there is also LADA diabetes, gestational diabetes, and that type 1 sometimes has different causes (it's not always autoimmune - some people are born with it).


----------



## Blystone

sleepyhead said:


> I can concede that I was wrong about type 2's being able to not produce insulin, but that *does not*make it type 1 diabetes. To say that again, causes misunderstandings of the disease. Even if a type 2 is no longer producing insulin, they are dealing with very different factors in regards to their health - even with synthetic insulin they are often still dealing with insulin resistance, the causes of the diseases are very different, and the way they're managed overall is usually very different.
> 
> An endocrinologist cannot treat a Type 1 and Type 2 diabetic patient the same, even if neither can produce insulin. They're both dealing with very different issues related to each type of diabetes.
> 
> It would be a lot less confusing if they both weren't called "diabetes" - both diseases are very different, despite some similarities. Not to mention there is also LADA diabetes, gestational diabetes, and that type 1 sometimes has different causes (it's not always autoimmune - some people are born with it).


Sure, there are different forms of diabetes. More than most are aware. And type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are inherently different, and treatments should be on a per case basis.

My definition for a Type 1 diabetic is more vague than yours, which allows me the ability to incorporate Type 2 diabetics into the Type 1 category after the prerequisites are met. You don't have to agree with my definition if you don't want to. 

And really none of this semantics talk matters. What does matter is the way diabetes is treated, and as whole, it's not being treated correctly.


----------



## Red Panda

JSRS01 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Type 2 diabetes absolutely has to be managed by diet. It is in fact a curable "disease". While the type of carbohydrate is important(Carrot vs Bana vs Candy bar), it is not as important as the fact that sugar is being consumed period, and the amount does matter significantly.
> 
> 
> 
> The mechanics are scientifically proven. I will restate my first post:


Citations needed. Seriously man, you go about saying stuff and not bother to post ONE research.


> *Basic principles:*
> 
> -Insulin manages and regulates serum glucose.
> -Insulin regulates fat loss and fat gain.
> -Higher serum glucose results in higher Insulin response.
> -Higher serum Insulin results in fat storage.
> -Sugar, carbohydrates, and starch raise insulin.
> -Protein will raise insulin if in excess.
> -Fat will not raise insulin.
> 
> *Scenario:*
> _Assume the person is a type 2 diabetic_
> 
> Caloric ratio20%fat,20%protein60%sugar)
> 
> Sugar is consumed. Large amount of Insulin is needed to regulate serum glucose. Insulin response results in cells not obtaining proper energy and fat retention begins. Caloric needs increase.
> 
> Sugar is consumed again. Larger amount of Insulin is needed to regulate serum glucose. Insulin response results in cells not obtaining proper energy and fat retention continues. Caloric needs continue to increase.
> 
> This process will continue until 1 of 2 things happen.
> 
> 1. The person's pancreas fails and stops producing insulin. This will result in death if not treated.
> 2. The person changes their diet to one low in sugar, high in fat. This will result in insulin stabilization and fat loss.
> 
> 
> 
> Caloric ratio60%fat,20%protein,20%sugar)
> 
> Fat is consumed. Little Insulin is need to regulate serum glucose. Cells obtain proper amount of energy and fat is released. Caloric needs do not increase.
> 
> Fat is consumed again. Insulin response is minimal. Cells obtain proper amount of energy and fat loss continues. Caloric needs do not increase.
> 
> This process will continue and the person will remain without adverse health affects.
> 
> This video sums up the process nicely:


You don't have any clinical background (apparently) to be able to propose scenarios for treatment & physiology of type 2 diabetes. You are over-reaching here, especially with a disease that is extremely complex and treated on an individual basis. Most diabetic patients have renal, heart, circulation problems, etc. You can't just say "hey give them plenty of fat to eat and they'll be healthy". You are being very arrogant and honestly I don't want to spend any more time participating in this debate. You're in over your head with this.


----------



## Blystone

Red Panda said:


> Citations needed. Seriously man, you go about saying stuff and not bother to post ONE research.
> 
> 
> You don't have any clinical background (apparently) to be able to propose scenarios for treatment & physiology of type 2 diabetes. You are over-reaching here, especially with a disease that is extremely complex and treated on an individual basis. Most diabetic patients have renal, heart, circulation problems, etc. You can't just say "hey give them plenty of fat to eat and they'll be healthy". You are being very arrogant and honestly I don't want to spend any more time participating in this debate. You're in over your head with this.


Lol. No need to get defensive. You don't have to believe me. Look into my claims if you want to disprove them. To say I'm in over my head though is insulting to say the least. You don't think someone could have the capacity to comprehend human nutrition without a piece of paper stating so? 

But, because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you some citations. Not that they're worth anything. 
Physiologic Effects of Insulin
Could high insulin make you fat? Mouse study says yes 
Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome
Impact of short-term high-fat feeding on glucose and insulin metabolism in young healthy men



You know, you could just read a book on the matter. Good Calories Bad Calories is a highly recommended.


----------



## sleepyhead

JSRS01 said:


> Sure, there are different forms of diabetes. More than most are aware. And type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are inherently different, and treatments should be on a per case basis.
> 
> *My definition for a Type 1 diabetic is more vague than yours, *which allows me the ability to incorporate Type 2 diabetics into the Type 1 category after the prerequisites are met. You don't have to agree with my definition if you don't want to.
> 
> And really none of this semantics talk matters. What does matter is the way diabetes is treated, and as whole, it's not being treated correctly.


Mine is the medical definition. 

It is a very uninformed and ignorant thing to categorize two different diseases as the same thing - even a type 2 diabetic who no longer produces insulin is not the same as a Type 1 diabetic and they are treated differently with good reason. To equate them as the same or having developed in the same way, or saying that one type can "turn into" another type is just not true.

That's all I'll say about it.


----------



## Blystone

sleepyhead said:


> Mine is the medical definition.
> 
> It is a very uninformed and ignorant thing to categorize two different diseases as the same thing - even a type 2 diabetic who no longer produces insulin is not the same as a Type 1 diabetic and they are treated differently with good reason. To equate them as the same or having developed in the same way, or saying that one type can "turn into" another type is just not true.
> 
> That's all I'll say about it.




*Type I or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus* is the result of a frank deficiency of insulin. The onset of this disease typically is in childhood. It is due to destruction pancreatic beta cells, most likely the result of autoimmunity to one or more components of those cells. Many of the acute effects of this disease can be controlled by insulin replacement therapy.
*Type II or non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus* begins as a syndrome of insulin resistance. That is, target tissues fail to respond appropriately to insulin. Typically, the onset of this disease is in adulthood. Despite monumental research efforts, the precise nature of the defects leading to type II diabetes have been difficult to ascertain, and the pathogenesis of this condition is plainly multifactorial.

That's the medical definitions of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. I'm glad we finally agree.


----------



## Red Panda

JSRS01 said:


> Lol. No need to get defensive. You don't have to believe me. Look into my claims if you want to disprove them. To say I'm in over my head though is insulting to say the least. You don't think someone could have the capacity to comprehend human nutrition without a piece of paper stating so?
> 
> But, because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you some citations. Not that they're worth anything.
> Physiologic Effects of Insulin
> Could high insulin make you fat? Mouse study says yes
> Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome
> Impact of short-term high-fat feeding on glucose and insulin metabolism in youngi healthy men
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you could just read a book on the matter. Good Calories Bad Calories is a highly recommended.


I wasnt getting defensive. I found it very disrespectful to the people who dedicate their lives treating the patients and researching the disease so I wont talk about it anymore. 
If you want to understand human nutrition at least start from the basics, not literature books. Stryer's Biochemistry and Gropper's Advanced Human nutrition & metabolism are great books.


----------



## PowerShell

Red Panda said:


> So what are we evolved to eat? To live healthy long lives? Maybe the Paleo diet was a good diet for people of that time, because the meats were pure and they were on their feet all the time, but to say that we have evolved to have meat and animal products as a base of our diets is over-reaching and there just isn't any evidence of that.


I never said the majority of meat that is pumped with hormones, antibiotics, and other garbage on a factory farm. If you read about the paleo diet, you will find they advocate eating organic meats. In regards to what we evolved to eat, look around. Go in the woods and walk around. Look at what is available to eat if you were a hunter-gatherer. Look at see what can be eaten raw or with minimal cooking with primitive cooking tools. That's how man ate for over a million years before the agricultural revolution.


----------



## Blystone

Red Panda said:


> I wasnt getting defensive. I found it very disrespectful to the people who dedicate their lives treating the patients and researching the disease so I wont talk about it anymore.
> If you want to understand human nutrition at least start from the basics, not literature books. Stryer's Biochemistry and Gropper's Advanced Human nutrition & metabolism are great books.


I've laid the groundwork for my arguments and you've yet to prove them wrong, and you call me disrespectful? Ridiculous. But you're right. I don't respect simpletons who knowingly or unknowingly ruin the lives and health of innocent human beings. I don't respect homogenous drone-esque college kids who simply reiterate their indoctrinator's state approved propaganda. I don't respect anyone who doesn't think autonomously and critically of the world. You truly are a loathsome group of people, and should be ashamed for causing such catastrophic damage to those who don't know better.


----------



## android654

Snakecharmer said:


> He's a dumbass.
> 
> That's my professional opinion (I'm a nutritionist).


What the lady said. Anyone who's studied nutrition and/or evolutionary biology and doesn't consider the consumption of flesh to be an essential part of the human diet is probably the kind of person who thinks corn is a vegetable.


----------



## Death Persuades

Wtf... No. Starches are okay but you should limit them.


----------



## Red Panda

PowerShell said:


> I never said the majority of meat that is pumped with hormones, antibiotics, and other garbage on a factory farm. If you read about the paleo diet, you will find they advocate eating organic meats. In regards to what we evolved to eat, look around. Go in the woods and walk around. Look at what is available to eat if you were a hunter-gatherer. Look at see what can be eaten raw or with minimal cooking with primitive cooking tools. That's how man ate for over a million years before the agricultural revolution.


"going inthe woods" may have been the place for some people but not all humans libed in the same environment. Some groups definitely had access to grains and they may ate them as a base. How else do u think consumption of grains and agriculture began? Not having the tools to cook doesnt prove that our biochemistry cant process grains. It's the same principle behind what some vegans say about not veing able to consume meat: if we werent our bodies would immediately reject the food like herbivores thatget sick if they eat meat. We would not last generations upon generations of grain eating.


----------



## Red Panda

JSRS01 said:


> I've laid the groundwork for my arguments and you've yet to prove them wrong, and you call me disrespectful? Ridiculous. But you're right. I don't respect simpletons who knowingly or unknowingly ruin the lives and health of innocent human beings. I don't respect homogenous drone-esque college kids who simply reiterate their indoctrinator's state approved propaganda. I don't respect anyone who doesn't think autonomously and critically of the world. You truly are a loathsome group of people, and should be ashamed for causing such catastrophic damage to those who don't know better.


you know nothing about me to make that judgement. you are disrespectful because you are not in the position to make judgements about treating patients and criticise the work of people who have dedicated years of their lives doing that work. to act and think critically you must first posess the same level of knowledge of the people u will criticise and even surpass it. .otherwise it's just nerve.


----------



## PowerShell

Red Panda said:


> "going inthe woods" may have been the place for some people but not all humans libed in the same environment. Some groups definitely had access to grains and they may ate them as a base. How else do u think consumption of grains and agriculture began? Not having the tools to cook doesnt prove that our biochemistry cant process grains. It's the same principle behind what some vegans say about not veing able to consume meat: if we werent our bodies would immediately reject the food like herbivores thatget sick if they eat meat. We would not last generations upon generations of grain eating.


Like I said we can process grains but it's like putting regular fuel in a car that demand premium fuel. Our bodies can use a lot of things for food as evolution has demanded that we eat a lot of stuff available in times of crises. That doesn't mean that it's optimal as evidence by how our bodies react to the food such as glycemic index and the release of insulin. If you eat a high glycemic diet, you will eventually release so much insulin your body becomes desensitized to the insulin and you develop type 2 diabetes. I'm not saying in the short term you can't live off of grains (and especially refined grains). I'm saying in the long term, it's not optimal and will lead to problems down the road.


----------

