[dohboi]

Indeed, whatever general direction you are going dietwise, going with high-quality whole foods whenever you can seems to be the best option. For the carnivores, it sounds like processed meats are clearly the very worst for you, right up there with cigarettes. So unless you are planning on slow-motion suicide through very painful maladies like cancer and kidney stones, minimize your exposure to those poisonous foods.

Note, though, that (from the linked article above):

previous studies have found links between vegetarian diets and improved health outcomes, including reduced risk of type 2 diabetes

So even if you eat unhealthy but vegetarian diets, you are less likely to get diabetes than is someone eating an unhealthy diet that includes meats. (And let's face it, most Americans and many others mostly eat unhealthy diets.) This study just showed (not too surprisingly) that the clear health benefits of eating any vegetarian diet are augmented by being sure that it is actually a healthy vegetarian diet.

[vtsnowedin]

Indeed, whatever general direction you are going dietwise, going with high-quality whole foods whenever you can seems to be the best option. For the carnivores, it sounds like processed meats are clearly the very worst for you, right up there with cigarettes. So unless you are planning on slow-motion suicide through very painful maladies like cancer and kidney stones, minimize your exposure to those poisonous foods.

Note, though, that (from the linked article above):

previous studies have found links between vegetarian diets and improved health outcomes, including reduced risk of type 2 diabetes

So even if you eat unhealthy but vegetarian diets, you are less likely to get diabetes than is someone eating an unhealthy diet that includes meats. (And let's face it, most Americans and many others mostly eat unhealthy diets.) This study just showed (not too surprisingly) that the clear health benefits of eating any vegetarian diet are augmented by being sure that it is actually a healthy vegetarian diet.

Let me propose that the number one cause of type two diabetes is the amount of time spent in a chair in front of a computer or X-box.
Any diet if allowed to just sit in the middle of a couch potato goes wrong.
The idea that a true paleo diet is low in sugar is also ridiculous. A paleo hunter-gather would consume every bit of honey ,ripe sugar laden fruit and animal fat they could lay their hands on. That would have made their balance of food vary with the seasons with late summer and fall being the richest times but only the winter after all stored dry fruit was gone would be a meat only diet.

[Tanada]

Let me propose that the number one cause of type two diabetes is the amount of time spent in a chair in front of a computer or X-box.
Any diet if allowed to just sit in the middle of a couch potato goes wrong.
The idea that a true paleo diet is low in sugar is also ridiculous. A paleo hunter-gather would consume every bit of honey ,ripe sugar laden fruit and animal fat they could lay their hands on. That would have made their balance of food vary with the seasons with late summer and fall being the richest times but only the winter after all stored dry fruit was gone would be a meat only diet.

Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years. There is a huge difference in how your physiology reacts to sugar intake than to any other "calorie source" except for alcohol. Both sugar and alcohol consumption lead to fatty liver and fatty pancreas disease, which in turn cause insulin resistance.

It is true that a paleo hunter gatherer ate every bit of ripe sweet fruit or wild honey they could lay their hands on, but if you go take a walk in the woods and actually count the fruit trees you will quickly discover that with few exceptions fruit trees are not all that common. Also in the wild humans were not the only, or even the main consumers, every herbivore and omnivore goes after ripe fruit, as do the majority of insects. Roaming swine, bears, deer, as well as localized squirrels and raccoons and other small animals flock to any wild fruit as it gets ripe. For stone fruit and berries a flock of birds will strip a cherry tree or meadow of strawberries in an hour, leaving it bare for the next year. Before humans selectively bred them peaches, plums and dates were not nearly as big as they are today.

So yes, hunter gatherers ate sugar when they could get it, mostly from whole fruits. Modern westernized diets have sugar in nearly every processed food, and we have 24/7/365 access to sugar to add to coffee/tea not to mention all the deluge of sweet confections at every checkout in every shopping venue that sells any kind of food at all. The difference between a hunter gatherer getting maybe a pint of honey from a wild hive once or twice a year and what modern society has done with access to sweets could not be much more different if you were trying to run an experiment of compare and contrast.

[vtsnowedin]

Let me propose that the number one cause of type two diabetes is the amount of time spent in a chair in front of a computer or X-box.
Any diet if allowed to just sit in the middle of a couch potato goes wrong.
The idea that a true paleo diet is low in sugar is also ridiculous. A paleo hunter-gather would consume every bit of honey ,ripe sugar laden fruit and animal fat they could lay their hands on. That would have made their balance of food vary with the seasons with late summer and fall being the richest times but only the winter after all stored dry fruit was gone would be a meat only diet.

Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years. There is a huge difference in how your physiology reacts to sugar intake than to any other "calorie source" except for alcohol. Both sugar and alcohol consumption lead to fatty liver and fatty pancreas disease, which in turn cause insulin resistance.

It is true that a paleo hunter gatherer ate every bit of ripe sweet fruit or wild honey they could lay their hands on, but if you go take a walk in the woods and actually count the fruit trees you will quickly discover that with few exceptions fruit trees are not all that common. Also in the wild humans were not the only, or even the main consumers, every herbivore and omnivore goes after ripe fruit, as do the majority of insects. Roaming swine, bears, deer, as well as localized squirrels and raccoons and other small animals flock to any wild fruit as it gets ripe. For stone fruit and berries a flock of birds will strip a cherry tree or meadow of strawberries in an hour, leaving it bare for the next year. Before humans selectively bred them peaches, plums and dates were not nearly as big as they are today.

So yes, hunter gatherers ate sugar when they could get it, mostly from whole fruits. Modern westernized diets have sugar in nearly every processed food, and we have 24/7/365 access to sugar to add to coffee/tea not to mention all the deluge of sweet confections at every checkout in every shopping venue that sells any kind of food at all. The difference between a hunter gatherer getting maybe a pint of honey from a wild hive once or twice a year and what modern society has done with access to sweets could not be much more different if you were trying to run an experiment of compare and contrast.

Not to totally disagree with you but you have obviously never seen a child suck on a maple sapsicle in the spring or pick berries in the meadow (or burned area) . Or for that matter seen a wild bee tree smoked and cut down with the hundred pounds or more of honeycomb inside it. Smaller wild fruit keeps longer in a basket in a root cellar (or cave) and if the birds were eating more then there share the would eat the birds and their eggs.
Yes they would have to go out and gather this food and compete with the other consumers of it and that is what kept human populations low for tens of thousands of years but the ones that survived were those lucky and clever enough to find food when and where it was abundant relative to their family size.

[vtsnowedin]

[
Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years.

It failed because nobody actually ate less or moved more.

[Tanada]

[
Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years.

It failed because nobody actually ate less or moved more.

With all due respect BULL PUCKY.

[vtsnowedin]

[
Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years.

It failed because nobody actually ate less or moved more.

With all due respect BULL PUCKY.

Do you know any marathon runners with diabetes?

[Tanada]

[
Your proposition is just a repetition of the eat less move more mantra that has failed to achieve jack squat for the last 40 years.

It failed because nobody actually ate less or moved more.

With all due respect BULL PUCKY.

Do you know any marathon runners with diabetes?

Do you know what kind of damage marathon running does to a persons general health? Even if true your cure causes more problems than it solves.

However seems how you are going down that road Arthur Ashe was a pro tennis player who ran to stay in shape. He was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes in the middle of his career and kept competing for another decade.

If you want an actual Marathoner how about Professor Tim Noakes of South Africa? The man ran marathon races for 30 years and developed Type 2 Diabetes, while still running every day.

The other problem was that I was following that diet and getting progressively slower in my running and fatter and ultimately developed type 2 diabetes, which I realized somewhat later and then I had this epiphanous moment when I decided something had to change. I fortunately was exposed to the low-carbohydrate work of Dr. Jeff Volek and his colleagues and one day I decided, okay I am doing so badly eating all these carbohydrates surely I can’t be worse, let’s cut the carbohydrates and turn to a high fat diet as provided by Dr. Volek; so I did that and the results were dramatic. I lost twenty kilograms of weight and I subsequently decided I had type 2 diabetes and needed treatment, but my diabetes is quite well-controlled on Metformin and this low-carbohydrate diet and then I realized I had to say sorry that I have been misleading people for so long telling them to eat the high carbohydrate diet and so my conclusion is if you’re like me and you have a family history of diabetes, my father died of a disease, his brother died of the disease and it’s clearly come directly through to myself and my own children.

http://www.thenoakesfoundation.org/prof-noakes

Sorry VT, but eat less exercise more is a myth. For one thing very few obese persons are a glutton or a sloth. On the other side of the coin 40 percent of Type 2 Diabetes patients start out at normal weight, but gain weight as their insulin resistance grows over time. Insulin resistance is the #1 cause of weight gain in the world because that hormone signals fat cells to accumulate fat and it signals the liver to convert excess blood sugar into fat. For a third thing Fructose as in half of the table sugar molecule and 55 percent of the sugar in HFCS sweetened drinks has been shown to block appetite control in both laboratory animals and human beings.

Ask yourself a simple question, do you eat just to eat? Or do you eat to satisfy your hunger? Almost everyone eats to satisfy their hunger and BTW high insulin levels also drive appetite way up. You can take a perfectly healthy 18 year old athlete test subject and administer a small surplus of insulin each day and the result is that perfectly healthy body will eat more than it did without the exogenous insulin and it will gain visceral fat. Why? Because insulin causes fat storage to increase AND it increases appetite.

[vtsnowedin]

Sorry VT, but eat less exercise more is a myth. For one thing very few obese persons are a glutton or a sloth. On the other side of the coin 40 percent of Type 2 Diabetes patients start out at normal weight, but gain weight as their insulin resistance grows over time. ...
....

You are talking to a couch potato that takes metformin and Glipizide for blood sugar and feels better and has lower daily blood glucose levels if I get my considerable bulk out of the office chair and puts in a couple of miles daily.
You are preaching to the wrong choir.

[Tanada]

Sorry VT, but eat less exercise more is a myth. For one thing very few obese persons are a glutton or a sloth. On the other side of the coin 40 percent of Type 2 Diabetes patients start out at normal weight, but gain weight as their insulin resistance grows over time. ...
....

You are talking to a couch potato that takes metformin and Glipizide for blood sugar and feels better and has lower daily blood glucose levels if I get my considerable bulk out of the office chair and puts in a couple of miles daily.
You are preaching to the wrong choir.

You are conflating two very different things. I exercise for an hour three times a week on an elliptical machine because it makes my health better. A reasonable level of exercise is a healthy thing for anyone or everyone to do.

You challenged me to name a diabetic Marathon Runner. Which I did.

But exercise in the healthy range for your health will not ever make you lose weight because if you do not replace those calories with food and drink your base metabolic rate will go down. This has been tested on many many people in everything from food diary diet studies to metabolic chamber testing. Yet the vast majority of physicians continue to advocate 'eat less move more' as the prescription for weight loss. Yes if you play biggest loser and exercise five hours a day and eat very little you will lose weight. But the day you go off the program you will gain the weight back even faster because your base metabolic rate will have slowed down during the food restriction. This means that food intake levels that would supply the calories you would need to maintain a healthy body weight are more than your slower metabolism needs in the first few weeks, so the excess calories get deposited as new fat.

Eventually if you keep eating healthy (non starchy vegetables, reasonable portions of meat/fish/eggs/leafy greens/beans) your metabolic rate will return to normal, but by that time your weight will have bounced up 10-20 percent over what it was the day you went off the diet. Unfortunately for you Glipizide is an insulin release stimulant, so the treatment for your insulin resistance as prescribed by your Md is to increase your insulin and make your resistance worse. Instead of treating the cause (high insulin) they are treating the symptom (high blood sugar). My spouse switched from insulin stimulating drugs to Farxiga which is a glucose purging drug. FS control has greatly improved and weight is going down without extreme dietary changes. It is not any of my business how you treat your condition, but I would encourage you to discuss switching to Farxiga or one of its related medications and get off the Glipizide with your Md as soon as practical.

[vtsnowedin]

Well of course eating less and exercising more actually works only while you are actually doing it. Going off a diet or exercise regime is going off it and you will soon acquire the weight and glucose levels supported by your new habits.
That one marathon runner managed to consume enough carbs to gain weight and become diabetic dose not negate the fact that most athletes that are in training can eat a varied diet of up to 4000 calories a day with no trouble because they are burning off the excess daily. Stop the exercise without cutting back the food and they get fat in a hurry because they are in the habit of eating large meals and their "I'm getting full" response is suppressed.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Meanwhile: https://www.facebook.com/mercyforanimal ... =3&theater

Whether it's protein, fiber, calcium or iron that you're lookin' for, black beans win over beef. Same if you're lookin' to avoid fat, cholesterol or sodium. (And yes, I know, dietary cholesterol has little relation to blood levels--but lots of people still freak about cholesterol in their food, so it's relevant).

Any questions?

[vtsnowedin]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Meanwhile: https://www.facebook.com/mercyforanimal ... =3&theater

Whether it's protein, fiber, calcium or iron that you're lookin' for, black beans win over beef. Same if you're lookin' to avoid fat, cholesterol or sodium. (And yes, I know, dietary cholesterol has little relation to blood levels--but lots of people still freak about cholesterol in their food, so it's relevant).

Any questions?

Now if you could just get those beans to out into the range and find their own food and water and come back in all fat and black at the end of summer.
Don't get me wrong. I had black beans inside a bowl of chili last night along with fresh made corn bread but I do like the grass fed hamburger in the chili and would leave out one or more of the beans in the recipe before I'd take out the meat.
White rice and black beans also goes well with a good steak off the grill but for the Father's day Barbecue it's going to be potato and egg salad with watermelon for dessert. I need to get some exercise today to make room for that. Perhaps work on the wood pile.

[Tanada]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Meanwhile: https://www.facebook.com/mercyforanimal ... =3&theater

Whether it's protein, fiber, calcium or iron that you're lookin' for, black beans win over beef. Same if you're lookin' to avoid fat, cholesterol or sodium. (And yes, I know, dietary cholesterol has little relation to blood levels--but lots of people still freak about cholesterol in their food, so it's relevant).

Any questions?

I eat beans, but they are far from the miracle health food claimed by that page.

What’s In A Bean?

Beans contain a lot of soluble fiber, protein, carbohydrates, folate and iron. They also contain Lectins, which are also present in high amounts in grains. Because of their protein content, beans (legumes) often get a primary role in the diet of vegetarians, though not without cost.

The lectins in legumes are an important protective measure for the bean plant, and a potentially harmful one for humans. Before the dawn of genetically modified disease resistant soybeans (gee, thanks Monsanto) and their corresponding toxic pesticides and herbicides, legume plants were actually quite able to defend themselves.

What do Lectins Do?

Lectins are specific proteins that bind to carbohydrates, and exist in plants in varying levels as a protective mechanism. When animals who are not adapted to consuming particular types of lectins eat them, they will experience pain or death.

This reaction is not absent in humans, as I mentioned when I explained why grains can be so harmful.

If you are Lectin sensitive beans and grains are a serious problem, ranging from the kind of allergic reaction some people have to peanuts (which are a bean, not a nut) through cramps and discomfort to the minor issue of gassy bowl. Other people are able to digest Lectin with no issues, which I would consider a real blessing.

There is a reason for everything. If you pause and give it a moments thought you will realize the beans we eat are the seeds of the bean plant. Naturally to reproduce the plant needs those beans to survive and grow into the next generation of plants, so they concentrate most of their natural defense mechanisms into those seeds and not into the leaves that insects chew on.

The same is true for true grains as well, you are eating the seeds and the plant concentrates its defenses there. Unfortunately I am particularly sensitive to the defenses of the modern wheat varieties commonly used in baked goods so I have to eat very little wheat to have an unpleasent few days afterwards. I know some people have the same reaction to beans and there are researchers who are looking into just how much of the USA population has negative impact from wheat or beans in their food.

Although nearly any food is capable of causing an allergic reaction, there are eight foods that cause the majority of reactions. These foods are:

Peanut
Tree nuts
Milk
Egg
Wheat
Soy
Fish
Shellfish

Another common allergen is sesame, which affects hundreds of thousands of Americans. The information in this section offers a more in-depth look at each of these common food allergens, and provides guidance for avoiding these ingredients.

https://www.foodallergy.org/allergens

Nearly all processed food you will find has both Wheat and Soy in it, which is why I avoid it whenever possible.

[vtsnowedin]

I should add that AFAIK there are no known meat allergies except kinda the alpha-gal allergy which is an illness transmitted by the lone star tick or the chigger.

I have an extended family member that has contracted this meat allergy. It is a cruel blow to a man that was an avid deer hunter.

[vtsnowedin]

I should add that AFAIK there are no known meat allergies except kinda the alpha-gal allergy which is an illness transmitted by the lone star tick or the chigger.

I have an extended family member that has contracted this meat allergy. It is a cruel blow to a man that was an avid deer hunter.

That's crazy and awful? How bad is it? Did he have to become vegan?

You have to assume the lone star tick is from texas, the lone star state? Isn't meat on the Texas State Flag? What a blow! Your relative must feel like an outcast. (no! not outcaste. No one wants to feel like him )

He said he got it from a tick bite and he lives on the Eastern seaboard.
And yes it is hard to watch him host hunters on his property and be very very careful of what he eats.

[dohboi]

Thanks for stating the obvious, T: That people can be allergic to pretty much anything, even sunlight. That doesn't mean that for most people most of the time and in reasonable quantities sunlight isn't healthy.

So basically, a non-sequitur. (And one wonders why, if a people have an actually valid argument, they would have to stoop to non-sequiturs...hmmm )

And thanks for that tip about peas, pstarr. I grew some native peas once in my yard, but just assumed they were non-edible. I'll have to do more research next time! I just harvested my first batch of snow peas from my garden, including some purple ones (in honor of his late great purpleness ). Yummy.