Diabetic

Medical issues, doctors, dentists, opticians and hospitals in Hua Hin and Thailand.
User avatar
lindosfan1
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 pm
Location: uk

cambell

Post by lindosfan1 » Tue May 27, 2008 11:30 pm

This extract is interesting it pulls him apart proving his statistics and conclusions are flawed


This book, which does make some very compelling arguments other than in trying to prove the case for veganism, is enormously misleading to folks without a profoundly scientific orientation, including in statistics (dealing with probabilities). However, enough data is included so that those with a thorough grounding in statistics can figure this out. Unfortunately, readers without the training or the motivation to do so will make dietary choices based on the author's dubious conclusions. (For the most striking example of a prospective buyer who couldn't do his/her own thinking and ended up led astray, see the Amazon review posted April 4 '05. What's even sadder, most have voted that review as "helpful"...)
At discussion is, once all is said and deconstructed, a sad case of a prominent vegan author who "cooked" statistics to serve his vegan cause. The implications are startling alright.

Readers aren't told what Chinese people actually ate vs. their cancer rate by province. The author uses the China Study to advocate veganism, but the Chinese are not vegans. Many of them might be ALMOST vegetarian, but this was a far cry from totally veg*an.

On one hand the author believes supplements aren't necessary, then nevertheless proceeds to state a B12 supplement is necessary. Which is it?

Back in the 1980's, Colin Campbell and a team of researchers traveled to China to survey the dietary habits of 6,500 adults in 130 rural villages. Although they gathered data on a whopping 367 food variables, they somehow neglected to note how much soy people were eating. Yet soy has been widely reputed to be a "miracle food" and the reason that the Chinese have lower rates of some cancers and other chronic diseases. So it's "startling" indeed to find that ALL legume consumption came to a grand total of only 12g per day, which is NOT very much. However, what's truly "startling" about this book is not the researchers' failure to be "comprehensive" -- they gathered plenty of good data though readers will have to go to earlier publications to get it -- but the many ways Campbell massages, misuses and misreports that data. Although he clearly thinks it's all for a good cause, this is a textbook case of "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics."

The hyperbolic pro-vegan claims made by the author and the reviewers on amazon.com are astonishing, all from one epidemiological study...
First, it must be noted that in the realm of properly conducted scientific research, epidemiological studies -- such as the vaunted China Study -- are only meant to SUGGEST TRENDS for future research, not to make definitive claims about diet such as this book does.

If you're considering changing your diet based on the reviews here and on the "research" in this book, I cannot urge you enough not to judge this book by its cover. It doesn't prove anything about what diet to eat, and the actual data in the real China Study contradicts many of the conclusions given herein. You should know that if you're considering vega*nism for the first in a lifetime, you might be endangering your health, a risk backed up by very little actual research, and in no way based on how your distant human ancestors ate. For that matter, it also isn't based on how the people reviewed in this book ate... because they weren't vegan/vegetarian either.

What follows is a detailed analysis with references of the flaws in this book.

It was growing up on one of the many dairy farms of the rural American landscape that the young Colin Campbell formed the views that would shape the early portion of his career. Cow's milk, "Nature's most perfect food," was central to the existence of his family and community. Most of the food that Campbell's family ate they produced themselves. Campbell milked cows from the age of five through his college years. He studied animal nutrition at Cornell, and did his PhD research on ways to make cows and sheep grow faster so the American food supply could be pumped up with more and more protein.1

Fast forward to the present. Campbell is now on the advisory board of the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine,2 which describes itself as "a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research,"3 but whose pro-vegan agenda reflects its ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups, including, according to Newsweek, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, which the Department of Justice calls a "domestic terrorist threat."4

Campbell's new book The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health hit the bookstores in January 2005 and details the turning points in his post-graduate research that led Campbell to become a famed opponent of animal foods and an advocate of the vegan diet. It takes the reader on a tour through Campbell's early animal experiments, which he interpreted to implicate animal protein as a primary cause of cancer, through the massive epidemiological study after which the book was named. Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,"5 is drawn from a broad - and highly selective - pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

Protein and Cancer
The first strike against the pro-protein mantra Campbell had inherited from his nutritional forbears came while he was studying the relationship between aflatoxin (AF), a mold-related contaminant often found in peanut butter, and cancer in the Philippines. Campbell was informed by a colleague that, although the areas with the highest consumption of peanut butter had the highest incidence of liver cancer, it was the children of the "best-fed families," who consumed the most protein, who were getting liver cancer. Whether the best-fed Philippino families ate the many staples of modern affluent diets like refined breads and sugars isn't mentioned.6

This observation was corroborated by a study published in "an obscure medical journal," that fed AF to two groups of rats, one consuming a 5 percent protein diet, one consuming a 20 percent protein diet, in which every rat in the latter group got liver cancer or its precursor lesions, and none in the former group got liver cancer or precursor lesions.7

Campbell went on to investigate the possible relationship between nutritional factors, including protein, and cancer, a study that proceeded for 19 years with NIH funding.8 His conclusion was revolutionary and provocative: while chemical carcinogens may initiate the cancer process, dietary promoters and anti-promoters control the promotion of cancer foci,9 and it is nutritional factors, not chemical carcinogens, that are the ultimate deciding factors in the development of cancer.10 Yet the 19 years of research into this project leave us with more questions than answers, and have left T. Colin Campbell with a foundation of unsupported conclusions upon which he has built his tower of vegan propaganda.

Campbell began his studies using AF as an initiator of cancer foci and the milk protein casein as the promoter protein of study. His results corroborated the earlier results of other researchers: a dose-response curve existed for AF and cancer on a 20 percent casein diet, but disappeared on a 5 percent protein diet.11 He found that adjusting the protein intake of the same rats could turn cancer promotion on and off as if with a switch,12 and found casein to have the same effect when other cancer initiators, such as the hepatitis B virus, were used.13

Rather than throwing a blanket accusation at all protein, Campbell acknowledged that the study of other proteins would be required before generalizing, just as the study of other cancer initiators would be required before generalizing to them. Wheat and soy protein were both studied in lieu of casein, and both were found not to have the cancer-promoting effect of casein.14 Amazingly, Campbell's reluctance to make unwarranted generalizations ends here. After briefly describing some research finding a protective effect of carotenoids against cancer, Campbell concludes the chapter on his animal research by noting the following overarching pattern: "nutrients from animal-based foods increased tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decreased tumor development."15

The generalization from the milk protein casein to all "nutrients from animal-based foods" is clearly unwarranted. If Campbell took caution to study the issue further before generalizing from casein to all proteins, why didn't he take the same caution before generalizing from casein to all animal proteins or all animal nutrients? Indeed, Campbell later acknowledges that he is making this generalization: ". . . casein, and very likely all animal proteins, may be the most relevant cancer-causing substances that we consume."16 Why this generalization is "very likely" to be true is left unexplained.

Campbell is aware that casein has been uniquely implicated in health problems, and dedicates an entire chapter to casein's capacity to generate autoimmune diseases.17 Whey protein appears to have a protective effect against colon cancer that casein does not have.18 Any effect of casein, then, cannot be generalized to other milk proteins, let alone all animal proteins. Other questions, such as what effect different types of processing have on casein's capacity to promote tumor growth, remain unanswered. Pasteurization, low-temperature dehydration, high-temperature spray-drying (which creates carcinogens), and fermentation all affect the structure of casein differently and thereby could affect its physiological behavior. What powdered, isolated casein does to rats tells us little about what traditionally consumed forms of milk will do to humans and tells us nothing that we can generalize to all "animal nutrients."
Furthermore, Campbell fails to address the problems of vitamin A depletion from excess isolated protein, unsupported by the nutrient-dense fats which accompany protein foods in nature.

Lessons from China
In the early 1980s, along with Chen Junshi, Li Junyao, and Richard Peto, T. Colin Campbell presided over the mammoth epidemiological study referred to as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times called it "the Grand Prix of epidemiology," and it gathered data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. Amazingly, from over 8,000 statistically significant associations, Campbell was able to draw a single unifying principle: "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease."19

The study utilized recall questionnaires, direct observation and measurement of intakes over a three-day period, and blood samples.20 The blood samples were combined into large pools for each village and each sex.21 This had the drawback of dramatically decreasing the number of data points relative to the enormous number of correlations being generated, and the advantage of allowing the blood to be tested for many, many more variables than would be testable using individual samples.

One of the benefits of the China Study's design was that the genetic stock of the study subjects had little variation, while there was wide variation among cancer and other disease rates. While the dietary surveys were conducted in the autumn of 1983,22 the mortality rates were taken a decade earlier in 1973 through 1975.23 Rural areas were thus deliberately selected to ensure that the people in the area had for the most part lived in the area all their lives and had been eating the same foods native and traditional to that area, so that the mortality data would reliably match the dietary data.

One of the drawbacks of the study was that nutrient intakes were determined from food composition tables, rather than measured directly from foods.24 This disallowed any consideration of differences in nutrient composition of foods within the area due to soil quality, which was a primary theme of Weston Price's research. Another drawback was that the questionnaire did not adequately account for the diversity of animal foods in the Chinese diet. Questions about the frequency of consumption of sea food, meat, eggs, and milk were included, but questions about organ meats and insects were not included on the questionnaire, nor was fish differentiated from shell fish, despite the very different nutrient profiles of these foods.25 Additionally, the autumn dietary survey could not take into account foods that were not in season at the time.
What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell's representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph. Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: "people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease."26 He also claims that, although it is "somewhat difficult" to "show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates," that nevertheless, "animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families."27

But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent. It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that of animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality. The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28

Campbell's case for the association between animal foods and cancer within the China Study is embedded within an endnote. Campbell states: "Every single animal protein-related blood biomarker is significantly associated with the amount of cancer in a family."29 Following the associated endnote, these biomarkers were "plasma copper, urea nitrogen, estradiol, prolactin, testosterone, and, inversely, sex hormone binding globulin, each of which has been known to be associated with animal protein intake from previous studies."30

Since Campbell does not cite these "previous studies," the reader is left in the dark regarding the reliability of his assumptions. Blood biomarkers are generally associated with food intake patterns, rather than specific foods. Since food intake patterns differ in different populations, an association found between a biomarker in one population cannot be necessarily generalized to another.31 For example, people who eat more whole grains might have higher levels of vitamin C, even though whole grains do not contain vitamin C. This might be true in one population where people who eat whole grains tend to eat more fruits and vegetables, but untrue in another population.
I suffer from the CRAFT syndrome, cannot remember a f**k**g thing

User avatar
MrPlum
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:57 pm

Opinions

Post by MrPlum » Wed May 28, 2008 7:47 am

lindosfan1

If you are going to dismiss a book, based on someone's negative opinion, who may have their own agenda, you will never read another book in your life. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

There are a number of similar attacks. If you read the section on how the industry operates, you will understand why. 'Heretics' are invariably put to the sword. These people will do whatever it takes to destroy any threat to their bottom line.

The overwhelming reviews are positive and some people claim to have recovered from serious illness. Which is the point of the post. If you are taking diabetes drugs for life and think there is no alternative, the author claims you can reverse diabetes (and possibly other illness) within two months. A dietary change for 2 months to see if it is of any benefit is no big deal. It could be the best decision you ever made or it could be a waste of two months and 595 THB.

If you can't go a day without a double whopper or bacon sarny, then this book is not for you.

:cheers:
"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

User avatar
lindosfan1
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 pm
Location: uk

diet

Post by lindosfan1 » Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 am

Mr Plum if you care to read all of the critciism "not mine" in the last post you will find that the critic says that the author does have some valid points. I call that a balanced criticism.
When looking at any report you should also look at the background on the author. He is a vegan which is a bit of an extreme diet therefore his report, albiet not intentionally will veer that way.
quote you stated opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, well your view of his book is your opinion. To criticise other opinions and accuse the medical and food professions of a cover up is fanatical, and that is dangerous.
Yes his book has some valid points, but some based on his restricted research are not, and the danger here is that people will follow every thing he says blindly without analyzing what he says.
Diet is important I have an allergy to some sorts of flour therefore I avoid them in my diet. Other people have different allergies, some people none.
Diet is an individual thing what suits one peron will not suit another.
Therefore a good balanced diet suited to the individual would be perfect.
As to your last comment I never eat burgers I detest fast food outlets.
I suffer from the CRAFT syndrome, cannot remember a f**k**g thing

User avatar
MrPlum
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: diet

Post by MrPlum » Wed May 28, 2008 11:24 am

lindosfan1 wrote:Mr Plum if you care to read all of the critciism "not mine" in the last post you will find that the critic says that the author does have some valid points. I call that a balanced criticism.
.
Being 'damned by faint praise' is not necessarily 'balanced'.

A good balanced diet as defined by who? I see no signs of cancer rates, diabetes or heart disease coming down.

If you reduce your dietary fat by 30% you may still feel you are eating a 'balanced' diet and gaining no benefit, which is why the author claims the much-touted Nurses Study from which much nutritional advice has sprung is fundamentally flawed.

'Suited to the individual' is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It can mean anything.

One approach is to try an elimination diet. Strip out everything that may be suspect, then introduce different food groups one at a time and see how you feel.

I have little faith in 'medical authority'. The monopoly medical cartel has caused the death and harm of several of my family members through drug side effects, unnecessary surgery, misdiagnosis and plain arrogance. When they show signs of being healers, instead of intermediaries for the drug companies; curing instead of treating, they will regain my confidence. Until such time I shall use the system for emergency treatment only which I regard highly.

There are plenty of examples in the public domain of how tainted studies and suspect methodologies have been used by the orthodoxy to support bad medicine. IMO the whole area of 'science' is under a cloud since big pharma dollars is skewing reporting. The practice of 'Ghostwriting' is one example.

When two scientists disagree on the same piece of data, it's no longer science, it's politics. The orthodoxy can say 'my data is valid since it's my train set. Yours isn't and by the way I'm withdrawing your funding.' That usually gets them the 'science' they want.

What the author states and the critics ignore, is that there seem to have been some remarkable turnarounds in cancer patients, heart disease and diabetes outcomes when switching diets. Many reviewers who don't give a toss about professional nitpicking have said as much. You either believe them or you don't. If you don't that's your problem not mine.

The proof of the pudding is...ahem...in the eating. :)

Nothing personal but I am not going to respond to any more posts on this topic.
"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

User avatar
lindosfan1
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 pm
Location: uk

medicine

Post by lindosfan1 » Wed May 28, 2008 12:17 pm

From your last post is seems you have a problem with the medical profession.
Also if anybody disagrees with you you seem to get very uptight.
The book has some good points but my advice if you try any of the "cures particularly for diabetes tie it in with advice from your Doctor.
They are the experts and generally try to serve the patient in the best way.
Yes change your diet it may help but be careful if advised to ignore prescribed medicines.
Over the last 100 years life expectancy has risen in the more modern countries. This ha been achieved by better medicines diet and hygiene.
Not by diet alone qed.
I suffer from the CRAFT syndrome, cannot remember a f**k**g thing

User avatar
MrPlum
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: medicine

Post by MrPlum » Wed May 28, 2008 2:45 pm

Sigh...
lindosfan1 wrote:From your last post is seems you have a problem with the medical profession.
Sorry about that. It's usually every post.

Also if anybody disagrees with you you seem to get very uptight.
Only with posters who refuse to let it go.

The book has some good points
How do you know? You haven't read it.

but my advice if you try any of the "cures particularly for diabetes tie it in with advice from your Doctor.
Since the doctor doesn't know of any cures, I'd call that bad advice.

They are the experts and generally try to serve the patient in the best way.
Being a pimp for big pharma is serving the industry, not patients. Since they do not study nutrition, they can hardly be called experts

Yes change your diet it may help
My. My. A concession.

Over the last 100 years life expectancy has risen in the more modern countries. This ha been achieved by better medicines diet and hygiene.
Not by diet alone qed.

Do you have a cure? Unless you do, your contribution is meaningless and potentially harmful in that it may dissuade someone who is sick from trying something that may help them. Is that your purpose?

Since you pasted a review, I will answer. There are several negative reviews in the same vein. In fact there has been a host of them, many of which the moderator has deleted. The industry foot-soldiers are easy to spot, they just can't resist the animal rights 'terrorist' smear. As soon as he did that he lost any credibility. What comes across loud and clear when you read that book, is that Colin Campbell is no 'terrorist'.

You seem to have issues of your own. Are you going to ride interference on my every post or are you going to allow people to use their own judgement?
"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

User avatar
lindosfan1
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 pm
Location: uk

opinionsl

Post by lindosfan1 » Wed May 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Obviously you do not allow other people to have opinions.
Deleting post that disagree with Campbell is selective editing, yes some may be trolls but you cannot be sure in every case, and if you are selling a book you would not want to many criticisms.
Campbell his self may not be a terrorist but organisations he belongs to have close links, reading the reviews
Yes you are entitled to your opinion so is every body else.
The only thing I object to is extremism and Campbell fits that bracket.
I read the good reviews as well as the critical ones and formed my own opimion which is a logical step.
Last edited by lindosfan1 on Wed May 28, 2008 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I suffer from the CRAFT syndrome, cannot remember a f**k**g thing

User avatar
MrPlum
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: opinionsl

Post by MrPlum » Wed May 28, 2008 8:09 pm

lindosfan1 wrote:Obviously you do not allow other people to have opinions.
Since I am not a moderator I can't 'allow' anything.

Deleting post that disagree with Campbell is selective editing, yes some may be trolls but you cannot be sure in every case, and if you are selling a book you would not want to many criticisms.
I've been buying books from Amazon for years. 'Lemons' don't get 346 5-star reviews.

Campbell his self may not be a terrorist but organisations he belongs to have close links, reading the reviews
If you had really read the reviews you would have seen the rebuttal to the one you posted

Yes you are entitled to your opinion so is every body else.
Indeed. I found the comments of the Director of the Framingham Heart Study particularly surprising. What is your opinion? I was also amazed at the resistance Dr. Esselstyn came up against. What's your opinion? Then there was Ornish's findings vis-a-vis intensive lifestyle changes in treating ischemic heart disease. What say you? Did the breast cancer stats for Thailand influence your thinking about Thai diets in any way?

The only thing I object to is extremism and Campbell fits that bracket.
So you have condemned a man, based on hearsay from industry hatchet-men. Nice. Please tell me what Campbell has said or done that marks him out as an 'extremist'.

I read the good reviews as well as the critical ones and formed my own opimion which is a logical step.
Thank goodness for that. Can we stop now?
"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

User avatar
Norseman
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5649
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: Hua Hin

Post by Norseman » Wed May 28, 2008 9:14 pm

Yes - it's time to stop now guys.
Back to topic please.
I intend to live forever - so far so good.

User avatar
margaretcarnes
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 4170
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:28 am
Location: The Rhubarb Triangle

Diabetic

Post by margaretcarnes » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:00 am

Thankyou Norseman, I was just struggling with the original topic as well. Back to VS earlier comment on watching out for being sold unsuitable medicines in LOS. Reminded me of one horrendous night in HH when suffering from extreme constipation - and I mean extreeeme, forced me to SP for help. (No other pharmacies open then during the night.)
Saw the duty doc and was prescribed Immodium. Was doubled over by then so stomping my feet wasn't an option, but got the Immodium changed for a DIY enema kit. Nuff said.
The diet/health/political agenda debate though could go on and on, but Lindosfan makes a good point about all the supermarket promoted s...e with additives. Many retailers now in the UK are self-regulating on the elimination of certain additives, but you still get the tempting choccy bars at the checkout. Personally I don't have a problem with 'a little of what you fancy' along with an otherwise balanced diet - which does, for me, include meat. Always thought thats why we had those big back teeth? And the pointy front ones to rip flesh off bone?
Seriously though, it IS difficult for a lot of folks in the West to avoid the temptations of fast food and junk. Be thankful that in LOS it is relatively easy to snack on very healthy fruit etc. I think your body tells you how to adjust there, but there is a lot of sugar and salt added to Thai cooking, and they re-use cooking oil to an alarming extent :cheers:
A sprout is for life - not just for Christmas.

robcar
Specialist
Specialist
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:28 am

Re: Diabetic

Post by robcar » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:08 pm

Just resurrecting this old thread to try to get some up to date info.
I was told by my UK GP a couple of years ago that I was close to Type 2 diabetes so he prescribed Metformin. I have since taken it daily but never really done anything about my diet.
I unfortunately have a sweet tooth which doesn''t help matters at all. I am interested to know what I should be eating (also what I should not be eating :wink: ) as I now live in Thailand full time having been here 2½ years and eating almost everything that is not moving, the exception being anything with a lot of chillies present........I am not a fan of hot chillies type food.
It would also be helpful if anyone could point out a Diabetic clinic in Hua Hin as maybe they would have some diet menu's available specific to Thai foods.
I ask the above because of conflicting information with regard to diet on American and UK websites, i.e. One says rice is bad to eat, another says rice is good. Confused.com :(
I thank you for your time

centermid7
Professional
Professional
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: Diabetic

Post by centermid7 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:03 pm

Whole grain rice, aka brown rice, is the way to go by far but I don't think I have ever seen it presented here in LOS. It's rare if it is. The steamed white rice, about all you will find, really does not have much nutritional value.

Here is an American website that is usually the first place I go for health information and I just saw this a couple of days ago -- http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/2010 ... -is-better

Cheers!

hhinner
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: Diabetic

Post by hhinner » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:28 pm

^^ Brown rice is readily available in supermarkets and available at some eateries. Also available is the relatively new riceberry variety, though I couldn't say whether it's as healthy as brown rice. Also I believe Thai white rice has a relatively high glycemic index whereas basmati rice has a relatively low index.

User avatar
Spitfire
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 4861
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Diabetic

Post by Spitfire » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:37 pm

Basically, white rice/bread and high starchy stuff (corn starch for example) intake is to be minimized by diabetics because they contain carbs which are quickly transformed into glucose which gives the blood sugar spike and that, in turn, then requires a matching insulin response which diabetics find hard to do as their pancreas isn't producing enough insulin or what it is producing is being ignored by the body.

Brown rice/brown wholewheat bread etc. has starch/complex carbs that are converted in glucose at a much slower rate, so requires less insulin to deal with at once and there is less damage to many organs, like the kidneys, from high blood sugar. High blood sugar messes with lots of stuff from heart to eyes to kidneys, mainly indestroying small blood vessels etc. like what are found in the kidneys and eyes. Most people that have diabetic complications have them from one of these 3 areas.

Give up adding any salt or sugar to anything you eat or drink as there is more than enough in everything you consume, nix fruit juices and just eat the whole fruit instead.

Look into some herbal teas that can help lower blood pressure etc and supplements like astaxanthin (kidneys), Zeaxanthin and bilberry (eyes), grape seed extract (heart) that can give protection to organs from high blood pressure which many diabetics suffer from......look into a magnesium supplement as it's widely believed in the diabetic community to have a positive effect on increasing insulin sensitivity, so does grape seed extract and pine bark extract.

In a nutshell, what you need to be doing is to consume things that are slowly converted into glucose so your pancreas can keep up by eliminating from your diet things that are converted quickly (it's easy to find out about foods to avoid on google). Or/And, add to your diet/intake things that increase your insulin sensitivity so your body doesn't need as much insulin to deal with the glucuse that is produced and take a supplement or two that help protect the vulnerable organs that are damaged by high blood sugar.

Really, if you are taking metformin then you should investigate if you can get off that horrible drug and manage the condition through diet, suppliments and excersize, which many people do.

I'm obviously not a doctor and am not definitively telling you what to do, just what I have done in a preventive fashion and think is prudent for anyone. But having looked into this subject extensively and if you are only pre diabetic now then it's definitely worth looking into it to see if you can control the condition without metformin, which over time has bad side effects.

Remember, many doctors will just see a high blood pressure and high blood sugar reading and put you on something like metformin straight away when it might not actually be need yet. One of the problems with medication like metformin is that once you start to take it then it limits lots of options like things to eat/supplements and other things you can do yourself as the Doc will recommend against it. Try to see if you can get off metformin first.

For example:

http://www.diabetes4adults.com/treatmen ... d-extract/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15096660

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... betes.aspx

Maybe consider Pycnogenol http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/3/839.1 and have a chat with your Doc about it.

Type 2 diabetes is manageable - if not reversible - but there is plenty you can do to help keep it away or at least to a minimum level of only being suseptible to the condition....especially if you are only pre diabetic atm.

Just to note that hypoglycemia is the condition regarding low blood sugar...similar but little different.

You should start researching the subject and have some input into your condition and it's treatment so that when you see a doctor there is more input from you and a better decision can be reached.

Hope that helps a little but it is a very big subject that cannot really be squared away in a single post. Good luck.
The state has a monopoly on violence - Max Weber

handdrummer
Professional
Professional
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:58 am

Re: Diabetic

Post by handdrummer » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:54 pm

excellent post by Spitfire. I spent many years in the alternative health industry and his information is correct. you might also order the book: Reversing Diabetes by Dr. Julian Whitaker, MD. He's definitely not a pc doctor. If you decide to order any herbs or supplements check out iherb.com. they're a discount online store and ship to Thailand. At several times during the year there is no charge for shipping. I've never had to pay duty on anything I've ordered from them. it can take from 10 days to 3 weeks to receive a package in Hua HIn, so you have to be patient. The post office will charge you 7 baht per package to deliver it, even if you pick it up at the PO.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests