I know I should spout propaganda, but the truth is NOBODY on Barnards diet has EVER reversed diabetes.
"reversal" would imply getting to normal levels. Barnard's studies show after 74 weeks (a year and a half) the best he can do is get to around a 7.71% average HbA1c. Not reversed, not even controlled according to the ADA.
Healthy levels are in the 4.6% to 5.4% range. And that's the scientific fact.
@FathomIessJoy BTW "One female patient had an increased physical activity level during the study period in spite of our instructions. However, her increase in physical activity was no more than one hour of walking per day, four days a week. She had implemented an 11%-carbohydrate diet without any antidiabetic drug, and her HbA1c level decreased from 14.4% at baseline to 6.1% after 3 months and had been maintained at 5.5% after 6 months. "
@recherche56 "...Well my A1c went from 9.6 to 7.5 on Dr. Barnard's diet..."
So you admit that your diabetes is still uncontrolled on Barnard's diet, haha! The criteria for reversing diabetes would be NORMAL A1c which is 4.6% to 5.4%
Low-carb diets are superior for diabetes control in every respect.
nutritionandmetabolism(dot)com/content/6/1/21
Oh wait, I'm a vegan nutjob... I keep posting the truth instead of my misinformation!
@90Rush - Refined sugar & items made from white flour are no nos. So forget all those sugar soft drinks like coke, sprite, Dr Pepper, Red Bull, Root Beer, etc... Even Tea. which is normally a good choice, is often sweetened to death. Your brownies are PROBABLY made with white flour & lots of refined surgar, so again no. The PROBLEM is a high glycemic index - i.e. huge rapid sugar influx - not good in general and VERY bad for poor surgar control crowd.
To the argument below: tbh, people think a typical LCHF diet and a typical vegan diet are polar opposites, but I believe they are more similar than you might think.
Both make you eat more good stuff: fresh fruits and vegetables; you have to eat more vegetables after ditching all those pasta and bread. It's common sense.
Both encourage reading food labels, and both remove all those bad stuff: soft drinks, sweets, bad oils, etc etc etc.
.. or is it your assertion that in every study I've mentioned, as well as in all countries that defy your hypothesis (France, most of Europe, in fact) that all people eating saturated fat exercise more than all people that don't eat it?
That's not just statistically improbable, it's almost insane to think, actually. It seems a pretty desperate stretch of somebody unwilling to accept the evidence contrary to their beliefs.
No, it's easy to ASSUME that exercise was the confounder not accounted for in the data.
To suggest that all the people eating more saturated fat exercised more than all the people eating less saturated fat is absurd. The scenario is not only statistically unlikely, but statistically improbable.
Especially as it's not what studies that confirm that saturated fat is healthy show.
The scientific evidence is clear, the lipid hypothesis is a busted myth.
I know I should spout propaganda, but the truth is NOBODY on Barnards diet has EVER reversed diabetes.
"reversal" would imply getting to normal levels. Barnard's studies show after 74 weeks (a year and a half) the best he can do is get to around a 7.71% average HbA1c. Not reversed, not even controlled according to the ADA.
Healthy levels are in the 4.6% to 5.4% range. And that's the scientific fact.
FathomIessJoy 1 week ago
@FathomIessJoy BTW "One female patient had an increased physical activity level during the study period in spite of our instructions. However, her increase in physical activity was no more than one hour of walking per day, four days a week. She had implemented an 11%-carbohydrate diet without any antidiabetic drug, and her HbA1c level decreased from 14.4% at baseline to 6.1% after 3 months and had been maintained at 5.5% after 6 months. "
From 14.4% to 5.5% ... eat THAT.
FathomIessJoy 1 week ago
@recherche56 "...Well my A1c went from 9.6 to 7.5 on Dr. Barnard's diet..."
So you admit that your diabetes is still uncontrolled on Barnard's diet, haha! The criteria for reversing diabetes would be NORMAL A1c which is 4.6% to 5.4%
Low-carb diets are superior for diabetes control in every respect.
nutritionandmetabolism(dot)com/content/6/1/21
Oh wait, I'm a vegan nutjob... I keep posting the truth instead of my misinformation!
FathomIessJoy 1 week ago
@recherche56 That's right! Still think an typical LCHF diet (say, paleo diet) is so different from Dr.Barnard's diet?
90Rush 2 weeks ago
@90Rush - Refined sugar & items made from white flour are no nos. So forget all those sugar soft drinks like coke, sprite, Dr Pepper, Red Bull, Root Beer, etc... Even Tea. which is normally a good choice, is often sweetened to death. Your brownies are PROBABLY made with white flour & lots of refined surgar, so again no. The PROBLEM is a high glycemic index - i.e. huge rapid sugar influx - not good in general and VERY bad for poor surgar control crowd.
recherche56 2 weeks ago
To the argument below: tbh, people think a typical LCHF diet and a typical vegan diet are polar opposites, but I believe they are more similar than you might think.
Both make you eat more good stuff: fresh fruits and vegetables; you have to eat more vegetables after ditching all those pasta and bread. It's common sense.
Both encourage reading food labels, and both remove all those bad stuff: soft drinks, sweets, bad oils, etc etc etc.
90Rush 3 weeks ago
@recherche56 A quick question, does Dr. Barnard's diet allow you to drink coke and eat low fat brownies?
And just what do you think is the problem?
90Rush 3 weeks ago
Well my A1c went from 9.6 to 7.5 on Dr. Barnard's diet.
So you can spank off to whatever 'busted myth' bs you want.
On the other hand, if you want to get your blood surgar under control just try the diet for a few months.
recherche56 3 weeks ago
.. or is it your assertion that in every study I've mentioned, as well as in all countries that defy your hypothesis (France, most of Europe, in fact) that all people eating saturated fat exercise more than all people that don't eat it?
That's not just statistically improbable, it's almost insane to think, actually. It seems a pretty desperate stretch of somebody unwilling to accept the evidence contrary to their beliefs.
LCHFinCanada 1 month ago
No, it's easy to ASSUME that exercise was the confounder not accounted for in the data.
To suggest that all the people eating more saturated fat exercised more than all the people eating less saturated fat is absurd. The scenario is not only statistically unlikely, but statistically improbable.
Especially as it's not what studies that confirm that saturated fat is healthy show.
The scientific evidence is clear, the lipid hypothesis is a busted myth.
LCHFinCanada 1 month ago