Conflicting requirements of different diets. Kidney stone prevention. Diabetes prevention. Heart disease prevention. Reinforcing nutrition advice over time.

1.
How do you sort out what appear to be conflicting requirements of
several different diets?... for
a) kidney stone prevention,
b) diabetes prevention,
c) heart disease prevention,
d) et al.

I get stymied in the supermarket aisles attempting to get it all sorted
out.

2.
How do you reinforce what happens when you visit the RD
registered dietician, get back home and try
recalling everything from the medical center nutrition department
accurately?...

Currently I've borrowed from our public library the book
No-Fad Diet, a personal plan... American Heart Association 2005

wrote:
:: 1.
:: How do you sort out what appear to be conflicting requirements of
:: several different diets?... for
:: a) kidney stone prevention,
:: b) diabetes prevention,
:: c) heart disease prevention,
:: d) et al.

Low carb.

::
:: I get stymied in the supermarket aisles attempting to get it all
:: sorted out.

Low carb. Learn what a carb is and you're there. Meats, fish, cheese,
eggs, and green leafy veggies and a variety of others. Nuts, seeds, some
berries, and you're done. That leaves out most stuff in your supermarket.

::
:: 2.
:: How do you reinforce what happens when you visit the RD
:: registered dietician, get back home and try
:: recalling everything from the medical center nutrition department
:: accurately?...

Ignore the RD.

::
:: Currently I've borrowed from our public library the book
:: No-Fad Diet, a personal plan... American Heart Association 2005

Trash that.

wrote:
1.
How do you sort out what appear to be conflicting requirements of
several different diets?... for
a) kidney stone prevention,

Drink more water. Just try to find a diet that tells
you to drink less water. All plans will be fine for
this so no conflicts.

b) diabetes prevention,

Type 2 diabetes is caused by chronic overeating of carbs,
so low carb is the best for this.

c) heart disease prevention,

Atkins was a cardiologist. He noticed that low fat made his
patients worse after 6+ months so he designed low carb. I
suggest that a plan designed to help people who have already
had heart attacks will work for prevention.

d) et al.

Oh like gallstones for example? High fat prevents, low fat
causes so again we are in the low carb arena.

I get stymied in the supermarket aisles attempting to get it all sorted
out.

Arguably the worst possible place to figure stuff out.
Hype on labels isn't exactly basic biochemistry.

2.
How do you reinforce what happens when you visit the RD
registered dietician, get back home and try
recalling everything from the medical center nutrition department
accurately?...

By ignoring them.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

|| Type 2 diabetes is caused by chronic overeating of carbs,
|| so low carb is the best for this.

I believe your first statement is incorrect . Diabetes is hereditary; the
exact cause is unknown. Many people can eat carbs till the cows come home
and never develop blood sugar problems. Most people who eat a diet high in
carbs and low in fat and thus maintain a normal body weight don't normally
develop symptom of t2 diabetes. But weight gain -- be it from excess carbs
or excess fat or both -- is the quickest way for those who are susceptile to
T2 diabetes to develop syndrome X and/or full blown diabetes.

Your second statement is true, though. Those of us who limit carbs are
better able to control our t2 diabetes than those who limit fat. This is
because the low-carb eating helps prevent the insulin spikes causing glucose
highs and lows, while those who eat low-fat have to eat several small meals
a day to accomplish something similar. I agree that low-carb is the best
eating plan for t2 diabetes; it's the combination of the lowered calorie
weight loss and evened out blood sugars from low carb that does it.
--
Peter
T2 diabetic, controlled with low-carb way of eating and no meds.

Marengo wrote:
: Doug Freyburger wrote:
:
: || Type 2 diabetes is caused by chronic overeating of carbs,
: || so low carb is the best for this.
:
: I believe your first statement is incorrect . Diabetes is
: hereditary; the exact cause is unknown. Many people can eat carbs
: till the cows come home and never develop blood sugar problems. Most
: people who eat a diet high in carbs and low in fat and thus maintain
: a normal body weight don't normally develop symptom of t2 diabetes.
: But weight gain -- be it from excess carbs or excess fat or both --
: is the quickest way for those who are susceptile to T2 diabetes to
: develop syndrome X and/or full blown diabetes.

I wonder. Since the exact cause is unknown, how do we really know that
certain people, who perhaps have a genetic defect, become T2 from eating too
damn many carbs and transfats?

I know that's the road I took to becoming a T2. I don't know anyone who got
there otherwise (not saying that there aren't any, I just don't know of
them).

:
: Your second statement is true, though. Those of us who limit carbs
: are better able to control our t2 diabetes than those who limit fat.
: This is because the low-carb eating helps prevent the insulin spikes
: causing glucose highs and lows, while those who eat low-fat have to
: eat several small meals a day to accomplish something similar. I
: agree that low-carb is the best eating plan for t2 diabetes; it's
: the combination of the lowered calorie weight loss and evened out
: blood sugars from low carb that does it. --
: Peter
: T2 diabetic, controlled with low-carb way of eating and no meds.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Marengo wrote:
: Doug Freyburger wrote:

: || Type 2 diabetes is caused by chronic overeating of carbs,
: || so low carb is the best for this.

: I believe your first statement is incorrect . Diabetes is
: hereditary; the exact cause is unknown. Many people can eat carbs
: till the cows come home and never develop blood sugar problems ...

I wonder. Since the exact cause is unknown, how do we really know that
certain people, who perhaps have a genetic defect, become T2 from eating too
damn many carbs and transfats?

I know that's the road I took to becoming a T2. I don't know anyone who got
there otherwise (not saying that there aren't any, I just don't know of
them).

The folks who got there otherwise are generally labelled
type 1.

I admit that the linkage has not been formally established
but that doesn't make it clear cut. The food pyramid came
out in 1992. Stress on eating grain came out when grain
was given its own fod group decades before that. Since the
rise in sugar and refined grain consumption started a
century ago, diabetes has become gradually more common.
Since the introduction of the food pyradmid under two
decades ago diabetes has become an epidemic.

On transfats diabetes started its rise before they came into
common use. This isn't evidence that they are innocent as
diabetes accelerated once they appeared, but it does mean
that diabetes can be caused in their absense.

So what I take as sufficient evidence to implicate high
carb intake as the most common cause of diabetes isn't
something everyone on ASDLC agrees with. Shrug. Disagreement
is diversity and there is strength in diversity. Disagreement
is good that way. We agree that low carbing does tend to
prevent diabetes and it is extremely well established that
low carb is a good treatment of existing diabetes.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
....
I admit that the linkage has not been formally established
but that doesn't make it clear cut. The food pyramid came
out in 1992. Stress on eating grain came out when grain
Doug, are you sure about that date? I thought it was around the early
'70's...?


DustyB

Dusty Bleher wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

I admit that the linkage has not been formally established
but that doesn't make it clear cut. The food pyramid came
out in 1992. Stress on eating grain came out when grain

Doug, are you sure about that date? I thought it was around the early
'70's...?

Definitely. The USDA food pyramid is from 1992. Many confuse
it with the four food groups. I think those came out in the
early 1970s. When I was in high school in the mid 1970s the
food groups were taught and the pyramid did not exist yet.
Also I recall earlier version of the pyramid listed the
grain rung as "whole grains" but somewhere along the way the
"whole" part was dropped. When the pyramid was new I remember
asking myself just were all of those whole grains were when I
couldn't even consistantly find brown rice in every grocery
store.

The idea that grains are essential to life dates back to at
least classic Greek days, so it is not new even on a scale
of decades or centuries. It's wrong, of course. Humans can
live in perfect health their entire lives without ever
eating a bite of grass. It is right in a different
viewpoint, though - Grain cultivation was one of the starting
points of civilization and without grain cultivation most of
the more recent advances like the ancient Greek alphabet and
smelting bronze and building Roman roads may never have
happened. Grain is essential to the life of the poor on a
social scale, not essential to life of the individual on a
biological scale. Should society advance to the point where
no one is poor (a goal always closer never acheived) no one
would need to eat grain again. A diet of veggies, meat,
dairy and fruits is a rich person's diet. A diet of grain
is a poor person's diet.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dusty Bleher wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

I admit that the linkage has not been formally established
but that doesn't make it clear cut. The food pyramid came
out in 1992. Stress on eating grain came out when grain

Doug, are you sure about that date? I thought it was around the early
'70's...?

Definitely. The USDA food pyramid is from 1992. Many confuse
it with the four food groups. I think those came out in the
Yeah. That was probably it...

....
The idea that grains are essential to life dates back to at
least classic Greek days, so it is not new even on a scale
of decades or centuries. It's wrong, of course. Humans can
Yep. Certainly true enough.

....
happened. Grain is essential to the life of the poor on a
social scale, not essential to life of the individual on a
biological scale. Should society advance to the point where
An interesting point.


Well said.

Thanks,
DustyB