Apparently Dr. Eades has more coming about this issue according to the latest comments:

Poster:

I think you have to be careful how this post will be interpreted. If you are saying calories count and that they need to be restricted for further weight loss, then this leads to diets and their terrible track record. Continuously restricting calories leads to a slowing of the metabolism, a slowing of weight loss, etc.

Reading through the other comments, you can see that restricting calories once or twice a week, as through intermittent fasting, works well for many people. This is much different from restricting calories on a daily basis which can lead to long-term trouble.

I agree with you, and I plan a few more posts to clarify the issue. I didn’t want to put it all in one giant post.

The IF idea is a good one that a number of people have echoed.

Cheers–

MRE

LindaSue Wrote:I disagree that the advantage is only a couple of hundred calories. Years ago I couldn't lose weight at all eating less than 1,000 calories per day but I did lose a lot of weight eating 2,000 calories on a low carb diet. I'd say that 1,000 extra calories is a pretty huge advantage.

Metabolic advantage has a particular definition. There are many different advantages to a low carb diet that help you lose weight even if you are eating more calories. Metabolic advantage refers specifically to the fact that your body uses up more calories digesting fat and protein than carbs. Another way of looking at is that the calorie amounts in calorie tables are over-estimated for fats and proteins in comparison with carbs. This is what Dr. Eades is referring to.

MAC Wrote:Maybe not:

New Study on Insulin Levels in Early Type II diabetics

"But one thing is for sure, this is a major blow to the idea that type 2 is caused by insulin resistance caused by obesity and that people with Type 2 secrete higher than normal levels of insulin which their body can't use. That belief came from studies based on HOMA calculations, but this study that measured the actual insulin secreted found that simply wasn't true."

Where did you find this study? Your link takes me back to reply to your quote. I'd like to read the study!

rozi Wrote:

MAC Wrote:Maybe not:

New Study on Insulin Levels in Early Type II diabetics

"But one thing is for sure, this is a major blow to the idea that type 2 is caused by insulin resistance caused by obesity and that people with Type 2 secrete higher than normal levels of insulin which their body can't use. That belief came from studies based on HOMA calculations, but this study that measured the actual insulin secreted found that simply wasn't true."

Where did you find this study? Your link takes me back to reply to your quote. I'd like to read the study!

Fixed.

Thank You!

Charles Wrote:

Angelasherell2 Wrote:So What if it's All been a BIG FAT LIE. Then what do these medically trained and board certified gods do to save face?

Say they were wrong all these years? heck NO!! They keep looking for ways to justify their nonsense!!!!!

ps.. I am truly loving this discussion!!!

Hey Angela! Where you been? It's great to see your name up there again.

I am glad to be back. After the "Hack Attack"I checked back periodically hoping for the site to come back up. Thanks to everyone who made it happen. I can blame my stall on the hacker as I started eating more carbs. So now I am back on track!!

And Charles I truly enjoy not only your enormous knowlege base but your "style", in terms of how you respond to the various questions and comments on this board. You often bring a smile to my face

Dr. Eades continues with his recent post: Caloric Torpedos

If this is what he is snacking on no wonder his recommendation is to cut them out. Both of these have at least 30 g of carbs.

Charles Wrote:Eat to appetite (whether small or large), hopefully at regular intervals, so you can condition your body to secrete less insulin in anticipation of whatever number of meals you will eat. The better conditioned you are, the more you can control and reduce your insulin responses to food.

Wow, lightbulbs are going off in my head. Dr. Kathleeen DeMaisonns program for sugar addiction contains a moderate amount of 'good carbs' and a good amount of protein and a good amount of fat. People lose weight on her program and free themselves completely of sugar and all processed carbs. I always wondered how. I know a huge part was that she is totally against sugar and any refined carbs and she gets people to moniter their individual response to foods very closely. So for example some people on a lC plan can eat fruit. If I eat fruit I get hungry and craving. It's not good! So she makes people eliminate the foods that don't suit them. It's highly individualised.

However one of her biggest things is that she gets people to eat at very regular intervals. Her plan dictates that one should eat at the same times every day, always. Now I know why it works for some people. Not for me though!!!!!!!!

MAC Wrote:"But one thing is for sure, this is a major blow to the idea that type 2 is caused by insulin resistance caused by obesity and that people with Type 2 secrete higher than normal levels of insulin which their body can't use. That belief came from studies based on HOMA calculations, but this study that measured the actual insulin secreted found that simply wasn't true."

Rosalyn Yalow received the 1977 Nobel for her discovery of a method that reliably measured the concentration of insulin and othr peptide hormones in human blood. The finding was that those who developed diabetes had significantly higher levels of circulating insulin than those of healthy individuals. This was surprising because prior to this was the belief that they didn't have enough insulin.

People assumed based on this that the higher insulin was caused by overeating and obesity because these symptoms were associated with the condition of elevated insulin levels. However, the later research shows that high blood sugar is also merely associated with chronically elevated insulin levels.

Insulin resistance is not "caused by obesity or overeating" but by chronically elevated insulin levels. Raised insulin can manifest itself with symptoms of obesity and insulin resistance, but not always since thin people also get diabetes.

As I've maintained many times, the existing technology only allows us to get a whole body or what they're calling a homeostasis or HOMA reading that only measures whole body insulin. It does not tell us the level of insulin sensitivity in the muscles nor does it tell us what is going on in the adipose tissue. To extrapolate treatment ideas based on such little knowledge is what got us into trouble in the first place.

The insulin resistance shows up much faster than the high insulin reading yet it cannot be measured. In fact, hyperinsulinemia keeps even low-carbers from losing weight as we've been discussing all week.

Jenny Wrote:4. It makes me wonder how much of the IR that doctors believe to be the sole cause of Type 2 diabetes is actually being caused by abnormally high blood sugars. it is possible that IR increases dramatically when blood sugars go over a much lower threshold than previously believed. Possibly as low as 130 mg/dl. If so, much of the IR found in Type 2 diabetes may be caused by high blood sugars caused by insulin deficiency. If that isn't a mind blower, what is?

It may be a "major blow" but not for that reason. The reason it should be a major blow is that the HOMA does not tell us what's going on in the muscles or tissue. In other words, you can't just rely on blood sugar levels alone because the IGTT does not tell us. The Men's Health article on Thin Man's Diabetes told us a similar revelation:

Jeff McConnel of Men's Health Wrote:In a study published in the journal Angiology, all three tests were given to 144 patients -- none of whom had been previously diagnosed with type-2 diabetes or impaired blood sugar. Yet 94 patients yielded OGTT results that revealed one of those conditions. The fasting-glucose test had missed 62 percent of those cases, and the A1C had missed 83 percent. "The last thing to go up is your fasting glucose," says Dr. Vernon. "The horse is already out of the barn at that point." That means the first signpost doctors are looking for is the last of the indicators to present itself.

The poster child for the ADA, DeFronzo, also said in his famous Banting Lecuture that hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance were related to "a whole host of metabolic disorders" but it required that clinical investigators measure insulin resistance in human patients which would always be an obstacle because it requires multiple tests of blood sugar while insulin levels are held constant and precise amounts of glucose are consumed or infused into the bloodstream.

This is not the kind of test that physicians can do in a checkup and this is why insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia were not included among the diagnostic criteria despite being the fundamental defects in metabolic syndrome. The testing was wrong from the start.

This is why I always advise that people should eat a lower amount of carbohydrate than that which only causes them to gain weight, show glucose intolerance or any other symptom because there is so much more going on under the surface. As Dr. Vernon noted, "the cow is already out of the barn" by the time these markers show up.

One thing is for sure, insulin deficiency does not cause high blood sugar so that particular speculation should be ignored. High blood sugar does not cause insulin resistance. Chronically raised insulin levels cause insulin resistance and as Jenny speculated, fasting blood sugar levels could probably be as low as 130. Or as Jeff McConnell discoverd, his fasting level could actually show as normal.

The problem is, the fasting test does not give us what the level is most of the time.

Vesna Wrote:That's an interesting comment! Now that you've got me thinking about it, I s'pose I'm in the habit of using the Socratic method, which was drilled into me during my years as a philosophy major. I always hated the Socratic method, because the questions almost implied what the answers should be. More accurately, what annoyed me was the use Socrates (as reported by his star pupil Plato) put it to: he said it was proof of reincarnation, because he was able get people to answer questions regarding disciplines in which they'd had no training in this lifetime. Well, yes, when he led them step by step to the answer, by using questions that had the answers practically built in. If you ask me, that's just sophistry, and that was a practice Socrates himself railed against. And anyway, for Socrates the big crime of the sophists was that they taught rhetoric and reasoning to anyone who could pay -- meaning the non-elite who managed to scrape together a few coins so that they could defend themselves in court against the already-well-educated elite.

How off-topic is that?

Well, there is a another viewpoint that suggests that our ability to grasp anything is based on how much of the raw data we already have. For instance, for me to "explain" something or "teach" you something, you would have had to have the knowledge already buried in your mind. I just neatly arranged it in such as way that you could grasp and apply it. If you had no knowledge of any of the concepts, then you would not be able to understand it.

Understood that way, we can understand why the best teachers always learn from their students. The students instruct the teacher on how to best order the information so that it is accepted and the students can build on the instructor's understanding through their questioning which further sharpens the instructor's grasp of the subject matter.

Perhaps Socrates had the ability to highlight the important points through his questions so that the listener could come to the conclusion seemingly "on his own" when really he was guided by the excellent questions? Perhaps it's not knowing the answers, but perhaps it's knowing the questions that truly seperates the "elite" from the ordinary.

Interesting!

Lauren Wrote:a) the carbs in the cheese, eggs tea(?)
b) I'm hyperinsulinemic and go hungry too often because of the hard to shake diet mentality
c) my metabolism is so broken that it needs more time to repair
d) I'm eating too many calories (ONLY KIDDING!)

I keep trying to focus on overall health but I guess I am more weight obsessed than I'd like to admit. It's just a little discouraging to have even gained. I'm guessing your advice would be to really do the meat and water only.

You guessed it.

Lauren, if I eat eggs and cheese, I gain weight. Some have suggested that perhaps with farm eggs or fresh unprocessed cheese, things may be different. I don't know, I just dropped them and lost weight, that's all.

You don't weigh that much so it's hard to feel sympathy for you. (I'm not being mean) You may be at the weight you're supposed to be at. When you get the energy to exercise, you can lift weights and sculpt that body. It probably won't gain or lose any weight but the composition could look different with a little resistance.

What do you think?

LindaSue Wrote:There could still be a problem for that person if he is hungry again by the time his last meal has finished digesting, especially if he ate a very small meal. Eating a lot of small meals could result in insulin almost constantly being secreted either from the meals, anticipating the next small meal and then the hunger before the next small meal. There's sometimes only an hour or two between these small meals so when is there any chance at all for the fatty acids to roam free??? This is why I don't like that I usually have to eat several small meals per day rather than three large ones. Besides being a pain in the neck to have to find something to eat all the time, I think that it tends to keep insulin circulating too much, if not most, of the time.

I can't argue with this, LindaSue. I would hope that after some time, the person would get an adjustment in appetite that causes it to normalize. Even though I eat three times a day on average, I'm not always as hungry so the amount I will eat at that meal will certainly vary. On the weekend, for instance, I probably only eat twice as the morning meal becomes more of a "brunch."

At work, I'm conditioned to eat around 1 or 2 because of the smells and just the association, I think. If I ate every couple of hours, I would think that over a few days, I would miss a few due to not being hungry and perhaps things would normalize.

That's a tough one to be sure!

I am going to admit I don't fully understand what Jenny wrote but HOMA is an epedemiological tool used to indicate insulin resistance.

What Jenny is saying is that HOMA is wrong. That quick insulin tests measurements are not accurate. That all the large group diabetic studies are wrong that use HOMA. HOMA uses both insulin and blood glucose and/or C-peptide levels to come up with an IR value. It is a whole body approximation of IR. The best they can do with current technology as you indicate. I am not sure they care in these cases. They just want an overall value of IR. They must have a need for an IR value in the research studies they do. The fact that Jenny indicates that this new study says HOMA IR values are wrong means the conclusions they draw in their studies is wrong.

This study measured insulin directly intravenously. I am assuming this is a fairly sophisticated method. No clue. HOMA uses data from cheap quick insulin tests and blood glucose to come up with a value based on a population. HOMA is a research tool. A piece of software. An approximation.

The study tested pre-diabetics and newly diagnosed type IIs not those with type II. They had to have a reason to restrict it to these types.

HOMA calculates insulin resistance. It is wrong based on these studies. They measured the level of insulin intravenously not using the cheap insulin tests. HOMA calculates insulin resistance too high. That was her point. If the insulin resistance is not as high as measured by HOMA then it is not that you are putting out too much insulin but not enough is being produced. You have insulin deficiency.

Since I believe I am pre-diabetic this is of interest as from what I can tell my Phase I insulin response is shot. I am insulin deficient according to this study. My Phase II is better as my blood sugars come down to somewhat normal 2 hours post-prandially when I eat a lot of carbs. And are back where they should be although high hours later (i.e. not normal as in say 70s or 80s). No carbs or few carbs wouldn't test anything for me. As it wouldn't cause a rise in BG anyway.

MAC Wrote:Apparently Dr. Eades has more coming about this issue according to the latest comments:

Poster:

I think you have to be careful how this post will be interpreted. If you are saying calories count and that they need to be restricted for further weight loss, then this leads to diets and their terrible track record. Continuously restricting calories leads to a slowing of the metabolism, a slowing of weight loss, etc.

Reading through the other comments, you can see that restricting calories once or twice a week, as through intermittent fasting, works well for many people. This is much different from restricting calories on a daily basis which can lead to long-term trouble.

I agree with you, and I plan a few more posts to clarify the issue. I didn’t want to put it all in one giant post.

The IF idea is a good one that a number of people have echoed.

Cheers–

MRE

This is what is so exasperating about Dr. Eades. Here, he wrote about how intermittant fasting was not the way to go.

Now, check out today's article.

He's talking about these nuts.

Dr. Mike Eades Wrote:If you take a look at the Nutrition Facts on the back, however, you can see that this little sack holds 2.5 servings and that each serving provides 160 calories. Since no one eats a single serving as defined (everyone eats the entire sack), this little treat adds 400 calories to the day’s total. I know that each serving contains 17 g of carb as per the label, making the entire bag sport 42.5 g of carb. But I also know that most people (myself included) won’t look at that number and will simply throw one of these back thinking, hey, these are just nuts with a little dried fruit. How bad can it be? Then wonder why the weight isn’t coming off. I’m using this example to show just how easy it is to run afoul of the carbs and calories in seemingly ‘healthful’ little snacks like this one.

(Emphasis mine.)

Is it me or can this man not see that it's the 42.5 grams of carbohydrate that would cause fatty acid storage and it has nothing to do with the measely 400 calories? Look, I can eat an extra 6 ounces of Prime Rib for a week and it has 667 calories. I won't gain an ounce despite the 267 extra calories in the Prime Rib. Is this metabolic advantage?

However, if I eat this bag of nuts for a week, I will gain weight. How does this happen? His construal of the laws of energy conservation and his calorie theory won't explain that. However, if we construe it properly we understand that the nuts will cause a "change in energy stores" by raising insulin and thereby slowing the free flow of fatty acids which causes them to be stored in adipose tissue which means weight gain.

Why is this not obvious?

Quote:However, if I eat this bag of nuts for a week, I will gain weight. How does this happen? His construal of the laws of energy conservation and his calorie theory won't explain that. However, if we construe it properly we understand that the nuts will cause a "change in energy stores" by raising insulin and thereby slowing the free flow of fatty acids which causes them to be stored in adipose tissue which means weight gain.

Why is this not obvious?

Yep. He is exasperating on this one. He should just say too many nuts have too many carbs since they are easy to over consume.

He still needs to explain his other comments that even for someone in a stall who is only eating meat that they need to cut back to lose as well. I guess that explanation is coming. I agree he ain't looking too good so far.

PeggySu Wrote:Metabolic advantage has a particular definition. There are many different advantages to a low carb diet that help you lose weight even if you are eating more calories. Metabolic advantage refers specifically to the fact that your body uses up more calories digesting fat and protein than carbs. Another way of looking at is that the calorie amounts in calorie tables are over-estimated for fats and proteins in comparison with carbs. This is what Dr. Eades is referring to.

Well, check out today's article and defend the metabolic advantage. It's a misnomer and is very misleading because it implies that low-fat and low-carb diets work via the same method. They clearly do not.

Fat is particularly dense and has more calories. This is why McGovern's committee urged us to reduce our fat intake and replace them with carbohydrates. The problem is, a high carbohydrate diet, despite its lower calories, causes weight gain in the majority of people in the world.

It's not mere semantics, there is a fundamental difference and the failure to apprehend the difference leads to bogus theories and false constructions of the law of energy conservation.

MAC Wrote:This study measured insulin directly intravenously. I am assuming this is a fairly sophisticated method. No clue. HOMA uses data from cheap quick insulin tests and blood glucose to come up with a value based on a population. HOMA is a research tool. A piece of software. An approximation.

Don't assume much from this. They still measured insulin in the circulation. My point is that one cannot measure insulin resistance in the muscles or tissues unless you do the type of tests that Ethan Sims of the University of Vermont did.

We already know that the fasting tests were problematic and the framers of the HOMA test knew that as well. I understood Jenny's point, but her speculations don't back up what the study shows

MAC Wrote:HOMA calculates insulin resistance. It is wrong based on these studies. They measured the level of insulin intravenously not using the cheap insulin tests. HOMA calculates insulin resistance too high. That was her point. If the insulin resistance is not as high as measured by HOMA then it is not that you are putting out too much insulin but not enough is being produced. You have insulin deficiency.

I understood her point very well, thanks. My point is that they didn't have to go this far to tell us that HOMA doesn't work. Mary Vernon told us this in the Thin Man article. By the time HOMA finds out something is wrong, the damage has long been done.

MAC Wrote:Since I believe I am pre-diabetic this is of interest as from what I can tell my Phase I insulin response is shot. I am insulin deficient according to this study.

Point taken, but my point is that you cannot rely on your BGs to tell you this because you have no idea of what your resistance is in the areas that actually matter and you would have to have better technology and tests to find out what your true average blood sugar is. By the time your blood sugar marker shows up to tell you what you want to know, "the cow would have already been out of the barn."

Charles Wrote:Fat is particularly dense and has more calories. The problem is, a high carbohydrate diet, despite its lower calories, causes weight gain in the majority of people in the world.

It's not mere semantics, there is a fundamental difference and the failure to apprehend the difference leads to bogus theories and false constructions of the law of energy conservation.

This is what I have long believed. And hey I have been a moderate low carber up until recently. However there is no way I would eat something in one sitting that contains 42g of carbs!!! That defies logic to me. Plus I also wouldn't eat all the high carb sugary raisins contained in that snack mix even if the sugar is 'natural'.

It is completely true about the calorie issue also. When I eat moderate carb my cals are about 2300-2500. When I eat VLC as I am now my calories can rise up all the way to 3000+. So if calories were more important than carbs then I would lose if I ate a moderate 60 carb LC diet with 2300 calories. However I don't!

I just find it hard to beleive the way Dr. Eades keeps changing his stance.

lynnhopes Wrote:I just find it hard to beleive the way Dr. Eades keeps changing his stance.

I shouldn't be surprised. My friend Valerie, who I miss dearly around here, told me that Dr. Eades felt this way about calories a long time ago. I didn't believe her because I wrote a comment to him and he indicated that he didn't buy that. However, I kept seeing Yudkin references and once I read GCBC, I learned all about Yudkin and that's precisely what he believed; although, Dr. Eades said that Dr. Yudkin changed his view later in life but how knows what that view is.

So has he always believed that lower calories are neccessary for weight loss?