I simply don't agree with your link. I've kept my blood sugar levels well within the normal range for more than three months at a time and have been doing this most of the time for well over six years and I am still diabetic. The pancreas does not heal that way. Once you have Type II - it sticks. Nobody at your link can go back to eating cake, candy or ice cream without their Type II blood sugar levels being out of control.
In fact in your earlier post which also claimed the paleo diet cured diabetes at
the individual claiming to be cured by the paleo diet was actually in the advanced stages of Type II with a blood sugar reading of 62. Anything under 70 is hypoglycemic and that individual is setting himself up for a diabetic coma also known as insulin shock which results in death. That individual doesn't know what on earth he is dealing with and is in fact endangering himself.
"A blood glucose level of 62 mg/dL or lower attained from either the Fasting Plasma (FPG) or Random Glucose Tests generally indicates hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia is a condition that occurs when the body's blood sugar drops too low. If you're experiencing consistent low glucose levels at or near 62 mg/dL, you should consult with your physician."
Am not saying that the paleo diet doesn't benefit Type II but from what you've posted so far it hasn't proved anything yet.
There is no known cure for diabetes. If there were then a "former" diabetic could return to eating candy and other sweets without any spike in their blood sugar levels. Also the links that you have provided regarding paleo diet "cures" post no a1c tests. The a1c test is a measure of the amount of glucose that your cells have absorbed over the preceding three months and anything under 6.0 is "normal." Mine has been there many times yet I'm still diabetic. (I have never taken medical supplements to control my diabetes, I do it with diet alone.) If the folks on your links have an aversion to medical care there are many places on-line where you can purchase the a1c test kits.
Added to that, the guy who had a blood sugar reading of 62 is just the opposite of cured by the paelo diet - he is killing himself.
You don't understand Type II diabetes. People with a completely normal pancreas can still have Type II diabetes - it's not all about the pancreas. The body cells of some people have become resistant to insulin and they are Type II with a normal pancreas.
Unlike people with type 1 diabetes, people with type 2 diabetes produce insulin; however, either their pancreas does not produce enough insulin or the body cannot use the insulin adequately. This is called insulin resistance. When there isn't enough insulin or the insulin is not used as it should be, glucose (sugar) can't get into the body's cells. When glucose builds up in the blood instead of going into cells, the body's cells are not able to function properly. Other problems associated with the buildup of glucose in the blood include......
The very best information on how to control diabetes - Type I or Type II is in the book "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars." Bernstein is a Type I now in his 70s and is the father of home blood glucose testing. It was his work with home testing that has led to the home testing devices that we now have. When the medical community wouldn't accept his own personal research regarding the foods that cause diabetes, he at the age of about 45 went to med school and became a doctor and then pressed the medical community to finally accept his findings - though many doctors still push the American Diabetic Association diet which will kill you. Bernstein's diet is 3 carbohydrates per meal with no limit on fat, plus a lot of exercise. It is difficult to follow and I have fallen off several times - particularly during the holidays, but I always manage to get back with the program and gain control. His diet is very similar to what my medical clinic recommends (15 grams of carbos per meal) so he isn't alone in what he is teaching.
Finally, each individual is completely different. I love steel cut oats but eating a small bowl for breakfast without milk or any other additives raises my blood sugar level to 185 after two hours. Another person I know can eat the same thing with an after meal reading of 85. The clue to any individual's control of their diabetes is test, test, test, and more testing until you understand what you can and cannot eat because you are unique. High protein is the only way to go if you wish to control the disease and "complex" carbohydrates still turn to sugar in your stomach.
"Diabetes Type II is curable. It is so.
Medical crap will always be medical crap. Belongs in the junk pile.
All those MDs and schools and hospitals mean NOTHING. Total failures....."
Well, if Diabetes Type II is curable - you will be awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine when you present your data to the Nobel committee.
I was in one class of 18 people newly diagnosed with Type II by my clinic. I watched the woman next to me as she tested with a blood sugar level of 385 (anything over 120 is Type II). A month later - every person in that class had their Type II under control with diet alone - by following the "medical crap" diet from my clinic. Each and everyone of them had also lost up to as much as 20 pounds from the first class to the last as proven by the scale at the entry way in the door. Every person in the class! Medically validated as controlling their diabetes with diet alone! Medically checked weights as well.
From your postings, you obviously don't even know what Type II is. You didn't even know that a person could be Type II with a normal pancreas as well as other facts about Type II. The first "cure" you posted was a link to a man who is literally killing himself on the Paleo Diet - and neither you nor him know it and he is raving about how "good" his cure is. You still haven't posted any links to any their a1c readings which will show if they are in control.
Once more - I have no problem with the Paleo Diet, but please recognize that humans in the Paleolithic Age had a life expectancy of 25 to 30.
Saying Something Over And Over Doesn't Make It True
Paleo Fanatics Show Off Their Ignorance
Just this week I read a post on a Low Carb discussion board claiming that the Egyptian mummy that shows evidence of heart disease came from a period "right after the invention of agriculture"--a statement which in off only by about 11,000 years. Agriculture started somewhere around 12,000 BC and the earliest of these mummies are from about 1600 BC.
By the same token, we know a great deal about the lifestyles of hundreds of modern day hunter gatherers painstakingly collected by trained anthropologists who lived with these people for many years. You would never know this from reading the Paleo fantasist's writings, which invariably cite one and only one source, the early 20th century arctic explorer, Vilhjalmur Stefansson.
A recent correspondent went to far as to inform me, based on what he had read on a Paleo fanatic web site, that Stefansson was the only person to ever live with a hunter gatherer culture while speaking their language. This misstatement ignores the work of at least 400 other trained anthropologists who not only did the exact same thing as Stefansson, living with people of pre-industrial cultures all around the world, but in many cases they lived with these people for far longer than the few winter months Stefansson did. They also published more extensively about their observations in writings intended for other anthropologists, not a popular audience, and those writing later in the century were much more aware of the need to see ALL of what was going on in the culture, rather than cherry pick the cultural details that reinforced their personal beliefs and ignore the rest.
So with this in mind, you can see why I find it disturbing that people with a lot of cred in the Low Carb world, including several of the M.D. mega-bestselling authors, continue to parrot Paleo fantasy statements about "our ancestors' diet" or about the diet and lifestyle of modern non-agricultural peoples that have no more basis in science than the idea that eating fat gives people heart attacks.
What Science Knows About Real Paleo Diet and Lifestyle
If you are interested in learning more about what our ancestors really ate, I would highly recommend a new book written by a brilliant Harvard anthropology professor. It opened my eyes to the advances that have occurred in paleontology since I studied it at the University of Chicago in the 1960s when I took my Anthropology degree there.
The book is Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham.
Wrangham's book's very-well documented thesis is that it was the very early discovery of cooking by pre-human hominids which allowed humans to develop the metabolically expensive human brain. His main point is that cooking, because it breaks down starches and proteins, made redundant the long, metabolically expensive digestive tracts found among pre-human hominids and allowed them to atrophy, freeing up the calories no longer needed for 5 hours a day of chewing and round the clock digesting of raw foods to be used to fuel, and grow, our metabolically expensive brains.
But the relevance of this book to our discussions in the online diet community lies not so much in its primary thesis but in the mass of data, derived from extensive research, the author provides about what the historical and anthropological record tells us about what early humans and prehumans ate.
And that research makes it clear that people and "pre-people" eating pre-agricultural diets bear little relationship to the Supermen described in the Paleo Myth invented people ignorant of paleontology and anthropology.
For starters, in most of the many modern era hunter-gatherer societies studied since the late 19th century, it turns out that at least 50% of calories came from gathered, i.e. vegetable, sources not meat, almost always provided by females. And even more importantly, these gathered foods were not made up of leaves which provide very little nutrition, but of starchy foods especially roots, seeds, and tubers.
Wrangham also cites the finding that the Inuit, so beloved by Paleo fantasists, ate more than fat and meat: they savored the raw, full intestines of their prey as well as deer droppings. This suggests the lengths to which humans will go to get the nutrients found from plant-derived sources--and how inadvisable it is to use the Inuit as the model upon which to base your diet.
Nor does research substantiate the idea that the lives of ancient Paleo people were the easy, physically invigorating idylls the Paleo myth describes. Hunting in most environments is an exhausting pursuit that provides marginal sustenance. The usual prey is not an elephant but a few small rodents. In most modern era pre-agricultural societies the sheer volume of food-related labor women are forced to provide is comparable with what was demanded of plantation slaves or the most oppressed factory worker.
The fantasy is that Paleo people lived lives of unparalleled health until they were forced into agriculture and made to live on evil carbs. The reality is that the bones of our "paleo" ancestors show clear signs that they were subject to periodic, severe and crippling famines.
This finding is, of course, reinforced by reports from those who had first contact with modern era hunter gatherers. It is often forgotten that one of the reasons that the earliest French settlers of Canada had so much contact with Native American tribes is that the tribes were starving when Champlain first encountered them, and they came to the French because they offered food.
Wrangham also points out that in modern Africa traditional people's must contend with a long period during the Dry Season when famine is common when game disappears.
I recently read a fascinating biography of a 19th century white child who was raised by Californian Native Americans living a traditional lifestyle, which made clear what it would be like to live through such a periodic famine. It describes one that occurred in a traditional non-contact Native American society living in SE California. Summary: many children died as did many older adults.
People adopted agriculture because it gave them a much better chance of seeing their children survive. Women probably put a lot of pressure on their men to adopt the agricultural lifestyle because as hard as women work in agricultural societies, their lot in them is far better than those of women in pre-agricultural societies who may have to gather and drag 30 lbs of roots over a range of ten or more miles every single day--before they start cooking dinner for men just returned from hunting.
It is worth remembering that those very few pre-agricultural societies that survived the agricultural revolution--the ones observed by Stefansson and others--were all cultures where people lived in environments where hunting and gathering provided more food than agriculture could--areas with very short (or in the arctic, no) growing seasons, deserts, areas with disease vectors that made settled life fatal, or very rarely, as in Amazonia and New Guinea, tropical areas where nature provided much more food than it does in the temperate zones.
Everywhere else, hunting and gathering was a very hard way to stay alive, and people took to agriculture with the alacrity with which our generation has taken to the computer and for the same reason: because the benefits were undeniable and instantly obvious.
Grain-based agriculture let more children survive to adulthood. Only after its advent did the human population begin to grow at a steady rate, rather than just barely replacing itself.
Grain-based agriculture provides, uniquely in human experience, enough surplus food that some people can put their time into non-calorie producing behaviors, like inventing writing which allows shared knowledge and technology to grow beyond what one person can retain in their memory. It is those grain-provided surplusses that have led to your being able to sit in front of your computer reading this post even if you do it while imagining how much happier you would be if you were "Paleo Man."
Why Does It Matter?
Okay, you might say, maybe the whole Paleo thing is a myth, but why make a big deal about it?
The answer is simple. The minute you support a good idea with made up "facts" and bad science, you invalidate it.
Doctors and nutritionists ignored the Atkins diet because he supported his claims with outdated, discredited studies like the one describing "fat mobilizing substance" and the research that claimed someone lost a huge amount of weight eating ten thousand calories a day of fat. By relying on bad science (and not updating the books to remove it, long after it was known to be bad science) Atkins delayed for a generation the rigorous study of the low carb diet.
We run the risk of doing the same thing to the diet when we argue for it using myths that educated people know to be myths.
What makes it so sad is that there is no need to use myths to make our point. There is plenty of very good science that supports the advantage of cutting down on carbs, eliminating processed foods, and demanding that industry stop polluting our environment with organic chemicals that are damaging our bodies We don't need to argue for our modern dietary improvements by citing imaginary, Eden-dwelling ancestors and misrepresenting their diets to do it.
The truth is, it is irrelevant what ancient people ate 20,000 years ago. Evolution occurs in periods as short as 100 years, so the dietary changes that have taken place in that past 20,000 years have altered our metabolic physiology in thousands of small ways that make us very different physiologically from "paleo" people.
To see an example of this, we need only remember that those of us who are descended from herders can digest milk as adults, while those who did not evolve in cultures with domesticated milk-giving animals are lactose intolerant, like most other adult mammals.
So matter what Paleo peoples ate, those of us who descend from European or Asian stock living in the Temperate Zone can be sure our ancestors' bodies adapted very well to agricultural diets. We are all descended from people who flourished on the energy provided by the stored starchy vegetables and grains that kept them alive through the long cold northern winters when game is very hard to find. Those who did not flourish on those diets did not survive to become anyone's ancestors.
It's Not The Deep Past But The Very Recent Past That Points to The Problems
Rather than imagining the far distant past, we need only look at the very recent past to find much more relevant arguments to support our need for dietary change.
It is the new factors introduced in the past century that we should be focussing the full force of Science on to answer the question of why we have a sudden epidemic of metabolic diseases. Research is turning up a lot of answers, though the corporate-owned media ignore those that point to corporate culpability as the explanation.
The obesity/diabetes epidemic is closely related to the phthalates and other organic molecules that leach from PVC plastics and Bisphenol-A that estrogenize our bodies, the soy proteins that damage our gut linings allowing otherwise benign gluten to get into our blood stream an provoke autoimmune attack, the high fructose corn syrup that turns into intracellular liver fat, the arsenic from coal burning that promotes diabetes, the PCB, pesticide, herbicide and pharmaceutical drugs that are in our water supply and our bodies which all increase insulin resistance.
Let's focus on the real science and make the public aware of the findings of this good science so we can do something about this metabolic epidemic. Until we can heal it, those of us who can't process carbs will have to cut way back on them. But let's leave the myths that reinforce personal belief systems to the churches where they belong. They won't cure what ails us.
UPDATE: Nov 21, 2009:
Check out this fascinating look at Arctic mummies. The link was posted by "Coach Jeff" in the comment section. The book cited is a real eye opener. I will have go get a copy.
Mummies, disease & ancient cultures By Eve Cockburn, Theodore Allen Reyman
Two of the Arctic and Aleutian mummies described here--those of older people--show distinct signs of atherosclerosis. The starved child who died with a tummy full of gravel and hair points out the impact of cyclical starvation on hunter cultures.
"If you wish to worship your own diabetes illness... that's your decision......."
I don't worship my diabetes. I have it under control. Have had it under control with diet for more than six years. You are the one who has made your own golden idol, the Paleo Diet.
"Diabetes is PRETTY EASY to cure. It's your MIND that needs a make over."
Then why haven't you posted any testimonials of people who have been cured?
When you recognize yourself as the bright eternal spirit that you and everyone else on the Planet are, you will recognize that the mind cures nothing. The mind is a body function. It is you as spirit - separate from your body, that heals and cures.
You are sure one happy camper. Have a beautiful eternity because that's what you are experiencing right at this moment in time.
You haven't posted any cures. Period. I do agree that having Type II "under control" is not only possible, but highly probable with a high protein diet - something that I've posted as my control - on this thread as well. Control is not the same as a cure and you haven't posted any cures where people who were diagnosed diabetic can return to eating even as much as one Snickers bar without a spike. Post that kind of a cure!
Now - I want you to be very honest - have you since October 31st 2011 at 12:00 am until January 1st 2012 at 12:00 midnight had one or more food items other those that you are falsely calling the "Paleo Diet?" That means no alcohol, no grain or other processed food item, no manufactured sweets or anything else? (My double martinis with a couple of olives are within my diet restrictions. They are very low carb.)
Remember that not only are eye balls, brains, lips, intestines (uncleaned, still with the original contents), bung holes, deer droppings/poop all a part of the real Inuit/Paleo Diet. Have you had any of that?
Had my usual sausage and eggs breakfast this morning and my blood sugar level exactly two hours later was 88. I've had my blood sugar under control on this high protein diet for many years - except when I do fall off. Holidays, birthdays, family gatherings are difficult to control so I generally don't even try. Yet I can quickly climb back on my diet and get right back with the program and control my blood sugar. I'll bet you that 98% of those who claim to be on the Paleo Diet fall off like I do, including yourself.
I have never ever had any medication during my years of Type II though I've tried many months of bitter melon, Essiac Tea and other alternative products which claim to control blood sugar levels but with no positive results for me.
Those on this diet "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars" are achieving normal sugar levels and it is even higher protein than the false Paleo Diet. The Type I diabetic who wrote this book wasn't a doctor when he made his discovery, he was an engineer. So he too is practicing an alternative medical program as am I.
This is my personal experience, I hope can be useful to all with blood sugar difficulties.
I have succeeded in lowering my blood glucose daily by 2 to 4 mmol/l or (40 to 80) by this simple, natural and fun method.I measured it with a blood glucose instrument daily before and after.
The very simple method is to swim or just dip in a cool pool for an hour every evening. The water will absorb your body heat at 20x the rate of the air at the same temperature. Your body will burn up blood glucose to replace the heat lost.
The colder the water emperature, and the more rigorus the swim, and the longer time it takes will determine the amount of blood glucose you can reduce.
Best to be done before bed time, a nights sleep with normal blood glucose is a dream come true for diabetics.