Curing Diabetes in 30 Days? (Video)

If a person has type 2 diabetes for 20 years can they be diabetes free in 30 days?





I have a friend that has diabetes, or has he says, he is A Diabetic. Imagine that, he did not say he is a human being or a god man but he envisions himself as something called a "Diabetic", wow. Now like most Allopathic doctors I know of, his doctor told him that he has a "disease" called diabetes he will have it for life, but he can help him "manage" it with drugs (insulin). He has told him the perfunctory, exercise and eat right line. By eat right he means something allopaths call counting carbs, meaning counting carbohydrates the food that turns into sugar.

My friend knows that his body's loss of its ability to manage sugar in his blood is a deadly condition that would have caused his death if his allopathic MD had not given him this life saving drug. He also knows that if he gives himself the wrong dose of this drug he could kill himself. So the most important events of everyday of his life is counting carbs, Eating "on time" and getting his dose right.



Is my friend's diagnoses and treatment the only diagnoses and treatment?



Let's go to the video tape.







Each of our decisions about health has trade offs and we must weigh the benefits vs. risks of treatment plans presented to us. If you were my friend which treatment plan would you choose?



So what can you do about diabetes? If you have friends and family with this blood sugar management malfunction make sure they see this 5 minute video so that they at least have a choice and chance of restoring their health.



Note: this piece is about treatment for type 2 diabetes not type 1. To my knowledge type 1 diabetes can be caused by vaccines but no one has proposed a consistent treatment to reverse type 1.



After writing the above two sentences it was pointed out to me that there are other realities regarding type 1 diabetes to consider Click Here.

Hetepw
Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

Reversing Diabetes: 2011

Now entering its second week, The Longest Walk III continues to cross these United States to call attention to diabetes and especially in Indian Country.



As the walkers come through your area, support them and support this grand effort.



Route Information

“Reversing Diabetes”

  

    On February 14th, 2011, The Longest Walk III will begin a 5,400 mile walk/run relay across America. The purpose of which is to draw attention to the alarming epidemic of diabetics in Indian Country.

     Led by A.I.M. co-founder Dennis Banks, the walk will begin at La Jolla Shores, California (San Diego), and ending in Washington, D.C. on July 8th. The route will be southern based which will include the states of: Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

    Banks, himself a diabetic, said that “Diabetes has reached an epidemic state in Indian Country and the percentage of diabetes amongst Native Americans may be as high as 75%” (Indian Health Service’s estimate is at 35%). “Surgery involving amputation is very common”, Banks said, “making Native people Partial Indians”.

    Key organizers in each state are developing evening lectures by Banks who will also conduct seminars in juicing your vegetables. “Vegetables”, he said “are becoming extinct”, and wants to aid in a massive “Reversing Diabetes” program across Native America.

    California, which will host the opening ceremonies, is being directed by Orlando Vigil of Taos New Mexico. He will guide and walk with members of many Southern California tribes to and through the southern tribal nations of the Diegueno Kumeyaay, Lusenio, Serrano, Cahuilla, Chemeuuai, and Quechan territories. 

    The walk will also provide the opportunity to collect diabetic concerns and stories heard across America and develop this information into a personal in-depth perspective from the Native view. In addition to this, the U.S.D.A and Banks will campaign for Indigenous lands to set aside 2,000,000 acres of prime farming land into large vegetable gardens to begin supplying our people with fresh produce. “Everyone should have a garden for good nutrition and exercise. We are working on a 50 year program to reverse the symptoms of diabetes. If we don’t start now, in 50 years we will all be diabetic, with no future at all,” Banks said.

    The opening activities will commence at 6:00 a.m. at La Jolla Shores, San Diego, California with  a prayer by a local elder, Bird Singers opening with a 3 hour ceremony of doctors, foreigners, and speakers, and ending with a pipe ceremony, including Dennis Banks to provide detailed key information pertaining to the walk.

    Should you wish to assist with the largest, most historic walk for the fight against reversing diabetes, please contact The Longest Walk III website for any further information. Any contributions before and during the walk will be greatly appreciated and can be arranged by calling (763) - 242 - 4242 or joining the walk.

The DC Event is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136597933048303&index=1

Federal Dam, MN 56641

This information is provided by Creating Health Institute
through our Health Matters(c) project.

Nature's Role in Disease, Bigger Than We Thought

Continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

Thomas Hobbes

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69610/title/Adaptive_no_more
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/02/02/ajcn.110.001909.abstract

Most plants grow well here in California, but we are too close to the coast to grow tulips. When the environment changes, the tulip's adaptations for one set of circumstances limit it's ability to grow in a different ecology. It turns out that people are no different. The epidemic of “diseases of modern life”, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and asthma, appear to be the unintended consequences of evolutionary mechanisms designed to combat famine, chronic infections, and other afflictions of pre-industrial life.

The popular wisdom, return to nature advocates, and our educational system do not appreciate, as Hobbes did, how brutal and difficult life was a few hundred generations ago. Primitive societies(see my article from 7/6/10), have a violent death rate of 6%, 50% childhood mortality, are prone to prolonged periods of famine, and carry a huge burden of acute and chronic infectious disease.

The articles referenced today discusses how human physiology evolved to cope with some of these challenges. In periods of famine, low blood sugar may result in death of the unborn child. The tendency for diabetes may therefore be a substantial advantage for the pregnant woman. Chronic tuberculosis, endemic in many societies, results in loss of body mass and wasting. The tendency to store fat might keep individuals alive long enough to reproduce. A hyper-stimulated immune system would keep chronic bone and tooth infections from spreading throughout the body.

Of course,modern society, addressing famine and infections has caused these survival mechanism to backfire. Elevated sugar levels lead to diabetes, tendencies to store fat leads to obesity, and hyper-stimulated immune systems lead to asthma or rheumatoid arthritis. Thousands of generations of evolution, with strong genetic and physiologic imperatives, are constantly working against the efforts of healthcare providers. Understanding these processes may eventually contribute to treatments, but in the meantime we are left with what we have.

It is important to remember that defects in one environment might be beneficial in another. Sociopaths, who lack feelings for others, thrive in times or war. Those prone to diabetes or obesity will do better following some upcoming climate/nuclear/zombie apocalypse. Human diversity encompasses more than ethnicity. We must remember that evolution works for the survival of the species, not for the individual. Nature is efficient, but is also heartless and doesn't care much for the good intentions of Obamacare.

The Diabetes Epidemic

The CDC just released its latest estimate of diabetes prevalence in the US (1):

Diabetes affects 8.3 percent of Americans of all ages, and 11.3 percent of adults aged 20 and older, according to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet for 2011. About 27 percent of those with diabetes—7 million Americans—do not know they have the disease. Prediabetes affects 35 percent of adults aged 20 and older.

Wow-- this is a massive problem. The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing over time, due to more people developing the disorder, improvements in diabetes care leading to longer survival time, and changes in the way diabetes is diagnosed. Here's a graph I put together based on CDC data, showing the trend of diabetes prevalence (percent) from 1980 to 2008 in different age categories (2):

These data are self-reported, and do not correct for differences in diagnosis methods, so they should be viewed with caution-- but they still serve to illustrate the trend. There was an increase in diabetes incidence that began in the early 1990s. More than 90 percent of cases are type 2 diabetics. Disturbingly, the trend does not show any signs of slowing.

The diabetes epidemic has followed on the heels of the obesity epidemic with 10-20 years of lag time. Excess body fat is the number one risk factor for diabetes*. As far as I can tell, type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, which is probably due to energy intake exceeding energy needs (overnutrition), causing a state of cellular insulin resistance as a defense mechanism to protect against the damaging effects of too much glucose and fatty acids (3). In addition, type 2 diabetes requires a predisposition that prevents the pancreatic beta cells from keeping up with the greatly increased insulin needs of an insulin resistant person**. Both factors are required, and not all insulin resistant people will develop diabetes as some people's beta cells are able to compensate by hypersecreting insulin.

Why does energy intake exceed energy needs in modern America and in most affluent countries? Why has the typical person's calorie intake increased by 250 calories per day since 1970 (4)? I believe it's because the fat mass "setpoint" has been increased, typically but not always by industrial food. I've been developing some new thoughts on this lately, and potentially new solutions, which I'll reveal when they're ready.


* In other words, it's the best predictor of future diabetes risk.

** Most of the common gene variants (of known function) linked with type 2 diabetes are thought to impact beta cell function (5).

The Diabetes Epidemic

The CDC just released its latest estimate of diabetes prevalence in the US (1):

Diabetes affects 8.3 percent of Americans of all ages, and 11.3 percent of adults aged 20 and older, according to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet for 2011. About 27 percent of those with diabetes—7 million Americans—do not know they have the disease. Prediabetes affects 35 percent of adults aged 20 and older.

Wow-- this is a massive problem. The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing over time, due to more people developing the disorder, improvements in diabetes care leading to longer survival time, and changes in the way diabetes is diagnosed. Here's a graph I put together based on CDC data, showing the trend of diabetes prevalence (percent) from 1980 to 2008 in different age categories (2):

These data are self-reported, and do not correct for differences in diagnosis methods, so they should be viewed with caution-- but they still serve to illustrate the trend. There was an increase in diabetes incidence that began in the early 1990s. More than 90 percent of cases are type 2 diabetics. Disturbingly, the trend does not show any signs of slowing.

The diabetes epidemic has followed on the heels of the obesity epidemic with 10-20 years of lag time. Excess body fat is the number one risk factor for diabetes*. As far as I can tell, type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, which is probably due to energy intake exceeding energy needs (overnutrition), causing a state of cellular insulin resistance as a defense mechanism to protect against the damaging effects of too much glucose and fatty acids (3). In addition, type 2 diabetes requires a predisposition that prevents the pancreatic beta cells from keeping up with the greatly increased insulin needs of an insulin resistant person**. Both factors are required, and not all insulin resistant people will develop diabetes as some people's beta cells are able to compensate by hypersecreting insulin.

Why does energy intake exceed energy needs in modern America and in most affluent countries? Why has the typical person's calorie intake increased by 250 calories per day since 1970 (4)? I believe it's because the fat mass "setpoint" has been increased, typically but not always by industrial food. I've been developing some new thoughts on this lately, and potentially new solutions, which I'll reveal when they're ready.


* In other words, it's the best predictor of future diabetes risk.

** Most of the common gene variants (of known function) linked with type 2 diabetes are thought to impact beta cell function (5).

The Diabetes Epidemic

The CDC just released its latest estimate of diabetes prevalence in the US (1):

Diabetes affects 8.3 percent of Americans of all ages, and 11.3 percent of adults aged 20 and older, according to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet for 2011. About 27 percent of those with diabetes—7 million Americans—do not know they have the disease. Prediabetes affects 35 percent of adults aged 20 and older.

Wow-- this is a massive problem. The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing over time, due to more people developing the disorder, improvements in diabetes care leading to longer survival time, and changes in the way diabetes is diagnosed. Here's a graph I put together based on CDC data, showing the trend of diabetes prevalence (percent) from 1980 to 2008 in different age categories (2):

These data are self-reported, and do not correct for differences in diagnosis methods, so they should be viewed with caution-- but they still serve to illustrate the trend. There was an increase in diabetes incidence that began in the early 1990s. More than 90 percent of cases are type 2 diabetics. Disturbingly, the trend does not show any signs of slowing.

The diabetes epidemic has followed on the heels of the obesity epidemic with 10-20 years of lag time. Excess body fat is the number one risk factor for diabetes*. As far as I can tell, type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, which is probably due to energy intake exceeding energy needs (overnutrition), causing a state of cellular insulin resistance as a defense mechanism to protect against the damaging effects of too much glucose and fatty acids (3). In addition, type 2 diabetes requires a predisposition that prevents the pancreatic beta cells from keeping up with the greatly increased insulin needs of an insulin resistant person**. Both factors are required, and not all insulin resistant people will develop diabetes as some people's beta cells are able to compensate by hypersecreting insulin.

Why does energy intake exceed energy needs in modern America and in most affluent countries? Why has the typical person's calorie intake increased by 250 calories per day since 1970 (4)? I believe it's because the fat mass "setpoint" has been increased, typically but not always by industrial food. I've been developing some new thoughts on this lately, and potentially new solutions, which I'll reveal when they're ready.


* In other words, it's the best predictor of future diabetes risk.

** Most of the common gene variants (of known function) linked with type 2 diabetes are thought to impact beta cell function (5).

The Diabetes Epidemic

The CDC just released its latest estimate of diabetes prevalence in the US (1):

Diabetes affects 8.3 percent of Americans of all ages, and 11.3 percent of adults aged 20 and older, according to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet for 2011. About 27 percent of those with diabetes—7 million Americans—do not know they have the disease. Prediabetes affects 35 percent of adults aged 20 and older.

Wow-- this is a massive problem. The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing over time, due to more people developing the disorder, improvements in diabetes care leading to longer survival time, and changes in the way diabetes is diagnosed. Here's a graph I put together based on CDC data, showing the trend of diabetes prevalence (percent) from 1980 to 2008 in different age categories (2):

These data are self-reported, and do not correct for differences in diagnosis methods, so they should be viewed with caution-- but they still serve to illustrate the trend. There was an increase in diabetes incidence that began in the early 1990s. More than 90 percent of cases are type 2 diabetics. Disturbingly, the trend does not show any signs of slowing.

The diabetes epidemic has followed on the heels of the obesity epidemic with 10-20 years of lag time. Excess body fat is the number one risk factor for diabetes*. As far as I can tell, type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, which is probably due to energy intake exceeding energy needs (overnutrition), causing a state of cellular insulin resistance as a defense mechanism to protect against the damaging effects of too much glucose and fatty acids (3). In addition, type 2 diabetes requires a predisposition that prevents the pancreatic beta cells from keeping up with the greatly increased insulin needs of an insulin resistant person**. Both factors are required, and not all insulin resistant people will develop diabetes as some people's beta cells are able to compensate by hypersecreting insulin.

Why does energy intake exceed energy needs in modern America and in most affluent countries? Why has the typical person's calorie intake increased by 250 calories per day since 1970 (4)? I believe it's because the fat mass "setpoint" has been increased, typically but not always by industrial food. I've been developing some new thoughts on this lately, and potentially new solutions, which I'll reveal when they're ready.


* In other words, it's the best predictor of future diabetes risk.

** Most of the common gene variants (of known function) linked with type 2 diabetes are thought to impact beta cell function (5).

Rising Costs Cut to the Heart of Obamacare

A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future.

~Author Unknown

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/649165.html

Both of my grandfather's died of heart problems that could be easily treated today. One needed a coronary artery stent, and the other needed a valve procedure. Using modern techniques, a total of about two hours of procedure time could have kept them alive for many years. In many ways, such advances represent the best of modern medicine. However for the supporters of Obamacare, or anyone attempting to address our healthcare crisis, progress in the fight against heart disease is one of our greatest problems.

New therapies to combat heart disease have not decreased it's incidence. Unlike polio or tuberculosis, modern drugs or invasive techniques do not eliminate the disease, but only slow its progression or lessen its impact. More people than ever have heart disease because of obesity, sedentary lifestyles, diabetes, and the rising age of our population. Breakthroughs in the treatment of this and other chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes and arthritis, are one of the key contributors to increasing medical costs. As the referenced report today concludes, the diagnostic procedures, drug therapies, angiograms and surgeries needed to treat these patients will triple in cost by 2030, and this report does not even consider new treatments such as stem cell therapy.

Although this news may cheer catheter manufacturers and cardiology residents, it should strike fear into the hearts of healthcare reformers and Congressional supporters of Obamacare. The fanciful cost projections used to support the passage of the bill do not acknowledge these increasing expenses. Disease rates are assumed to be constant, and procedures are assumed to get cheaper, not increase three-fold. Supporters of the legislation relied on unproven or useless prevention programs to pretend that disease incidences would decrease in order to meet delusional cost projections. Substituting good intentions and hand waving for science may satisfy political pressure groups, but it cannot replace reality. Even if such a comprehensive prevention program to cut the incidence of heart disease could be developed, it remains to be seen how long it would take to be effective.

If we are to have any hope of solving our healthcare problems we must stop lying to ourselves. Even the most simple and laudable of reforms goals, such as universal coverage and coverage of preexisting conditions have huge price tags. Studies like the one above only reinforce the need to confront the very hard choices our leaders have chosen to ignore or demagogue. We deserve better.

Penyebab, Gejala Dan Perawatan Diabetes

Pengarang : Dr. Charles Buchar

Ringkasan ini diterjemahkan dari Diabetes Causes, Symptoms and Home Remedies.

Diabetes merupakan gangguan metabolisme yang terjadi di dalam tubuh dimana tubuh tidak dapat menghasilkan atau menggunakan insulin dengan baik, yaitu suatu hormon yang penting untuk mengubah gula, pati dan tambahan makanan menjadi energi.

Tubuh manusia harus menjaga kadar glukosa darah dalam kisaran yang sangat sempit, yang menjadi tanggung jawab Insulin dan Glukagon. Fungsi glukagon adalah membantu hepar untuk melepaskan glukosa dari sel hepar ke dalam sel darah, untuk membentuk energi.

Diabetes Melitus, sering disebut juga diabetes, pertama kali dikenal sebagai penyakit yang dikaitkan dengan kencing manis dan hilangnya massa otot secara ekstrim pada usia tua. Peningkatan kadar gula dalam darah mengakibatkan peningkatan pengeluaran glukosa dalam urin, itulah yang dimaksud dengan kencing manis.

Penyebab Diabetes

Warisan Genetik (Keturunan)

Hal ini merupakan salah satu faktor pendukung terjadinya DM yang kuat karena pewarisan genetik dari satu orang ke orang yang lain, dapat menyebabkan terjadinya diabetes. Hal ini tergantung ke seberapa kuat pengaruh ibu dengan diabetes, dengan tingkat resiko 2-3% untuk dapat menyebabkan diabetes pada anaknya, dan pengaruh ini akan lebih kuat jika kedua orang tua juga diabetes.

Usia

Semakin meningkatnya usia akan semakin meningkatkan resiko untuk terkena diabetes. Diabetes dapat terjadi pada semua usia, tetapi 80% terjadi di atas usia 50 tahun, dan insidensi meningkat seiring dengan peningkatan usia.

Diet yang Jelek

Gizi yang sesuai, yaitu konsumsi lebih banyak makanan yang mengandung protein dan serat. Makanan hasil olahan dari biji-bijian merupakan salah satu faktor resiko diabetes.

Obesitas dan Kegemukan

Overweight berarti memiliki berat yang lebih daripada sebelumnya. Konfrontasi insulin terjadi jika lemak dalam tubuh lebih dari 30%, BMI 25+, Lingkar pinggang >35 inchi pada wanita dan >40 inchi pada laki-laki.

Gaya hidup bermalas-malasan

Orang dengan gaya hidup yang inaktif lebih beresiko terkena diabetes, jika dibandingkan dengan seseorang yang berolahraga seminggu tiga kali.

Stres

Gangguan fisik maupun gangguan secara psikologis, kedunya merupakan faktor pencetus terjadinya penyakit. Setiap permasalahan dalam terapi kortikosteroid / ACTH dapat menyebabkan tanda-tanda ilmiah penyakit.

Gejala Diabetes

a. Merasa haus dan banyak minum.

b. Sering lapar dan suka makan-makanan manis

c. Sering buang air kecil terutama pada malam hari.

d. Kelelahan yang disertai tremor.

E. Susah tidur atau mengalami gangguan tidur.

Terapi Diabetes

Pengaturan diet pada diabetes merupakan faktor penting untuk mengendalikan peningkatan glukosa darah pada penderita diabetes. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) telah mengeluarkan peraturan tentang tata cara diet pada diabetes. Diet berdasarkan ADA adalah diet seimbang, dimana nutrisi mengandung rendah lemak, kolesterol dan gula . Jumlah kalori sehari-hari terbagi dalam tiga kali makan. Selama dua tahun terakhir, ADA mengeluarkan larangan tentang pemakaian gula. Namun, sejumlah kecil gula masih boleh dikonsumsi jika sangat menginginkannya.

Penurunan berat badan dan aktivitas berlebihan adalah salah satu terapi penting dalam diabetes. Penurunan berat badan dan aktivitas akan meningkatkan kerja insulin, yang akan mengontrol peningkatan glukosa dalam darah.

Perawatan di rumah untuk diabetes

a. Buatlah jus dari daun bilva dan parijataka sebagai obat alami diabetes. Ambil sebanyak dua sendok teh, dua kali sehari.

b. Makanlah buah anggur secara teratur.

c. Rebuslah daun pohon mangga 3-4 lembar pada pagi hari dan kunyahlah. Hal ini juga bermanfaat untuk menurunkan diabetes.

d. Tambahkanlah kacang kedelai dalam makanan anda. Kacang kedelai tidak mengandung gula dan merupakan sumber energi yang bagus untuk penderita diabetes.

e. Lakukan olahraga yang teratur untuk mengurangi resiko terkena penyakit pembuluh darah jantung dan juga mencegah diabetes yang lebih lanjut.

f. Hindari aktivitas yang terlalu berat dan stress yang berkepanjangan.

g. Hindari makan makanan manis, coklat, nasi, pisang, mangga, buah kering, minyak, cake dan pastries.

Steps Toward Solving Our Healthcare Crisis, Literally

Two miles a day keeps the doctor away

(with apologies to Ben Franklin)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213681.php

I have become discouraged about the impact of obesity and the resultant diabetes epidemic that threatens to overwhelm the American healthcare system. In a prior post I suggested that bariatric surgery was the only workable solution to this long term crisis(12/2/10). The paper referenced today suggests a far more benign, inexpensive and natural way to combat this impending epidemic, the simple act of walking.

The study out of Australia directly correlates diabetic risk with steps taken per day. The more steps taken, the lower the diabetes risk. 3000 steps(about two miles) a day significantly lowers the incidence of type 2 diabetes, with more steps further giving even more benefit.

The result is surprisingly simple, yet makes real sense. Diabetes is related both to the amount of insulin produced, and how your body uses that insulin. Exercise has long been known to improve the bodies response to insulin. What this study confirms is that walking alone is sufficient to obtain the benefits of exercise.

This investigation dovetails well with many other studies about the negative impacts of a sedentary lifestyle. It appears our body is designed to walk, and sitting in front of computer screen or TV may be the genesis of many of our healthcare woes. The impact is independent of calories consumed, and may explain much about why healthcare in America is both more expensive and less effective than other countries where people walk more.

This study may also contain the key to solving our healthcare crisis. Walking represents a free, efficacious and accessible therapy for obesity and diabetes. Walking does not require expensive programs, highly trained personnel, or a new government bureaucracy. Pedometers can be inexpensively used to monitor progress. Incentive based programs tying health insurance costs to distance walked, make both medical and economic sense.

I have been spending many hours attempting to understand the Pelosian level complexity of the rules governing electronic medical record adaption. Obamacare mandates all providers institute these expensive and unproven systems which at best will have limited impact upon the health of Americans. How about a simple law requiring people to walk 20 miles a week in order to buy health insurance. That law might actually work.

Some Impact on The Baby if the Mother Has Gestational Diabetes

By: medicmagic

Diabetes that occurs in pregnant women occurs because during pregnancy, hormones in the body makes the insulin more difficult to use, so the pancreas has to work harder.

For pregnant women which has pancreas which works work well, then the pregnancy condition would not be a problem. But when the pancreas can not meet the demand forinsulin, the blood sugar levels will increase and causes diabetes during pregnancy (gestational diabetes).

In most cases, the diabetes will disappear after the baby is born, although the risk of getting diabetes again is high for the women if they are pregnant again.

According to Babycenter, there are some impact on the baby if the mother has gestational diabetes:

1. Excess sugar in the blood and insulin can cause babies to have more fat, especially in their upper body so they become bigger.

There is a possibility that the baby is too big to be born through the normal process so caesarean birth is needed.

After the baby is born, there is a possibility the baby has low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). This condition occurs because the body still produces excess insulin in response to high glucose intake of the mother.

If doctors know that the mother have gestational diabetes, the newborn will be tested for blood sugar levels by taking a drop of blood from the baby’s heel. If the levels are low, the baby will be breastfed, but if it is too severe there is a possibility the baby will be given glucose IV infusion.

2. Infants have higher risk of jaundice disease, polycuthemia (increasing number of red blood cells in the blood) and hypocalcemia (low calcium levels in the blood).

3. If the control of blood sugar levels are bad, there is the possibility the the infant’s cardiac function can be affected.

4. As for the mother, the pregnancy has two times higher risk of pre-eclampsia.

Gestational diabetes generally does not have specific symptoms. That is why almost all pregnant women need to check glucose levels at 24-28 weeks of gestation. If the result shows positive, then a good blood sugar control and maintaining food intake is needed.

Pregnant women are vulnerable to diabetes if they are overweight, have a history of previous gestational diabetes or have a history of strong diabets in the family.

Eight Signs of Diabetes Which Are Rarely Known

By: medicmagic

Many people sometimes do not realize that they have diabetes mellitus, because symptoms of diabetes sometimes are not realized.

According to USNews, here are 8 indicators of diabetes which is not realized and is quite surprising:

1. Large breast size

According to a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, women with a bra size D or more at age of around 20 years old, are 5 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes (due to lifestyle). This is because breast size is a significant factor of body mass index (BMI).

2. Eyebrow color

When some hair on your body has started to become gray but the eyebrows color remains dark, then you should immediately check blood glucose levels. This is because diabetes can hamper the process of graying eyebrows.

3. Month of birth

A new research published in the American Diabetes Association, showed that the month of birth play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes. The results showed that babies born in spring are more likely to develop type 1 diabetes. The exact cause of this is unknown, but researchers suspect this is due to maternal diet or exposure to solar radiation.

4. Hearing problem

You should not ignore the disturbances in the sense of hearing, because hearing problem is now associated with complications of diabetes. People with diabetes are 2 times more likely to experience hearing problems.

5. Short legs

Studies at Johns Hopkins University found that men with short legs are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than men with long leg. This does not mean that there is a high impact on diabetes risk, but the ratio of leg length. This finding suggests something deeper in the risk of diabetes and fetal development.

6. Tooth decay

According to the Harvard Schools of Public Health and Dental Medicine, people who have periodontal disease or tooth loss increases the risk for diabetes. The study found that people who lose a tooth increases the risk of diabetes for both sexes at 14-29 percent, while periodontal disease is considered as a complication of diabetes.

7. Hair loss

Diabetic patients with atherosclerosis may also experience hair loss or hair thinning. This happens because there is thickening of the walls of blood vessels that narrow arteries throughout the body, including skin. Narrow blood vessels mean less oxygen, which causes symptoms such as loss of hair and shiny and thickened skin. Hair loss is not confined to one particular area of the body.

8. Exposure to pesticides

Based on the Agricultural Health Study, farmers who are often exposed to pesticides may increase the risk of diabetes, given the long-term exposure to pesticides and herbicides have been found to increase risk of diabetes.

Dairy Fat and Diabetes

Introduction

Having access to embargoed news from the Annals of Internal Medicine is really fun. I get to report on important studies at the same time as the news media. But this week, I got my hands on a study that I'm not sure will be widely reported (Mozaffarian et al. Trans-palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in US Adults. Ann Internal Med. 2010). Why? Because it suggests that dairy fat may protect against diabetes.

The lead author is Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, whose meta-analysis of diet-heart controlled trials I recently criticized (1). I think this is a good opportunity for me to acknowledge that Dr. Mozaffarian and his colleagues have published some brave papers in the past that challenged conventional wisdom. For example, in a 2005 study, they found that postmenopausal women who ate the most saturated fat had the slowest rate of narrowing of their coronary arteries over time (2). It wasn't a popular finding but he has defended it. His colleague Dr. Walter Willett thinks dietary fat is fine (although he favors corn oil), whole eggs can be part of a healthy diet, and there are worse things than eating coconut from time to time. Dr. Willett is also a strong advocate of unrefined foods and home cooking, which I believe are two of the main pillars of healthy eating.

Let's hit the data

Investigators collected two measures of dairy fat intake in 3,736 Americans:

1. 24 hour dietary recall questionnaires, six times. This records volunteers' food intake at the beginning of the study.
2. Blood (plasma phospholipid) content of trans-palmitoleate. Dairy fat and red meat fat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid, so it reflects the intake of these foods. Most of the trans-palmitoleate came from dairy in this study, although red meat was also a significant source.

After adjustment for confounding factors, trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin and lower calculated insulin resistance. Furthermore, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Keep in mind, however, that this is an observational study and does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes.

Even though certain blood fatty acids partially represent food intake, they can also represent metabolic conditions. For example, people on their way to type II diabetes tend to have more saturated blood lipids, independent of diet (3, 4)*. So it's reassuring to see that dietary trans-palmitoleate intake was closely related to the serum level. The investigators also noted that "greater whole-fat dairy consumption was associated with lower risk for diabetes," which increases my confidence that serum trans-palmitoleate is actually measuring dairy fat intake to some degree. However, in the end, I think the striking association they observed was partially due to dairy fat intake, but mostly due to metabolic factors that had nothing to do with dairy fat**.

Here's a nice quote:

Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may mediate these effects***. They also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, which would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of the health effects of dairy consumption are better established.

Never thought I'd see the day! Not bad, but I can do better:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don't waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We're sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

What are these studies suggesting that dairy fat may be protective, you ask? That will be the topic of another post, my friends.


*Probably due to uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis because of insulin resistance. Many studies find that serum saturated fatty acids are higher in those with metabolic dysfunction, independent of diet. They sometimes interpret that as showing that people are lying about their diet, rather than that serum saturated fatty acids don't reflect diet very well. For example, in one study I cited, investigators found no relationship between dietary saturated fat and diabetes risk, but they did find a relationship between serum saturated fatty acids and diabetes risk (5). They then proceeded to refer to the serum measurements as "objective measurements" that can tease apart "important associations with diabetes incidence that may be missed when assessed by [food questionnaires]." They go on to say that serum fatty acids are "useful as biomarkers for fatty acid intake," which is true for some fatty acids but not remotely for most of the saturated ones, according to their own study. Basically, they try to insinuate that dietary saturated fat is the culprit, and the only reason they couldn't measure that association directly is that people who went on to develop diabetes inaccurately reported their diets! A more likely explanation is that elevated serum saturated fatty acids are simply a marker of insulin resistance (and thus uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis), and had nothing to do with diet.

**Why do I say that? Because mathematically adjusting for dairy and meat fat intake did not substantially weaken the association between phospholipid trans-palmitoleate and reduced diabetes risk (Table 4). In other words, if you believe their math, dairy/meat fat intake only accounted for a small part of the protective association. That implies that healthy people maintain a higher serum phospholipid trans-palmitoleate level than unhealthy people, even if both groups eat the same amount of trans-palmitoleate. If they hadn't mentioned that full-fat dairy fat intake was directly associated with a lower risk of diabetes, I would not find the study very interesting because I'd have my doubts that it was relevant to diet.

***I find it highly doubtful that trans-palmitoleate entirely mediates the positive health outcomes associated with dairy fat intake. I think it's more likely to simply be a marker of milk fat, which contains a number of potentially protective substances such as CLA, vitamin K2, butyric acid, and the natural trans fats including trans-palmitoleate. In addition, dairy fat is low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. I find it unlikely that their fancy math was able to tease those factors apart, because those substances all travel together in dairy fat. trans-palmitoleate pills are not going to replace butter.

****That's a joke. I think butter can be part of healthy diet, but that doesn't mean gorging on it is a good idea. This study does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes, it simply suggests that it may.

Dairy Fat and Diabetes

Introduction

Having access to embargoed news from the Annals of Internal Medicine is really fun. I get to report on important studies at the same time as the news media. But this week, I got my hands on a study that I'm not sure will be widely reported (Mozaffarian et al. Trans-palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in US Adults. Ann Internal Med. 2010). Why? Because it suggests that dairy fat may protect against diabetes.

The lead author is Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, whose meta-analysis of diet-heart controlled trials I recently criticized (1). I think this is a good opportunity for me to acknowledge that Dr. Mozaffarian and his colleagues have published some brave papers in the past that challenged conventional wisdom. For example, in a 2005 study, they found that postmenopausal women who ate the most saturated fat had the slowest rate of narrowing of their coronary arteries over time (2). It wasn't a popular finding but he has defended it. His colleague Dr. Walter Willett thinks dietary fat is fine (although he favors corn oil), whole eggs can be part of a healthy diet, and there are worse things than eating coconut from time to time. Dr. Willett is also a strong advocate of unrefined foods and home cooking, which I believe are two of the main pillars of healthy eating.

Let's hit the data

Investigators collected two measures of dairy fat intake in 3,736 Americans:

1. 24 hour dietary recall questionnaires, six times. This records volunteers' food intake at the beginning of the study.
2. Blood (plasma phospholipid) content of trans-palmitoleate. Dairy fat and red meat fat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid, so it reflects the intake of these foods. Most of the trans-palmitoleate came from dairy in this study, although red meat was also a significant source.

After adjustment for confounding factors, trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin and lower calculated insulin resistance. Furthermore, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Keep in mind, however, that this is an observational study and does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes.

Even though certain blood fatty acids partially represent food intake, they can also represent metabolic conditions. For example, people on their way to type II diabetes tend to have more saturated blood lipids, independent of diet (3, 4)*. So it's reassuring to see that dietary trans-palmitoleate intake was closely related to the serum level. The investigators also noted that "greater whole-fat dairy consumption was associated with lower risk for diabetes," which increases my confidence that serum trans-palmitoleate is actually measuring dairy fat intake to some degree. However, in the end, I think the striking association they observed was partially due to dairy fat intake, but mostly due to metabolic factors that had nothing to do with dairy fat**.

Here's a nice quote:

Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may mediate these effects***. They also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, which would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of the health effects of dairy consumption are better established.

Never thought I'd see the day! Not bad, but I can do better:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don't waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We're sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

What are these studies suggesting that dairy fat may be protective, you ask? That will be the topic of another post, my friends.


*Probably due to uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis because of insulin resistance. Many studies find that serum saturated fatty acids are higher in those with metabolic dysfunction, independent of diet. They sometimes interpret that as showing that people are lying about their diet, rather than that serum saturated fatty acids don't reflect diet very well. For example, in one study I cited, investigators found no relationship between dietary saturated fat and diabetes risk, but they did find a relationship between serum saturated fatty acids and diabetes risk (5). They then proceeded to refer to the serum measurements as "objective measurements" that can tease apart "important associations with diabetes incidence that may be missed when assessed by [food questionnaires]." They go on to say that serum fatty acids are "useful as biomarkers for fatty acid intake," which is true for some fatty acids but not remotely for most of the saturated ones, according to their own study. Basically, they try to insinuate that dietary saturated fat is the culprit, and the only reason they couldn't measure that association directly is that people who went on to develop diabetes inaccurately reported their diets! A more likely explanation is that elevated serum saturated fatty acids are simply a marker of insulin resistance (and thus uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis), and had nothing to do with diet.

**Why do I say that? Because mathematically adjusting for dairy and meat fat intake did not substantially weaken the association between phospholipid trans-palmitoleate and reduced diabetes risk (Table 4). In other words, if you believe their math, dairy/meat fat intake only accounted for a small part of the protective association. That implies that healthy people maintain a higher serum phospholipid trans-palmitoleate level than unhealthy people, even if both groups eat the same amount of trans-palmitoleate. If they hadn't mentioned that full-fat dairy fat intake was directly associated with a lower risk of diabetes, I would not find the study very interesting because I'd have my doubts that it was relevant to diet.

***I find it highly doubtful that trans-palmitoleate entirely mediates the positive health outcomes associated with dairy fat intake. I think it's more likely to simply be a marker of milk fat, which contains a number of potentially protective substances such as CLA, vitamin K2, butyric acid, and the natural trans fats including trans-palmitoleate. In addition, dairy fat is low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. I find it unlikely that their fancy math was able to tease those factors apart, because those substances all travel together in dairy fat. trans-palmitoleate pills are not going to replace butter.

****That's a joke. I think butter can be part of healthy diet, but that doesn't mean gorging on it is a good idea. This study does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes, it simply suggests that it may.

Dairy Fat and Diabetes

Introduction

Having access to embargoed news from the Annals of Internal Medicine is really fun. I get to report on important studies at the same time as the news media. But this week, I got my hands on a study that I'm not sure will be widely reported (Mozaffarian et al. Trans-palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in US Adults. Ann Internal Med. 2010). Why? Because it suggests that dairy fat may protect against diabetes.

The lead author is Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, whose meta-analysis of diet-heart controlled trials I recently criticized (1). I think this is a good opportunity for me to acknowledge that Dr. Mozaffarian and his colleagues have published some brave papers in the past that challenged conventional wisdom. For example, in a 2005 study, they found that postmenopausal women who ate the most saturated fat had the slowest rate of narrowing of their coronary arteries over time (2). It wasn't a popular finding but he has defended it. His colleague Dr. Walter Willett thinks dietary fat is fine (although he favors corn oil), whole eggs can be part of a healthy diet, and there are worse things than eating coconut from time to time. Dr. Willett is also a strong advocate of unrefined foods and home cooking, which I believe are two of the main pillars of healthy eating.

Let's hit the data

Investigators collected two measures of dairy fat intake in 3,736 Americans:

1. 24 hour dietary recall questionnaires, six times. This records volunteers' food intake at the beginning of the study.
2. Blood (plasma phospholipid) content of trans-palmitoleate. Dairy fat and red meat fat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid, so it reflects the intake of these foods. Most of the trans-palmitoleate came from dairy in this study, although red meat was also a significant source.

After adjustment for confounding factors, trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin and lower calculated insulin resistance. Furthermore, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Keep in mind, however, that this is an observational study and does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes.

Even though certain blood fatty acids partially represent food intake, they can also represent metabolic conditions. For example, people on their way to type II diabetes tend to have more saturated blood lipids, independent of diet (3, 4)*. So it's reassuring to see that dietary trans-palmitoleate intake was closely related to the serum level. The investigators also noted that "greater whole-fat dairy consumption was associated with lower risk for diabetes," which increases my confidence that serum trans-palmitoleate is actually measuring dairy fat intake to some degree. However, in the end, I think the striking association they observed was partially due to dairy fat intake, but mostly due to metabolic factors that had nothing to do with dairy fat**.

Here's a nice quote:

Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may mediate these effects***. They also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, which would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of the health effects of dairy consumption are better established.

Never thought I'd see the day! Not bad, but I can do better:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don't waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We're sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

What are these studies suggesting that dairy fat may be protective, you ask? That will be the topic of another post, my friends.


*Probably due to uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis because of insulin resistance. Many studies find that serum saturated fatty acids are higher in those with metabolic dysfunction, independent of diet. They sometimes interpret that as showing that people are lying about their diet, rather than that serum saturated fatty acids don't reflect diet very well. For example, in one study I cited, investigators found no relationship between dietary saturated fat and diabetes risk, but they did find a relationship between serum saturated fatty acids and diabetes risk (5). They then proceeded to refer to the serum measurements as "objective measurements" that can tease apart "important associations with diabetes incidence that may be missed when assessed by [food questionnaires]." They go on to say that serum fatty acids are "useful as biomarkers for fatty acid intake," which is true for some fatty acids but not remotely for most of the saturated ones, according to their own study. Basically, they try to insinuate that dietary saturated fat is the culprit, and the only reason they couldn't measure that association directly is that people who went on to develop diabetes inaccurately reported their diets! A more likely explanation is that elevated serum saturated fatty acids are simply a marker of insulin resistance (and thus uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis), and had nothing to do with diet.

**Why do I say that? Because mathematically adjusting for dairy and meat fat intake did not substantially weaken the association between phospholipid trans-palmitoleate and reduced diabetes risk (Table 4). In other words, if you believe their math, dairy/meat fat intake only accounted for a small part of the protective association. That implies that healthy people maintain a higher serum phospholipid trans-palmitoleate level than unhealthy people, even if both groups eat the same amount of trans-palmitoleate. If they hadn't mentioned that full-fat dairy fat intake was directly associated with a lower risk of diabetes, I would not find the study very interesting because I'd have my doubts that it was relevant to diet.

***I find it highly doubtful that trans-palmitoleate entirely mediates the positive health outcomes associated with dairy fat intake. I think it's more likely to simply be a marker of milk fat, which contains a number of potentially protective substances such as CLA, vitamin K2, butyric acid, and the natural trans fats including trans-palmitoleate. In addition, dairy fat is low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. I find it unlikely that their fancy math was able to tease those factors apart, because those substances all travel together in dairy fat. trans-palmitoleate pills are not going to replace butter.

****That's a joke. I think butter can be part of healthy diet, but that doesn't mean gorging on it is a good idea. This study does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes, it simply suggests that it may.

Dairy Fat and Diabetes

Introduction

Having access to embargoed news from the Annals of Internal Medicine is really fun. I get to report on important studies at the same time as the news media. But this week, I got my hands on a study that I'm not sure will be widely reported (Mozaffarian et al. Trans-palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in US Adults. Ann Internal Med. 2010). Why? Because it suggests that dairy fat may protect against diabetes.

The lead author is Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, whose meta-analysis of diet-heart controlled trials I recently criticized (1). I think this is a good opportunity for me to acknowledge that Dr. Mozaffarian and his colleagues have published some brave papers in the past that challenged conventional wisdom. For example, in a 2005 study, they found that postmenopausal women who ate the most saturated fat had the slowest rate of narrowing of their coronary arteries over time (2). It wasn't a popular finding but he has defended it. His colleague Dr. Walter Willett thinks dietary fat is fine (although he favors corn oil), whole eggs can be part of a healthy diet, and there are worse things than eating coconut from time to time. Dr. Willett is also a strong advocate of unrefined foods and home cooking, which I believe are two of the main pillars of healthy eating.

Let's hit the data

Investigators collected two measures of dairy fat intake in 3,736 Americans:

1. 24 hour dietary recall questionnaires, six times. This records volunteers' food intake at the beginning of the study.
2. Blood (plasma phospholipid) content of trans-palmitoleate. Dairy fat and red meat fat are virtually the only sources of this fatty acid, so it reflects the intake of these foods. Most of the trans-palmitoleate came from dairy in this study, although red meat was also a significant source.

After adjustment for confounding factors, trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with a smaller waist circumference, higher HDL cholesterol, lower serum triglycerides, lower C-reactive protein, lower fasting insulin and lower calculated insulin resistance. Furthermore, people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Keep in mind, however, that this is an observational study and does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes.

Even though certain blood fatty acids partially represent food intake, they can also represent metabolic conditions. For example, people on their way to type II diabetes tend to have more saturated blood lipids, independent of diet (3, 4)*. So it's reassuring to see that dietary trans-palmitoleate intake was closely related to the serum level. The investigators also noted that "greater whole-fat dairy consumption was associated with lower risk for diabetes," which increases my confidence that serum trans-palmitoleate is actually measuring dairy fat intake to some degree. However, in the end, I think the striking association they observed was partially due to dairy fat intake, but mostly due to metabolic factors that had nothing to do with dairy fat**.

Here's a nice quote:

Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may mediate these effects***. They also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, which would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of the health effects of dairy consumption are better established.

Never thought I'd see the day! Not bad, but I can do better:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don't waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We're sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

What are these studies suggesting that dairy fat may be protective, you ask? That will be the topic of another post, my friends.


*Probably due to uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis because of insulin resistance. Many studies find that serum saturated fatty acids are higher in those with metabolic dysfunction, independent of diet. They sometimes interpret that as showing that people are lying about their diet, rather than that serum saturated fatty acids don't reflect diet very well. For example, in one study I cited, investigators found no relationship between dietary saturated fat and diabetes risk, but they did find a relationship between serum saturated fatty acids and diabetes risk (5). They then proceeded to refer to the serum measurements as "objective measurements" that can tease apart "important associations with diabetes incidence that may be missed when assessed by [food questionnaires]." They go on to say that serum fatty acids are "useful as biomarkers for fatty acid intake," which is true for some fatty acids but not remotely for most of the saturated ones, according to their own study. Basically, they try to insinuate that dietary saturated fat is the culprit, and the only reason they couldn't measure that association directly is that people who went on to develop diabetes inaccurately reported their diets! A more likely explanation is that elevated serum saturated fatty acids are simply a marker of insulin resistance (and thus uncontrolled de novo lipogenesis), and had nothing to do with diet.

**Why do I say that? Because mathematically adjusting for dairy and meat fat intake did not substantially weaken the association between phospholipid trans-palmitoleate and reduced diabetes risk (Table 4). In other words, if you believe their math, dairy/meat fat intake only accounted for a small part of the protective association. That implies that healthy people maintain a higher serum phospholipid trans-palmitoleate level than unhealthy people, even if both groups eat the same amount of trans-palmitoleate. If they hadn't mentioned that full-fat dairy fat intake was directly associated with a lower risk of diabetes, I would not find the study very interesting because I'd have my doubts that it was relevant to diet.

***I find it highly doubtful that trans-palmitoleate entirely mediates the positive health outcomes associated with dairy fat intake. I think it's more likely to simply be a marker of milk fat, which contains a number of potentially protective substances such as CLA, vitamin K2, butyric acid, and the natural trans fats including trans-palmitoleate. In addition, dairy fat is low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. I find it unlikely that their fancy math was able to tease those factors apart, because those substances all travel together in dairy fat. trans-palmitoleate pills are not going to replace butter.

****That's a joke. I think butter can be part of healthy diet, but that doesn't mean gorging on it is a good idea. This study does not prove that dairy fat prevents diabetes, it simply suggests that it may.

Interview with Chris Voigt of 20 Potatoes a Day

Introduction

Chris Voigt is the executive director of the Washington State Potato Commission, which supports and promotes the Washington state potato industry (1). On October 1st, Mr. Voigt began a two month, potato-only diet to raise awareness about the health properties of potatoes. It was partially in response to the recent decision by the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) low-income assistance program to remove potatoes from the list of vegetables it will pay for. Mr. Voigt's potato diet has been a media sensation, leading to widespread coverage in several countries. He maintains a website and blog called 20 Potatoes a Day.


Diet Facts

For 60 days, Mr Voigt's diet consisted of nothing but potatoes and a small amount of cooking oil (canola and olive), with no added nutritional supplements. Based on what he has told me, I estimate that 10-15% of his calories came from fat, 10% from protein and 75-80% from high-glycemic carbohydrate. His calorie intake ranged from 1,600 kcal (first 3 weeks) to 2,200 kcal (remaining 5.5 weeks) per day. Prior to the diet, he estimated that his calorie requirement was 2,200 kcal, so he attempted to stay as close to that as possible.

Health Markers

Mr. Voigt has posted the results of physical examinations, including bloodwork, from the beginning, middle and end of the diet. The change he experienced during that time is nothing short of remarkable. He shed 21 pounds, his fasting glucose decreased by 10 mg/dL (104 to 94 mg/dL), his serum triglycerides dropped by nearly 50%, his HDL cholesterol increased slightly, and his calculated LDL cholesterol dropped by a stunning 41% (142 to 84 mg/dL). The changes in his HDL, triglycerides and fasting glucose are consistent with improved insulin sensitivity (2, 3), and are not consistent with a shift of LDL particle size to the dangerous "small, dense" variety (4).

Interview

What was your diet like prior to the potato diet?

My best estimate is that it was probably a little better than the average US citizen only because of a high rate of produce consumption. I generally would eat about 10 servings of fruits and vegetables a day. But I ate everything else too. I would eat a wide range of food, a little bit of everything, including foods that aren’t considered “healthy”.

You essentially ate nothing but potatoes, fat and flavorings for two months. Can you give us an idea of how much fat you were eating? What kind of fat was it?

I averaged about 2 tablespoons of cooking oil a day over the span of the 60 days. Canola oil was used for frying and olive oil was used for roasting.

How was your digestion?

Potatoes are pretty easy on the digestive system. I actually got a lot of emails from people who suffer from severe digestive disorders and literally, potatoes are the only thing they can eat. My 60 days of potatoes was nothing compared to some folks with these digestive disorders. I was getting a lot of fiber so things were pretty regular, but not too regular :)

You lost 21 pounds during your two months of eating only potatoes. Do you have a sense of whether it came out of fat, muscle or both? For example, did your pants become looser?

Pants definitely became looser. I also noticed it in my neck size for shirts. I’m assuming most all of it was due to fat loss.

Do you think you were able to meet your calorie goal of 2,200 calories per day? Were you hungry during the diet?

I was not meeting the goal of 2,200 calories a day during the first 3 weeks of the diet. During the first three weeks of the diet I only ate until I was full. I didn’t realize that potatoes would give me such a high sense of fullness after each meal. So for those first 3 weeks, I was only consuming about 1,600 calories a day. After the third week I had lost 12 pounds and realized that I needed to change strategy. I then began to eat more potatoes despite the sense of fullness I was experiencing. So for the remaining 5 ½ weeks I was very diligent about eating the 2,200 calories. I continued to lose weight but at a slower place. I lost an additional 9 pounds over the course of those remaining 5 1/2 weeks. At the start of my diet I estimated, via a couple different on line calorie calculators, that I burn about 2,200 calories a day. Since I continued to lose weight, I’m assuming I actually burn closer to 2,800 calories a day. Something that may have also played a role in continued weight loss was the amount of resistant starch I was getting from potatoes. I ate a lot of cooked potatoes that had been refrigerated. These are generally higher in resistant starch. If I were to do the diet again, I would like to set up an experiment to gauge the effect of resistant starch.

What foods did you crave the most?

I craved mostly foods that had a “juicy crunch”, like an apple, or cucumbers, or carrots, or celery. I never acquired a taste for raw potatoes so virtually all the potatoes I consumed were cooked. No matter how you cook your potatoes, you always get that same soft cooked texture. I craved foods with a crisper texture.

How was your energy level?

My energy level was very good the entire time of the diet. I really didn’t notice a change in energy at the start of the diet so I assumed that the potato diet didn’t have a positive or negative effect on my energy level. It wasn’t until I finished the diet and started to consume other foods that I noticed my energy level has seemed to drop a bit.

How did you feel overall? Were there any unexpected effects of the diet?

I felt really good on the diet. I had lots of energy, slept good at night, and seemed to avoid the cold viruses that circulated at home and work.

The only unusual thing that occurred is what my wife told me. I’m a habitual snorer. The day I started eating only potatoes, my snoring stopped. It restarted the day I started to include other foods in my diet. I’m assuming it was just some weird coincidence but that’s what she tells me.

My doctor and I expected my cholesterol to drop but not at the level we saw. I’ve had borderline high cholesterol for the past decade. I started the diet at 214 and saw it drop to 147 at the end of 60 days. We anticipated a drop of maybe 10-25 points. It was a huge surprise to see a 67 point drop.

Your fasting glucose went from 104 mg/dL, which I consider high, to 94 mg/dL, which is on the high side for someone eating a high-carbohydrate diet, but within the clinically normal range. Do you have a family history of diabetes?

No history of diabetes. My parents are in their early eighties and their parents lived to their 70’s and 80’s with no history of type one or two diabetes.

Reading your blog posts, it seemed like you were having a hard time with the diet at first, but after a while you complained less and even seemed to enjoy it at times. Did you get used to it?

I would say that week 2 and 3 were probably the hardest. The first week was easy probably because of the novelty of the diet. Then reality set in for week 2 and 3. After that, I found my groove and it got easier. During the work week was easy but weekends, particularly Sunday’s, were the hardest. During the work week I did most of my eating at my desk so I wasn’t around a lot of other people eating or surrounded by other foods. Weekends were more difficult because I was around other people every meal and always had other foods in front of me at home.

What kinds of potatoes did you eat?

I literally ate every kind of potato I could get my hands on. I ate yellow skin/yellow flesh potatoes, red skin/white flesh, red skin/red flesh, purple skin/white flesh, purple skin/purple flesh, russet potatoes with white flesh, russet potatoes with yellow flesh, white potatoes, yellow potatoes with white flesh, purple fingerlings, yellow fingerlings, red fingerlings and numerous experimental varieties.

Did you peel them or eat the skin?

I ate the skin at least 90% of the time if not more. There is a myth that all the nutrition in a potato is in the skin or right under the skin. That’s not true, there are nutrients spread throughout the potato but most of the fiber is located in the skin.

What variety of potato is your favorite?

It really depended on the cooking method. For frying, I preferred russet potatoes. For baking, I preferred red potatoes. For mashed, I preferred yellow potatoes. For roasting, a toss-up between russets and reds.

How long did it take you after the diet ended to eat another potato?

As strange as it sounds, potatoes were my first two meals after my diet ended. I was saving my first non-potato meal for a special event that was planned at the local Head Start facility. The beef, dairy, apple, and potato producers put together a nice dinner event and nutrition workshop for all the kids and their parents at the Head Start center in Moses Lake. I still eat potatoes pretty regularly, but most of the time now I’m eating them with more than just seasonings.

Are there any other facts about potatoes you think Whole Health Source readers might find interesting?

Just a reminder that I’m not encouraging anyone to follow in my footsteps and eat just potatoes. This diet is not intended to be the next “fad” diet but was simply a bold statement to remind people that there is a tremendous amount of nutrition in a potato. There is no one food product that can meet all of your nutritional needs. I fully support a well balanced healthy diet, which potatoes can be a part of.

In 2008, the United Nations declared it to be the “Year of the Potato”. This was done to bring attention to the fact that the potato is one of the most efficient crops for developing nations to grow, as a way of delivery a high level of nutrition to growing populations, with fewer needed resources than other traditional crops. In the summer of 2010, China approved new government policies that positioned the potato as the key crop to feed its growing population. The Chinese government formed a partnership with the International Potato Center in Peru to help them facilitate this new emphasis on the potato.

Thanks Chris, for doing your experiment and taking the time to share these details with us!

In the next post, I'll give my interpretation of all this.