"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Add To Favorites!