Why doesn't your doctor try to CURE diabetes?

Imagine you have breast cancer. You go to your doctor and she says, "As your pain worsens, we'll help you with pain medication. We'll fit you with a special bra to accommodate the tumor as it grows. That's all we're going to do."

"What?" you ask. "You mean just deal with the disease and its complications, but you're not going to help me get rid of it . . . cure it?"

It would be incredibly shocking to receive such advice. Then why is that the sort of advice given when you are diagnosed with diabetes?

Say you go to the doctor. Lab values show a fasting blood sugar of 156 mg/dl, HbA1c (a reflection of your previous 60 days average glucose) of 7.1%. Both values show clear-cut diabetes.

Your doctor advises you to 1) start the drug metformin, then 2) talk to the diabetic teaching nurse or dietitian about an American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet.

The ADA diet prescribed encourages you to increase carbohydrates and cut fats at each meal and maintain a consistent intake so that you don't experience hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episodes. You follow the diet, which causes you to gain 10-15 lbs per year, increasing your "need" for diabetes medication. You doctor adds Actos, then Januvia, then injections of Byetta.

Three years and 34 lbs later, you are not responding well to the drug combination with blood sugars rarely staying below 200 mg/dl. You've developed protein in your urine ("proteinuria"), lost 30% of your kidney function, and you are starting to lose sensation in your feet. So the doctor replaces some of your medication with several insulin injections per day.

This formula is followed millions of times per year in the U.S. So where along the way did your doctor mention anything about a "cure"?

Adult diabetes is the one chronic disease that nobody cares to cure. Treat it, maintain control over blood sugars, but cure it? Most physicians say it's impossible.

The tragedy is that diabetes is a curable condition. I've seen it happen many times. Physicians dedicated to curing diabetes like low-carb expert, Dr. Mary Vernon, have cured it countless times. Dr. Eric Westman and colleagues have been building the case for the carbohydrate-restricted cure for diabetes with studies such as this. In this last study, of the 8 participants on insulin + medications at the start of the study, 5 no longer required medications at the close of the study--they were essentially non-diabetic.

I tell patients that diabetes, in fact, is a disease you choose to have or not to have--provided you are provided the right diet and tools. Sadly, rarely are diabetics told about the right diet and tools.

That's why Cadbury Schweppes has been a major contributor to the American Diabetes Association, as are other processed food manufacturers and the drug industry, all who stand to profit from maintaining the status quo.

The cure? Eliminate or at least dramatically reduce carbohydrates, the foods that increase blood sugar.

Note: If you have diabetes and you are taking any prescription agents, such as glyburide, glipizide, insulin, and some others, you will need to discuss how to manage your medications if you reduce carbohydrates. The problem is finding a doctor or other resource to help you do this.

Comments (88) -

  • Matt Stone

    7/21/2010 2:09:21 PM |

    Nobody cares to cure diabetes?  That's certainly not true of guys like Joel Fuhrman who have shown the ability to get over 60% of patients off of insulin and all meds within the first month of treatment.  

    That's funny that you call carb restriction a cure though.  

    I got a flat tire the other day and took it to Big O Tires and the guy said, "hey, I've got an amazing new cure for flat tires that won't cost you a single penny!"

    "Wow, do tell!"  

    "Yeah, just park it in your garage, and don't drive it anymore!"

  • KitingRules

    7/21/2010 2:44:16 PM |

    @Matt Stone - exactly.  I find it odd that Dr. Davis is claiming nobody is interested in curing diabetes other than low carb proponents.

    Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Fuhrman, as well as the raw food folks like Doug Graham all have helped countless diabetics eliminate the need for insulin, or at least lower it in the most severe cases.  They have done this for years.  

    And they do so with diets that allow for plenty of whole food carbohydrates, with naturally occurring, but low, amounts of fat.

    If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare.

  • PeterVermont

    7/21/2010 3:10:00 PM |

    I'm with Dr. Davis. Saying 'nobody' is hyperbole but it does seem to be the case that most physicians do not try to cure diabetes and in fact will dispute that it is possible.

    Low carbohydrate simply makes sense since type 2 diabetes is a sugar metabolism disorder (or a case of sugar poisoning from an evolutionary point of view). It makes sense to reduce the poison.

  • KitingRules

    7/21/2010 3:34:07 PM |

    Sugar isn't poison.  Our cells run on glucose.

    "from an evolutionary point of view" = merely making up a story to fit the teller's preconceptions

    Peruvians eating potatoes are hardly being poisoned.  Asians eating white rice are hardly being poisoned.

    Dr. Fuhrman hardly is poisoning his patients on whole plant foods.

    Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object

    Joel Fuhrman MD has cured hundreds of people of diabetes using diet and lifestyle. The American Diabetic Association wanted him to write about his work -- but then objected because their sponsor, Eli Lilly drug company, might feel threatened by an MD promoting a cure which could destroy the market for their diabetes medications. This is an excerpt from Dr. Furhman's presentation at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo 2007.

  • Steve Cooksey

    7/21/2010 3:39:47 PM |

    My favorite analogy to so called "DIABETES TREATMENT" used to be... "does Alcoholic's Anonymous tell alcoholics to only drink 6-11 beers a day??"

    Then why does American Diabetes Ass. tell diabetics to eat 6-11 servings of carbs per day????

    BUT NOW.... this analogy may be my favorite... Smile)

    Thanks Dr. Davis!

  • Anonymous

    7/21/2010 3:47:41 PM |

    For some reason the opening analogy really freaked me out. I'm already paranoid and freaked out that I must be dying from something that I don't know of. Every bit of me wants to trust the medical establishment but I know they are more concerned with their legal liability and lawsuits than seeing me get healthy. You gotta take care of yourself first and the average doctors are no exception.

    Go easy with the analogies there, Dr. Davis.

    -- Boris

  • Anonymous

    7/21/2010 4:24:56 PM |

    Fuhrman, McDougall, and others often point to studies comparing their diets with the ADA diet.  The results show weight loss and improvements over the ADA diet, BUT the criteria being used for acceptable blood glucose levels are still too high.

    Check out "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars"  by Richard K. Bernstein.  My Mom (T2) has been on the plan for just about 2 years now.  She's lost 60 lbs., HbA1C dropped from 6.8 to 5.3, total cholesterol is down, LDL is down, triglycerides are down, and complications such as retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy have stabilized or improved.

  • LeonRover

    7/21/2010 4:35:09 PM |

    If one cares to buy Matt Stone's E-book titled Die-uh-beat-eeez, he suggests 5 approaches to curing Type 2 Diabetes, including Fuhrman's.

    I draw your attention to his last & least favoured approach - Low Carb - and what the author Ron Stone writes:

    ".. assume that a person tries the other strategies laid out in this book .. and still can't seem make progress ...  in some circumstances a low carb diet really is the most prudent diet."

    Verba ipsa loquitur.

  • Anonymous

    7/21/2010 4:38:23 PM |

    Hey! Give Dr. Davis a break! When he says nobody is interested in curing diabetes, he means that the vast majority of physicians (but not ALL of them) will recommend the ADA diet to their patients instead of something else (i.e. low carb, whole foods, etc.).

    KitingRules said, “Sugar isn't poison. Our cells run on glucose.”.


    (Table) sugar isn't glucose...it's a disaccharide of half glucose and half fructose. Fructose in large quantities can be disastrous for a persons health....high triglycerides, excess uric acid, increased blood pressure, increased production of advanced glycation end products (AGEs), small LDL, more abdominal fat....the list goes on and on..

    As for Asians and rice, go to India and you'll see that many of their citizens suffer from diabetes too. Eating rice (or most any carbs) when you are on a calorie deficit isn't as damaging as eating carbs as part of a diet in which a person eats more calories then their body needs. In this country it's very easy to eat excess calories thought the course of a day. Food is just too abundant, cheap, tempting and calorie dense compared to other countries.

    Lastly, it would be helpful if people wouldn't use the comments section of this blog to promote their own sites, blogs, books, etc. but I know this is asking too much...

  • Anonymous

    7/21/2010 4:56:59 PM |

    Hey, Matt Stone, you keep using that photo from when you were low-carbing...when are you going to use a photo that shows how fat you are now?

  • Anonymous

    7/21/2010 5:06:32 PM |

    My father and grandfather were Diabetics. They slowly died of its complications.
    I work very hard not to be.
    They weren't as informed as we here are on how to deal with it or even reverse it.
    And I'm not sure they would've drastically altered their lifestyles.
    Other than asking for a "Bigger Pill".

    From what I saw, the average Endocrinologist is going with the flow of the ADA and Drug Co's.
    Granted, Diabetics are stubborn about lifestyle change.
    So, I guess that Doctors - in addition to all the effort on their parts - are just burnt out from many Diabetics not even looking to change.
    If the thought of Dialysis isn't enough to eat less bread... what is ?

    That aside -- if too much Insulin in the body is dangerous, isn't the injecting of massive amounts of it, just as dangerous ?

  • ShottleBop

    7/21/2010 5:06:40 PM |

    @ KitingRules (re: "If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare.")

    If you had diabetes and were working to control your blood sugars through diet, you might very well see what a quick, and large, effect fast-acting carbs--sugar, grains, starches--can have on your blood sugar levels, and discover that it is entirely possible to eat a low-carb diet that is ad libitum, rather than calorie-restricted, and that is very enjoyable, to boot.  In February 2008, my A1c was 6.5.  I was given a blood glucose meter and told to eat to it (check out Jenny Ruhl's "Blood Sugar 101", regarding "How to Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control").  I started restricting carbs, and lost 65 pounds in the next 9 months. My A1c was down to 5.5 by the 9-month mark, and has been at 5.3-5.4 since.

  • PeterVermont

    7/21/2010 5:13:27 PM |

    @Kiting Rules: your comment was too abrupt in tone to be considered polite discourse.

    Nearly anything we ingest can be a poison if taken to excess. While Kiting Rules criticizes: '"from an evolutionary point of view" = merely making up a story to fit the teller's preconceptions' I doubt there is any 'story' of hominid history that would include eating refined carbohydrates in anywhere close to the quantities the average American does... so sugar can in fact be considered a poison in modern quantities.

  • DogwoodTree05

    7/21/2010 5:20:39 PM |

    "Asians eating white rice are hardly being poisoned."

    Ah. the Asian rice paradox.  Asians aren't nearly as obese as Americans, but they do have high rates of type II diabetes. For example, the age-adjusted prevalance for Korean adults is 7.6%, compared to 8.2% for US adults (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/2/226.full).   The gap is rather small considering how much heavier Americans are and how much more processed food is consumed.

  • Peter

    7/21/2010 5:23:23 PM |

    The differences are real, but Drs Davis, Fuhrman, and McDougall could come up with a very long list of processed foods none of them would go near.  

    If someone has cured their diabetes on Fuhrman or Mcdougall's diet there's not much reason to eliminate grains a la Davis, but if they haven't, eliminating grains might be a worthwhile experiment.

  • Martin Levac

    7/21/2010 5:41:34 PM |

    Matt Stone, a cure means a method to remove a disease permanently. Since diabetes is merely chronic carbohydrate poisoning, removing carbs from the diet permanently is a cure.

    The correct analogy with the flat tire is that the nail that caused the flat tire is the carbs that caused diabetes. In other words, it's not all food that causes diabetes but only the carbs that do that. And avoiding driving the car on any road is like avoiding to eat all food. With humans, avoiding to eat all food would kill us in short order. It's not a cure if it kills us.

    But you gotta eat something. Yes, and it might as well be food. But carbs is food. Not if it makes you sick it isn't.

  • Martin Levac

    7/21/2010 5:47:11 PM |

    Correction, I meant to say "since diabetes is merely a symptom of chronic carbohydrate poisoning".

  • Helena

    7/21/2010 6:46:30 PM |

    Diabetes, just like many other health conditions and symptoms are a cash cow - why on earth should we cure it!??!

    One crazy example is a man named Jim Mann; he represents the Department of Human Nutrition and Medicine and the Edgar National Centre for Diabetes Research, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and have written in many publications about how to eat and live if you have diabetes (and his suggestions are along the line with ADA)... But he is also an advisor for 'Sugar Research Advisory Board' (SRAS). And after looking through their material SRAS is clearly a marketing device for SUGAR! SRAS is trying with many colorful Fact sheets to make sugar look healthy, good, and something every human need for survival… He even says things like "...there is insufficient evidence to recommend that sugar intake to be restricted..." in one publication called "Free sugars and human health: Sufficient evidence for action?"

    So, the world cares about diabetes alright... just not in the right way.

  • vivian

    7/21/2010 8:03:11 PM |

    KitingRules said "If I had diabetes, I'd much rather eat ad libitum of starches and fruits, rather than make myself miserable on calorie restricted low-carb fare."

    I do have T2 diabetes and I developed it after 12 years as a low-fat veg eating ad libitum of starches and fruits.  I received the same medical and 'nutritional' advice as most others newly-diagnosed T2s (the type that Dr. Davis is describing).  I chose the low-carb paleo approach and maintain an A1c of approx 4.9, along with a 75 pound weight loss, and across the board improved health markers.

    I now eat ad libitum of whole unprocessed foods, restricting (not eliminating) only carbs.  It's not calorie restricted and has never been miserable.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/22/2010 12:06:55 AM |

    Hi, Steve--

    I love your alcoholics analogy!

    Surely one for the road.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/22/2010 12:11:01 AM |

    If we were to compare, line by line, the diets of Dr. Joel Fuhrmann, Dr. John McDougall, and the sort of low-carb diets advocated by Drs. Mary Vernon and Dr. Eric Westman, I believe we would see more congruity than difference.

    Throw in the issue of Advanced Glycation End-products and I believe that introduces yet another twist to diet that 1) tempers enthusiasm for the notion of unlimited animal products cooked at high temperature, and 2) limits our carbohydrates.

    One issue I am vehement about: Grains are among the most destructive ingredients in the human diet. Wheat stands apart. What other food has its very own mortality rate?

  • perots

    7/22/2010 12:47:22 AM |

    Amen I think far too many in the medical field do exactly as Dr Davis has suggested.I spend hours a week trying to educate people who are literally falling apart because of their high glycemic loads and accompanying inflamation.They are very confused by the dueling nutrition camps. I have been a physician for 27 years, and I think the high glycemic loads and high omega6 intake is taking a horrible toll.It is human nature to think if a little is good then a more is better-so we have the extreme low fat and low carb camps.I think eliminating carbohydrates that produces a high sugar  load in the body is necessary-not all carbs.A thoughtful approach to fats that are less inflamatory and atherogenic is essential.That sadly is not what usually happens.Thank you Dr D

  • Lori Miller

    7/22/2010 2:00:28 AM |

    My mother, who is diabetic, has really been helped by a low-carb approach. She's losing weight, her blood sugar levels have decreased, and she no longer goes into carb-induced stupors. Unfortunately, I think this has come too late for her to ever get back to normal.

    I think Mr. Stone must have been jilted by a low-carber.

  • Baffled

    7/22/2010 3:03:03 AM |

    Correct me if I am wrong but if diabetes is a result of impaired pancreas function, i.e beta cells not producing adequate insulin due to their ceasing to function, how can this condition be "cured". One could probably learn to live with it as people do with say one lung or other organ deficiency, but that isn't what I would think as a cure, where normal function is returned. The only cure to me would be where the beta cells regenerate (isn't that what the stem cell research in this area is aiming to do)

    Can someone please clarify my confusion on what a cure would mean ? Thanks.

  • antidrugrep

    7/22/2010 3:34:12 AM |

    Enough good comments here to temper the patent nonsense, but as a frustrated "conventional" physician, I can't help but chime in.

    It infuriates me that so much money (some of it even taxpayers' money) is being spent on diabetes "research" when the salient physiological/biochemical pathways are well-known, and have been for years. Let me adopt a patronizing, condescending tone for a moment and walk the Baffled and otherwise confused thru it bit by bit:

    Type II diabetes is a result of insulin resistance,  which means the cells are less receptive to insulin prompting an influx of glucose(sugar). Insulin resistance may occur for a few different reasons, but one - I would say the most IMPORTANT one - is repeated and sustained excess insulin secretion. And the most important cause of this excess insulin? Excess blood sugar. The source of this excess blood sugar? Dietary sugar and starch. Sure, there's a lot of blather about arginine and other insulin secretogogues. But no other signal makes it happen like blood sugar.

    Simple enough?

    Here's the good news (for the umpteenth time, sorry everyone who's already said it clearly): the relatively small amounts of sugar and starch in fresh vegetables and WATERY fruits are mitigated by the relatively large amounts of fiber they contain. It slows it down, provides built-in damage control. Just don't eat the poisonous stuff with almost no fiber left to slow it down (grain products, etc). Get off the sugar/starch roller coaster, and you likely won't suffer abnormal hunger prodding you to overconsume daily, leading to your early death.

    Okay, I've got that off my chest. Now I'll leave the windmills alone and go back to saving patients one at a time. Keep up the good work, Dr Davis and company!

  • Hans Keer

    7/22/2010 6:33:18 AM |

    As Dr. Bernstein often explains it: Doctors can get sued when a patient dies from the consequences of hypoglycemia and therefore prefer to keep you eating carbs and "control" your hyperglycemia with medication. Here it shows the DMT2-pathway: http://bit.ly/d4oVSz Draw your own conclusions.

  • JTownsend

    7/22/2010 9:00:09 AM |

    Inspired by the good doctor I have essentially eliminated all grains from my diet, particularily wheat, with positive results. But I must admit that I do still enjoy a cold beer and am loath to forsake this one precious pleasure. Where does beer fit into this picture  I wonder?  Is it a grain product like bread or cereal, and accordingly should be eliminated for cardiac health?

  • moblogs

    7/22/2010 9:05:47 AM |

    I'm a little confused...If you have type 1 diabetes where your pancreas can't produce insulin, surely you can only cure that by having a pancreas transplant (not always successful) and treatment (possibly vitamin D) to prevent autoimmune attacks on the new pancreatic cells? Perhaps Type 2 is curable, but I don't know too much about either.

  • John R

    7/22/2010 11:21:21 AM |

    JTownsend: Most beers contain gluten. There are a few that don't, including some Belgian ales that are pretty good -- Green's is the brand to try. For something more like a session beer, in the US, look for Bard's, New Grist, or Redbridge (an Anheuser-Busch product).

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/22/2010 12:33:36 PM |


    Thanks for the great explanation!

    Baffled--The sort of diabetes you describe only applies to 1) certain genetic types of the sort Jenny Ruhl talks about, i.e., LADA, and 2) when you are irretrievably diabetic after many years of carbohydrate overconsumption and being overweight.

  • renegadediabetic

    7/22/2010 1:43:09 PM |

    I just use my glucose meter to see how rice, potatoes, etc., affect my blood sugar and I get a clear message that I need to avoid them.

    As for vegan diets, studies piting vegan diets against the ADA diet show that the vegan diets are "better" than the ADA diet.  However, the vegan diet resulted in average A1C of 7.1%.  Even the ADA defines "tight control" as an A1C < 7%.  While vegan diets may outperform the ADA diet, they still can't achieve even the ADA's anemic defininition of "tight control."  My A1C has consistently been below 6% wit low carb.  Plus, I like the tasty and satisfying food I eat on low carb.  It's much more satisfying than the low fat, high carb diet I used to eat while trying to combat morbid obesity.  I don't feel deprived at all.

    Big pharma has a big interest in keeping people "sick" or creating new condition to make people think they are "sick."  There is no cure for type 1 diabetes and I'm not sure that you can really "cure" type 2 either.  Low carb controls it to near normal blood sugar levels, but you can never go back to your previous way of eating and expect good blood sugar levels.

  • Jim

    7/22/2010 1:53:36 PM |

    @JTownsend and JohnR:

    I enjoy a brew or two also, and have been concerned about "gluten", gliadins, etc. After much searching, I have learned that if the beer is brewed from barley, the offending proteins, called "hordeins" in barley, are reduced in amount, broken into peptides rather than complete hordeins, and are barely measurable using European standards of "gluten free". The US standard is based on NO wheat/barley/rye/etc raw material input, rather than actual amount of the offending protein in the final product; so, under current regs, no barley product could qualify as gluten/gliadin/hordein free irrespective of how minute the quantity is.

    For a pretty complete discussion please see more at http://tinyurl.com/23929af

  • Gretchen

    7/22/2010 2:59:11 PM |

    I think it's dangerous to talk about "curing" diabetes. A cure would mean that you could eat a lot of sugar and starch and your blood sugar wouldn't go up, as a healthy young child can do.

    Getting people off insulin and all oral meds isn't a cure. Too many sellers of supplements say their expensive supplements will cure diabetes. When you read the details, you see the people got off meds, or their fastings were reduced from 200 to 140, still much too high. No cure!

    You can control your diabetes so your blood sugar levels are in normal ranges, but you're still not cured.

    And even a strict low-carb diet won't control diabetes in type 1 or in type 2 that was advanced when the person was diagnosed. I'm a type 2 on a LC diet, I haven't eaten wheat for more than 10 years, and even reaonable amounts of protein (less than 4 oz per serving) make my blood sugar go up.

    I find it offensive when people say my diabetes would be cured if I took some supplement or followed some particular diet.

    As for why most doctors don't try to cure your diabetes, it's because most doctors aren't in the business of doing research, and except for pancreas transplants, which are a last resort because the anti-rejection drugs are worse than the diabetes treatments, there is not yet a cure.

    Many, many people are working on it. But I think promising people a cure when there is not yet a cure is cruel.

    In the meantime, LC diets help many people get excellent control. But they're not cured.

    There will be a cure some day. But it's not here yet.

  • Roxanne Sukol MD

    7/22/2010 3:37:05 PM |

    I am so pleased to see your post on preventing diabetes.  Indeed, why not?  Walking the walk and talking the talk at "Your Health is on Your Plate," I am reversing diabetes and obesity by teaching folks how to tell the difference between real food and fabricated calories.  Roxanne Sukol MD  http://yourhealthisonyourplate.com

  • DrStrange

    7/22/2010 3:49:25 PM |

    "I think it's dangerous to talk about "curing" diabetes. A cure would mean that you could eat a lot of sugar and starch and your blood sugar wouldn't go up, as a healthy young child can do."

    Yes, healthy children can seemingly get away with this ie no big sugar spike.  It is also how they later become diabetic.  So in reality, if you include duration over time when looking at health, a healthy person just can not eat large amounts of refined starches and simple sugars.

  • DrStrange

    7/22/2010 3:56:47 PM |

    It is not just "the carbs" rather a bit more complex.  Insulin resistance is also caused by excess dietary calories, excess dietary fat, excess body weight, excess body fat (even if "normal" weight) and inactivity and, (see below) it seems overconsumption of animal protein esp red meat.  This last could ultimately be from beta cell damage from the iron overload.

    Pooled data from 12 different studies: High meat intake increases diabetes risk



  • stop smoking help

    7/22/2010 4:21:21 PM |

    I believe people are very suspicious of doctors who say they have cures for illnesses that are not talked about in the mainstream. Even at my hospital, nobody ever talks about curing diabetes. Now granted our patients aren't newbies to the disease and they already have neuropathies, etc.

    But skepticism is something we Americans are proud of and hang our hats on. Nobody wants to be taken for a ride. So unless physicians can get blinded, randomized, controlled studies with a large "n" published in respectable jounals (not yoga weekly), we'll remain cautious about blog postings like this one.

    But, I like that it's getting talked about, at least in a blog. Perhaps, enough will get published that funding will come available for some really nice, multi-center studies.

  • Gretchen

    7/22/2010 6:45:57 PM |

    Re the red meat study:

    Note that the cited study concludes, "However, the possibility that residual confounding could explain this association cannot be excluded."

    This study is of association, not cause. Quite often, people who eat a lot of red meat also eat a lot of french fries and drink a lot of sodas. Many studies lump red meat together with processed meats.

    Also, this is a meta-analysis and they are notorious. Unfortunately, Diabetologia charges a lot for full text, so one can't do a critical reading.

  • Gretchen

    7/22/2010 6:48:28 PM |

    "Insulin resistance is also caused by . . ." There's also a genetic component, some people estimate about 50%. Some ethnic groups have more insulin resistance to start with.

  • JTownsend

    7/22/2010 6:55:25 PM |

    Thanks for the feedback fellas (JohnR & Jim) and your heads up on gluten in beer. Very interesting. Im not clear on the connection between gluten and cardiac health though, particularly as it relates to such things as the triggering formation of small LDL particles (which this blog views as a potent predictor of cardiovascular events). The other thing I wonder about is beers possibly harmful effect on blood glucose levels and glycation, given the mitigating effects of alcohol on liver function (ie liver production of glucose interrupted by alcohol). I cant find info that puts this all together in layman terms re cardiac health aside from the brewery sponsored media noise.

  • JTownsend

    7/22/2010 6:55:53 PM |

    Thanks for the feedback fellas (JohnR & Jim) and your heads up on gluten in beer. Very interesting. Im not clear on the connection between gluten and cardiac health though, particularly as it relates to such things as the triggering formation of small LDL particles (which this blog views as a potent predictor of cardiovascular events). The other thing I wonder about is beers possibly harmful effect on blood glucose levels and glycation, given the mitigating effects of alcohol on liver function (ie liver production of glucose interrupted by alcohol). I cant find info that puts this all together in layman terms re cardiac health aside from the brewery sponsored media noise.

  • Gretchen

    7/22/2010 6:56:12 PM |

    "Usually, when we think about foods that increase diabetes risk, we think of white flour-based processed foods, sugary sodas, and desserts, since these foods are known to produce dangerous increases in blood glucose. Also, many diabetics are under the impression that that they should avoid carbohydrate-containing foods, and eat higher levels of protein to keep their blood glucose levels in check."

    I find these generalizations fascinating. It wasn't too long ago that everyone was blaming diabetes on fat. Even today, many people with diabetes are told to follow the low-fat "ADA diet," which tells patients to "make starch the star."

    If the "we" and "many diabetics" cited above are in the majority, then the country has done a complete turnaround.

  • Anonymous

    7/22/2010 7:27:40 PM |

    "The ADA diet prescribed encourages you to increase carbohydrates" HUH? My husband and I went through diabetes education courses at a local hospital when he was diagnosed where we learned to reduce carbs to control diabetes. Would be interested to know what source Dr. Davis is quoting.

  • billye

    7/22/2010 8:50:52 PM |

    Hi DR. Davis,

    As usual you have hit it out of the park.  Most doctors and most people believe that in order for one to say that they have cured diabetes type2 one should be able to consume all the high carbohydrate,sugar,fruit, starch, and HFCS one desires.  This is the same as saying that in order to consider yourself cured of arsenic poisoning one should be able to consume all the arsenic one wishes.  On it's face this is a ridiculous statement.  Eat poison and you will be poisoned.  I followed Dr. John McDougall's plan for many years and all I did was become very fat and ill.  I now follow an Evolutionary Lifestyle  promoted by Dr. Kenneth Tourgeman nephrologist.  His practice is dedicated to evolutionary medicine and he cured my diabetes type 2 along with reversing other diseases of the metabolic syndrome.  My last four HbA1c levels are as follows: 4.5, 4.7, 5.0, and 4.9.  Dr. Tourgeman practices evolutionary medicine, and I follow an evolutionary health supporting lifestyle.  Because of this I have been able to take and keep off 50 pounds over the 18 months without any hunger what so ever.  If low fat and high carb worked for most of us, then why is obesity the biggest problem for the majority of Americans?  It is time for the medical profession to change.  Doctors should be paid a standard yearly stipend and those who show cures and reversals of illness as far as the diseases of the metabolic syndrome are concerned should receive bonuses relative to cure and reversal rate.  If this would become the system you would see a big difference in the health of Americans.

    Billy E
    EVMed Forum.com

  • Martin Levac

    7/22/2010 8:59:17 PM |

    Dr. Davis, considering the persistent confusion I think it's time you bring precision to your suggestion. How much carbs by weight should a diabetic eat maximum daily? 50g, 100g, or 300g?

    My dad was given a guide that said he should eat a total of three meals per day, each containing no more than 60g of carbs, and two snacks per day, each containing no more than 30g of carbs. That's a total of 240g per day for a 65 yo diabetic man who is at least 50 lbs overweight. This guide came directly from the nutritionist employed by the diabetic association here in Canada. The guide also told him to reduce fat intake to a minimum especially saturated fat. And to reduce meat consumption and to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. I don't understand how this diet can be lower in carb if he must eat less fat.

    In fact the diet my dad was prescribed mimics exactly the Canadian nutritional guidelines. But wait, that's exactly how he got sick in the first place.

    For those who doubt Dr. Davis, all you need to do is ask your local diabetes association about the diet they prescribe for their patients. Then compare it to your national guidelines.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/23/2010 1:20:52 AM |


  • Dr. William Davis

    7/23/2010 1:51:44 AM |

    Hi, Billye--

    Thanks. And keep up your own good work!

    It makes me shudder to think of the years I spent following a low-fat diet, glycating proteins left and right.

  • CarbSane

    7/23/2010 3:15:00 PM |

    Why do you presume the ADA diet causes 10-15lb/year weight gain if followed?  That's just ridiculous.

  • meenraja

    7/23/2010 5:24:11 PM |

    I have been following with interest the discussion thread regarding the harmful effects of grains. However one must remember that the ancient civilizations in Africa and Asia have been eating fermented grains for a long time with minimal impact. Please link up to these sites to see the benefits of fermented grains.

    Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater





  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/23/2010 5:56:09 PM |

    meenraja, there is a lot of value in this blog and what Dr Davis has to say but I am constantly frustrated by the conflation here of refined, extracted, highly processed carbs with intact, whole grains.  Better still fermented whole grains!!!  It all depends on your individual metabolism but indeed, the baby does risk a flying lesson...

  • billye

    7/23/2010 6:44:18 PM |

    Dr. Stramge,

    Frustratingly, the link you provided for the 12 studies can not be opened.  However, it doesn't matter, because, if the studies that you cite were correct that red meat caused diabetes type 2 in the first place, there would be an existing archaeological record of diseases of the metabolic syndrome being present throughout history.  There is none.  We were metabolic syndrome disease free for 2.5 million years.  Now this is an experiment I can trust.The first mention of diabetes type 2 was in the Egyptian era after the advent of agriculture.  If this was not correct, how did we get here disease free in the first place?  We ate predominately red flesh for millions of years without diseases of the metabolic syndrome. If You wish to avoid or cure diabetes type 2, follow as your ancestgors did a low carb high saturated fat evolutionary health supporting lifestyle under the direction of your doctor who practices evolutionary medicine.

    Billy E
    EvMed Forum.com

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/23/2010 6:47:16 PM |

    Long story short, finally got around to changing my screen name to my real name

    Formerly known as Dr.Strange (you really do not want to know about it)

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/23/2010 6:48:54 PM |

    " We ate predominately red flesh for millions of years without diseases of the metabolic syndrome. If You wish to avoid or cure diabetes type 2, follow as your ancestgors did a low carb high saturated fat evolutionary health supporting lifestyle under the direction of your doctor who practices evolutionary medicine."

    It is not known for certain what was eaten pre-ag but from everything I have read about hunter-gatherers, I rather doubt they were meatitarians.  Mostly plants, leaves, roots, fruits, yes some meat whenever they could get it.  It isn't the meat per say but the iron load according to the article I linked above

  • Martin Levac

    7/23/2010 7:09:40 PM |

    Geoffrey, do you know about the expensive tissue hypothesis? See here:

    To summarize, eating meat made us human. The expensive tissue hypothesis says that our brain got bigger while our gut got smaller. And the only way the two happened simultaneously was because we ate meat, lots and lots of meat. But most especially fat fatty meat. The fatter the better.

    The brain is the most expensive tissue while the gut is the second most expensive tissue.

    Fat is the easiest thing to digest and we have one dedicated organ for just that purpose, the gallbladder. In fact, bile is made in part from cholesterol which is made from fat. Also, bile and cholesterol is recycled sometimes several times during the same meal. So, fat digests itself and it's cheap and efficient to do so.

    Fat also contains the most energy per weight and per volume. Thus, not only is it less expensive to digest fat, but it's also more profitable to eat fat. Consequently, the gut can shrink since it doesn't need to be so big, and the brain can grow since there's enough fuel for that.

    Finally, from fat we get ketones. When the brain uses ketones, it works about 30% more efficiently than when it uses glucose. This means it can do the same work with 30% less fuel or do 30% more work with the same fuel. No matter the point is that by eating fat fatty meat, we allowed our brain to grow the size it is today.

    We can also find studies that show that vegetarians have smaller brains than omnivores and carnivores. This last seems to tell us that not eating enough meat restricts the growth of our brain.

  • billye

    7/23/2010 7:39:09 PM |

    Geofrey Levens,

    Iron overload from red meat is a false premises unless you are talking about hemochromatosis which is a genetic disease.  I would love to read the studies that you cite, but, as aforementioned the link can't be opened.  However, rest assured that if such studies were valid Dr. Tourgeman would have surely come across them.  After all he is a nephrologist and as such his specialty is chronic kidney disease and he treats iron deficiency all the time.  No such iron problem as you cite exists in normal people.

    Billy E
    EvMed Forum

  • billye

    7/23/2010 8:03:58 PM |

    Hi Martin Levac,

    You ask about what is the proper amount of carbohydrate for a person with diabetes type 2 to eat.  I cured my diabetes type 2 under the direction of my doctor who practices evolutionary medicine eating no more than from 20 grams to 50 grams of carbs daily.  If involved in very strenuous exercise one can go up to 70 grams of carbs daily, but remember only under your doctors supervision.

    Billy E
    EvMed Forum

  • Gretchen

    7/23/2010 8:14:47 PM |

    Re "It isn't the meat per say but the iron load according to the article I linked above"

    I eat a lot of red meat, and I had my iron level measured. It was in the low end of the normal range.

    We're all different and someone else might be affected differently. It seems to me that if you're concerned about something, you should be tested for it rather than accepting some generalization from a book.

    Different people interpret diet guidelines differently and different people have different physiologies and can react differently to the exact same diet.

  • Anonymous

    7/23/2010 8:32:30 PM |


    "We can also find studies that show that vegetarians have smaller brains than omnivores and carnivores. This last seems to tell us that not eating enough meat restricts the growth of our brain."

    Can you find a peer reviewed scientific study published in a reputable journal ?

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/23/2010 8:46:29 PM |

    On eating lots of meat and animal fat:

    "...the expensive tissue hypothesis? See here:
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/ "

    Well, "Yaba-daba-do!"  There are competing theories.  All evidence from modern hunter-gatherers indicates meat only part of largely plant based diet.  The two articles below may help...


    Iron load:

    "However, rest assured that if such studies were valid Dr. Tourgeman would have surely come across them. After all he is a nephrologist and as such his specialty is chronic kidney disease and he treats iron deficiency all the time. No such iron problem as you cite exists in normal people."

    Acute problems are quite a different animal than chronic.  Low grade iron overload is basically a form of heavy metal poisoning.  Bodies differ in ability to carry such loads and higher iron levels may well be a cancer risk.  This is at far lower levels than hemochromatosis:

    "...increased iron concentrations after the menopause could be an important aetiological factor in the development of breast cancer in this population. Iron is well known for catalysing Fenton/Haber-Weiss or autoxidation reactions, that lead to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and lipid peroxidation, as well as their products, which give rise to mutagenic aldehydyes, such as 4-hydroxynonenal..."

  • Martin Levac

    7/23/2010 11:44:31 PM |


    One of the arguments raised against the expensive tissue hypothesis and the claim that we were healthier before agriculture is that humans that were sick died quickly.

    That argument actually supports the claim that we were healthier before agriculture. Why? Natural selection was swift back then. Indeed, if we follow the logic to its conclusion, we find that since natural selection was swift, and since only the fittest survived, well, only the fittest survived. Consequently, we are the descendants of those who lived. Or rather, we can't be the descendants of those who died.

    Whenever we argue natural selection, we must consider that only the fittest survived and only their descendants are alive today. Furthermore, the proof of this natural selection can be had by doing some simple tests with only a couple humans. We have such a test concerning diet. It's the Stefansson all meat trial.

    How does that support the expensive tissue hypothesis? Well, that trial tells us that we can maintain perfect health indefinitely on a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh. How does that support the hypothesis? Well, if we can survive today on a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh, this means that in our past those that couldn't survive on such a diet died off quickly enough so that they did not produce offspring. See? That's how natural selection works.

    Natural selection can work within a single period and still be very effective at sifting the species. But for the argument at hand, both hypotheses acknowledge that this kind of natural selection in favor of carnivores took place several times and for long periods. I.e. there were several lengthy and repetitive periods of famine. It's important to note that famine happens across the spectrum of life. It's also important to note that it starts at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. plants.

    So, all these periods of famine naturally selected against those who relied on plants and in favor of those who relied on animal flesh. This happened several times so that only those who could rely on animal flesh could survive.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Martin Levac

    7/23/2010 11:55:43 PM |


    Here's one paper on the subject:
    "Vitamin B12 status and rate of brain volume loss in community-dwelling elderly."

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/24/2010 1:02:54 AM |

    Martin Levac, one study w/ N=1 is not even a rumor let alone proof that all can do it let.  And "can do" does not even imply "should do" let alone prove.

    I suppose those food animals were unaffected by the same drought/food shortage that starved the humans and so they just continued to hang out in the area in great abundance, waiting to be eaten?

  • Martin Levac

    7/24/2010 4:04:22 AM |


    We can claim that this person was unique and had the unique ability to eat a diet composed exclusively of animal flesh that not shared but the rest of the population, but we'd have to test this claim before it was valid. So how do we test this claim? First we see if he is like us. As it happens, that all meat trial did test this idea whether the subjects (ah yes, there were two subjects for that study) responded like the rest of us to specific stimuli. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. It's called the Bellevue all meat trial. The point is, if they respond like us to specific stimuli, then we should respond like them to the same stimuli.

    But even then that's not enough to conclude that an all meat diet was at some point the only diet for most humans. We'd have to test the alternative hypothesis: That we have the best health in a mixed diet. It so happens that we have such tests. One is the Minnesota starvation experiment, the other is the Biosphere 2 project. In both instances, a mixed diet did not maintain us in perfect health indefinitely. In fact, deficiency developed. Deficiency in those experiments developed in short enough time that any deficiency would have shown up in the all meat trial (which lasted one year), if deficiency such a diet should have caused.

    If you mean that when there's a famine, certain animals just stick around in large groups? I don't know about that. Do you? However it seems most reasonable that if sticking around is a survival strategy for a group of prey to defend themselves against predators, I doubt they'll change that strategy just because there's less food for them. I mean, that kind of behavior is one such aspect that gets sifted through natural selection. In other words, if sticking together gives them the best chance for survival, then those who do stick together will reproduce, both in numbers and in behavior.

    With natural selection, you must always ask if this particular aspect you're looking at was most advantageous for the species' survival.

    With science, you must take intervention experiments more seriously than epidemiological observation even if the experiment was done with a single subject while the epidemiological observations were done on billions of subjects. Why? Because with epidemiological observation, it's impossible to determine cause and effect. We can only do that with experimental study. So while you'd like to dismiss this N=2 study, you'd have to find another study of equal value before you could refute it.

  • Martin Levac

    7/24/2010 4:14:39 AM |

    Correction. I wrote "that not shared but the rest of the population" when I should have written "was not shared but the rest of the population".

    A further bit of logic for natural selection.

    Maybe Stefansson and his acolyte were unique examples of the human species who were specially adapted to an all meat diet and the rest of us are not. But that doesn't matter because the very fact that we have two examples of humans with the special ability to maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all meat diet means that at some point we did have to survive on an all meat diet exclusively for a long enough time so that the genome required for this feat came into existence. Or rather, only the previous existence of the required genome allowed us to survive that way during such a time of famine.

    But no matter, the ability to survive on an all meat diet is dependent on our physiology. It so happens that all humans have the same physiology with very rare exceptions. And Stefansson and his partner were not those exceptions.

  • jpatti

    7/24/2010 1:29:08 PM |

    After you've been diabetic a while, you get very suspicious of anyone using the word "cure".

    Low-carb is not a cure.  Low-carb is a method of control allowing you to attain normal bg numbers.  And it doesn't always work, cause after 2 decades of low-carb, I needed to go on insulin to continue good bg control.

    Low carb is like saying, my car doesn't run very well, so I'll prolong it's life by not driving much.  This is not a cure, it's management.

    My husband achieves normal bg numbers after eating 1/6th of a chocolate cake.  This is because he is NOT diabetic. His bg "spikes" to all of 70-80 after a giant piece of cake.

    A "cure" would be achieving *that* - not just achieving normal bg numbers.  

    Anyone, with attention to diet, exercise, an appropriate diet, and whatever drugs are needful, can achieve normal bg numbers - and that is very important for the health of diabetics.

    But it's not a cure until you can do it with sugar.  My blood glucose control system works just fine as long as it has minimal sugar to deal with.  But a CURE would be it working like my husbands.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/24/2010 2:35:54 PM |

    Martin Levac, I do not understand who you can even imagine that the two studies you mention (Biosphere and Minnesota starvations)have any relationship whatsoever to a mixed diet, a vegetarian diet, vegan diet, all meat/fat diet, any diet at all.  In both studies, the participants were literally starved by being grossly calorie deficient.  No diet will keep you healthy in that situation.  So really, those are both irrelevant.

    As for "famine" etc, when plant foods get scarce, plant eating prey animals get scarce, and soon enough, predators also get scarce.  They all starve.  So what is your point?  That overweight/fat people will live a bit longer during a famine compared to those at a lower BMI?

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/24/2010 2:39:30 PM |

    "the very fact that we have two examples of humans with the special ability to maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all meat diet means that at some point we did have to survive on an all meat diet exclusively for a long enough time so that the genome required for this feat came into existence. Or rather, only the previous existence of the required genome allowed us to survive that way during such a time of famine."

    Only your last sentence is correct.  Genetic changes do not occur due to specific outside influences. What does occur is increase in random mutations and then the environment selects for those.  So yes, the genes for all meat survival were there but not because it had long been done or was necessary.  The enviro influences effect gene expression in specific ways, that is true...

  • Martin Levac

    7/24/2010 6:31:20 PM |

    @jpatti, I'm sorry that you can't get your blood sugar under control. I hope you get better.

    Somebody explained to me what diabetes was. He said that basically it was "uncontrolled hyperglycemia combined with uncontrolled hyperinsulinemia". What he meant was that diabetes was high blood sugar combined with high insulin.

    Now that makes sense. However, when I read more, I realized that the real nature of diabetes was that cells didn't respond to insulin anymore. When that happens, blood sugar rises uncontrollably and insulin rises uncontrollably but even then there's not enough insulin to control blood sugar.

    Why is it like that? I don't know but maybe cells stop taking in insulin because somehow too much insulin hurts them and that's the only way they found to protect themselves from the bad effects of high insulin. Now that would make sense. I mean, if kids made too much noise around you, you'd put plugs in your ears and that would take care of the problem, wouldn't it. However, when kids talk to you, you need to be able to hear them. But if you have plugs in your ears, that's not gonna be possible anymore.

    So what's the solution? Get rid of the kids or at least get rid of the noise they make. In other words, get rid of the sugar or at least change the nature of the sugar. So, either you cut out all carbs, or you stop eating refined carbs (like sugar, HFCS and white flour for example) and go with whole foods instead. But ultimately, you will have to cut down on the amount of carbs you eat.

  • Martin Levac

    7/24/2010 6:46:54 PM |


    Well, the two studies were done with a mixed diet. And the participants did suffer the same consequences. I don't understand how you could consider 1600-1800 calories per day "grossly calorie deficient".

    So what is my point? That only those best adapted to the situation right now survive to reproduce. But that's not my point, it's the point of natural selection. I merely pointed out that natural selection was the driving factor in our current physiology.

    Did you propose that only the fattest would survive times of famine? Or were you implying that I proposed that idea? I didn't propose that. No matter, let's explore it anyway.

    Considering how we get fat today, then we'd have to show that the fattest humans back then had access to a boatload of refined carbs. OK, I see no point in going further with this argument.

  • billye

    7/24/2010 9:22:34 PM |

    Hi Martin Levac,

    I see you finally became exhausted and gave up.  I came to the same conclusion some 14 comments ago.  To argue with Geoffrey is just like arguing with Ancel Keys, pointless.  To keep arguing against evidence gathered in the greatest scientific archaeological experiment that has been going on for the last 2.5 million years and probably much longer, shows an incredible lack of comprehension.  If not for eating red meat we would not be here now and certainly not with the large brain that we have.  In order for Geoffrey to be correct it would mean that the vast majority of archeologist's were wrong.  That is an incredible reach.You made some very cogent points, and I know that most of readers agree with us, as does Dr. Davis and Dr. Tourgeman along with the rest of the evolutionary lifestyle blogosphere.  An evolutionary health supporting lifestyle is the future along with the practice of evolutionary medicine.  The primary component of a health supporting lifestyle is grass fed and finished animal flesh, with a few not very starchy tubers, ample greens, and a few not very sweet berries.  I rest my healthy flesh eating case.

    Billy E
    EvMed Forum.com

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/25/2010 3:21:52 AM |


    I would not be so quick to dismiss the adverse effect of grains based on the presumption that they were benign in ancient times. In fact, they were not.

    Celiac disease, for example, has been with us for 2000 years. Millions have likely died, not of famine or war, but from grains like wheat. How senseless is that?

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/25/2010 4:04:28 AM |

    Meenraja--  people die from peanut allergy.  Does not mean peanuts are bad or even dangerous. Just that those w/ certain physiological abnormalities should not eat them.  Celiac/wheat is same. Gluten intolerance may indeed effect up to 30% of population but that means, large majority, 70% are absolutely fine with it.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/25/2010 9:11:35 PM |

    "I don't understand how you could consider 1600-1800 calories per day "grossly calorie deficient."

    "a 6-mo semistarvation period, beginning on February 12, 1945, in which they received 1800 kcal (7531 kJ) of food/d, with the starvation diet reflecting that experienced in the war-torn areas of Europe, i.e., potatoes, turnips, rutabagas, dark bread, and macaroni"

    Opps, well I guess they did get plenty of calories.  Could be the study proved we need to eat some non-starch vegetables to be healthy?  I do know that not having eaten any animal protein nor animal faand t for close to 3 years now, the only problem I have encountered was EFA deficiency from going too low fat following the McDougall diet.  I exercise pretty hard daily, have good energy, etc.  I guess that is an experiment w/ an N of 1...

  • Martin Levac

    7/25/2010 10:44:50 PM |


    If you ate dairy, then you ate animal protein. B12 is also found in dairy. Did you eat dairy? If not, then consider that B12 deficiency is inevitable and probably already well established since you're been avoiding animal protein for 3 years.

    Ironically, taking supplements to counter the obvious deficiency of a diet lacking animal flesh acknowledges that humans require vitamin B12 which is only naturally found in animal flesh. Ergo, humans require animal flesh to maintain perfect health indefinitely.


  • Anonymous

    7/25/2010 11:25:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Wonder if you are concerned whether cutting carbs significantly increases the consumption of dietary AGEs?  The table in the linked article shows order of magnitude higher AGEs in fat-rich foods, including olive oil and nuts, than in carbs...



  • Martin Levac

    7/25/2010 11:50:37 PM |


    The study you looked at is about dietary AGEs, not blood levels or cellular levels of AGEs. The two are not synonymous.




  • Dr. William Davis

    7/26/2010 12:23:51 AM |

    Hi, David--

    Excellent point.

    There are two general sources of AGEs: endogenous from carbohydrates and exogenous from animal products.

    We've got to eat something, so it becomes a matter of identifying the foods richer in AGEs and minimizing exposure.

    This will be the focus of future discussions here and on the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/26/2010 12:41:42 AM |

    Martin, no dairy...no animal derived foods. No B-12 deficiency either as I supplement w/ methylcobalain.  Of course we need B-12 but this is 2010 so no need to get it from animals.  You can but it is not necessary.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    7/26/2010 12:42:28 AM |

    Oh and I take K2 as well as vitamin D3

  • Martin Levac

    7/26/2010 1:16:46 AM |


    So you do take supplements to alleviate the obvious deficiency that an all plant diet would cause? The subjects in the Biosphere 2 project also took supplements to the full RDA at the time yet suffered the same problems as the subjects of the semi-starvation study.

    I rest my case.

  • Anonymous

    7/26/2010 1:59:02 AM |

    "So you do take supplements to alleviate the obvious deficiency that an all plant diet would cause? The subjects in the Biosphere 2 project also took supplements to the full RDA at the time yet suffered the same problems as the subjects of the semi-starvation study.

    I rest my case."

    I have been following this discussion closely and have learned a lot. I have no sides and am only in search of my own path and optimal health. I'm more of a middle of the road type. My wight has never been an issue and my energy levels are great. But I have to agree with what I have quoted. I am really not schooled I any of this. Truly a lay person. But I think any fool can see that if you need to "supplement" it is because something is missing. In my simple minded view if something is "missing" then why supplement if you can get it from the source? Ok....suppose the source has been tainted? ( chemicals, hormones etc). So what? that doesn't negate the fact that we (at least at one time) "needed" that stuff.  Supplementation only proves (IMO) that we need to consume animal products. Way back when there were no supplements so today that is only a luxury. So is a drive through....that doesn't make it better.

  • donny

    7/27/2010 1:02:23 PM |

    If you look at rodent nutrient self-selection studies; diabetic animals will select a high fat, low-carb diet and keep their blood sugars from getting out of control in this manner. Studies correlating meat intake to disease and blaming the disease on the diet don't establish cause and effect; and it's well established that disease (and diabetes in particular) can cause a food  preference shift.

  • meenraja

    8/1/2010 2:40:56 AM |

    I am not propagating wheat at all. I am more in favor of fermented brown rice as well as gluten free grains like millet. In fact since i stared eating fermented brown rice with home made oragnic yougurt my Choletsrol, BP as well as triglycerides has come down markedly. I used to have symptoms of IBS as well which has gone away. Whereas if I eat homemade wheat bread symtoms reappear. This is just a personal example.

  • Geoffrey Levens

    8/1/2010 3:01:53 AM |

    "In fact since i stared eating fermented brown rice with home made oragnic yougurt my Choletsrol, BP as well as triglycerides has come down markedly. I used to have symptoms of IBS as well which has gone away."

    Interesting as all those conditions/symptoms can be and often are mediated strongly by stress and fermented rice will give you a good dose of GABA which is quiet calming an stress reducing, lowering cortisol levels quite rapidly!

  • James

    8/11/2010 9:20:42 PM |

    I see this type of 'doctoring' in customers all the time.  Their doctor does not tell them what to eat or when not to eat certain foods.  There is no discussion on the use of chromium, cinnamon or any other hypoglycemic herb or mineral that can work with the body to reduce fasting blood sugar and H1c.  Of course the snack food makers are going to contribute to the ADA. I believe you can make a case for the snack food makers being the same a drug cartel.  So what if it kills our customers there are always new one to replace them. One last thoght, We can't after all cure diabetes otherwise the drug companies would have no one to sell to.

  • Anonymous

    8/12/2010 8:02:15 PM |

    Shame on you, Dr Davis for helping the spread of ignorance.  You say "The tragedy is that diabetes is a curable condition".  The ignorance you are helping to spread is that anything called "diabetes" can be cured/controlled by proper eating alone.  As many other commenters have already said, Type 2 can be excellently controlled by low-carb eating although that is not the same as a cure. Type 1 diabetes is a lot easier to control with low-carb eating, but it cannot yet be cured by any method.  There is enough ignorance out there that all diabetics brought it on themselves without those who should know better reinforcing this erroneous view.

  • Dr Eric Berg

    8/17/2010 9:14:40 AM |

    its just so sad to hear about those doctors whose practicing this. they should help / cure sick people not just deal of it.

  • purity12lover

    10/19/2010 2:56:12 PM |

    I have been recommending Purity 12 to my patients. I have personally seen the wonders and effects of Purity 12. After looking at what was in these products and trying them myself, I knew then that it would be a very effective and efficient way to help change the lives of my patients. I’ve personally tried them and experienced the change that it gave. I know my patients would agree because I would notice the difference in their glow and aura whenever they come back! Learn More