212 579 9320
I’m always amazed at people who argue against known facts – like the folks at the Flat Earth Society or ghost and demon hunters.
The Earth is ovular. Ghosts and demons don’t exist.
I’ve been recently discussing the issue of diet and diabetes on Dr. McDougall’s forum. (Note: You may have to join the forum to see my posts.)
Dr. McDougall is a physician who advocates a high starch/carb, low fat veganish diet for diabetics. Many of you already know and agree that telling diabetics to eat lots of starch is beyond ludicrous.
And yes, a vegan diet is better for a diabetic than a SAD diet, but it’s not the vegan aspect of the diet per se that allows the diabetic to get better. It’s the removal of the highly refined sugary foods in the diabetics diet that does the trick.
As long as these foods are removed entirely, you could eat wood and see your diabetes get better.
One commenter named Concerned, posted some interesting stuff on the forum. Below is a snippett of that interaction. But first, some background.
I had been asking – nay begging – for anyone to post a study that showed a high carb, low fat diet was better for treating diabetes than a low carb, high fat diet. I figured, there must be a few if Dr. McDougall (as well as several other docs) is so high on it. You’d think he could slap down a bunch of papers and shut me up quick, right?
But no. Several people were coming up with papers that were in support of vegan diets, showing that vegan diets cured people’s diabetes. Try as I might I could not get these folks to understand what I said above – that getting off of a SAD diet is what did the trick.
So I posted a bunch of papers indicating that a high fat, low carb diet did wonders for diabetes and metabolic syndrome. But these folks just ignored it all and continued to lambast and bombard me with opinion and fairy tales.
So anyway, here’s a chunk of dialogue I hope you find useful for understanding the minds of these folks.
Concerned’s comments are quoted:
Although this study does not compare the two diets, you can see that the patients who went back on medication were those eating a high fat diet.
Quote:
Exercise and diet inventories obtained at follow-up indicated good compliance to the program and also indicated that the main difference between those patients who went back on medication at follow-up compared with those remaining off medication was the percent of calories derived from fat.”http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/6/3/268.short”
That is researcher bias coming into play. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to get a hold of the full citation in order to see what these folks went back to eating. They certainly did not keep to the diet in the study and ONLY add more fat in. I can say without question that those subjects who went back on meds began eating what they were eating before like potato chips, ice cream, cheese burgers (with the bun and fake cheese), french fries, etc. What happens then is, because the researchers are biased against fat (Pritikin!), they blame the fat and not the fact that these subjects may have also:
1. Increased their fat intake
2. Increased their carbohydrate intake
3. Increased their total calorie intake
4. Increased their refined carbohydrate intake
The list goes on. But fat gets the bad rap.
Q: Does eating fat of any kind raise blood glucose or insulin levels?
A: Not at all.
Therefore, will someone here be kind enough to tell me how fat in the diet is to be avoided?
Only carbohydrate significantly raises blood glucose levels. And the worst carbs are the refined carbs, potatoes, and other high glycemic starches.
I think that information is very relevant to your question. The low-fat diet also should be whole food and plant based. If there are studies in which low fat diets were not successfully used with diabetics, perhaps those diets were not whole food plant based diets.
As I mentioned earlier, people who see their diabetes condition get better are getting better because they are no longer eating the foods they were eating before, not because of the vegan/plant based diet. We know this to be true because people with diabetes also get better – much better – when they adopt a low carbohydrate/no starch, high fat diet. I’ve already posted papers to this effect. And the low carb diets work far better than the vegan diets for HbA1c, tris, HDL, weight loss, etc.
Also, I believe there are studies in which formerly healthy young volunteers developed high blood sugar after a few weeks on a high fat diet.
Are there? Could you provide the citations? I’d love to read them.
But remember, fat doesn’t – cannot – raise blood glucose levels. So how could this even possible? Again, when people blame fat as the villain in studies, the foods usually eaten are pizza, ice cream, etc. Lots of fat to be sure, but lots of carbs too. And carbs are what raise blood sugar. You can’t just point the finger at fat. That would be bad scientific thinking.
In addition, we have to take into consideration the considerable epidemiological data. For instance, Asians living on high carb (rice) diets have extremely low levels of diabetes.
EPI data is just that – EPI data. Associations do not prove cause and effect. Everyone who has cancer, sneezes. But sneezing does not cause cancer. You use EPI data associations to give reason to perform controlled studies.
If were were to accept EPI/obesrvational data as fact, I could point to the French, the Inuit, and a dozen other peoples who eat lots of fat and have little heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Even if the exact study you are looking for has not yet been conducted, there is enough information to make a diabetic think carefully before deciding to adopt a diet which has so much evidence stacked against it.
That’s the point, Concerned. There isn’t any actual evidence that a high fat diet is bad for diabetics or that it is the cause of diabetes. None whatsoever. I’ll post one of the studies again which indicates that a low carb, high fat diet reduces all the markers for diabetes:
A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity:
“CONCLUSIONS: Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.”
If you read the paper, try and find some holes in it. Try to read it critically, without bias. Take a look at table 4.
Look at how much better the low carb subjects improved over the low fat subjects.
Some quotes from the paper:
“By six months, seven subjects in the low-carbohydrate group had had dose reductions in oral hypoglycemic agents or insulin. In comparison, one subject in the low-fat group had a dose reduction in insulin and one subject began oral therapy.”
“Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group had greater decreases in triglyceride levels than did subjects in the low-fat group; nondiabetic subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had greater increases in insulin sensitivity, and subjects with diabetes on this diet had a greater improvement in glycemic control.”
“Taken together, our findings demonstrate that severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet. The carbohydrate-restricted diet led to greater improvements in insulin sensitivity that were independent of weight loss and a greater reduction in triglyceride levels in subjects who lost more than 5 percent of their base-line weight.”
So you see that, if fat was a villain to diabetics, the finding in this study (as well as a host of other studies), could not have occurred.
A high starch, low fat diet is NOT the best diet to control diabetes. Thus far, research strongly supports a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet for the treatment of diabetes. You might call it “the diabetics go-to diet.”
Personal preference isn’t the issue. But as long as a diabetic stops eating the refined sugars completely, and sticks to a real food diet, either a vegetarian or meat based low carb diet will allow them to get better. But if you are a diabetic and you want the best results, a low carb diet is the answer.
I've been involved in exercise ever since I became a member of The Charles Atlas Club when I was 10 years old. In 1998, I founded and established Serious Strength on the Upper West Side of NYC. My clients include kids, seniors (and everyone in between), top CEOs, celebrities, bestselling authors, journalists and TV personalities.
Strong Kids Healthy Kids
Euphoria Olive Oil
Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat
Michael & MaryDan Eades M.D.: Protein Power Lifeplan
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Why is the non-existence of demons a fact? Mr. Hahn, I admire your work, but it would be best if you confined your absolutist declarations to the natural, rather than the supernatural.
Hi Catherine,
What I mean is, until someone can show physical evidence of demons, a flat Earth, Yeti, Bigfoot or anything else, then these things aren’t real. That is how we separate facts from fiction. Belief in something is just that – belief, not fact.
If someone said to me “Fred – I believe in ghosts!” I’d reply “Cool!” But if they said “Fred – ghosts are real!” I’d reply “Cool! What’s your evidence?” If they said “I don’t have any, I just believe in them.” I’d be forced to say in response “Then they are not real.”
Make sense?
The fact that something is called “supernatural” implies that it isn’t real.
“The fact that something is called ’supernatural’ implies that it isn’t real.”
Ah! Supernatural just means above our nature. You must admit that we have yet to explore the depths of the universe we live in, our origin, and our destiny. You are also not correct about faith. Fact covers many things we take on faith. Reality exists, yet we take many aspects of reality on faith from other people’s direct evidence. Reality is not dependent on whether you know about the fact or not, or whether you believe it or not. That’s called truth. I believe my parents are actually my parents, but I have no direct evidence of that relationship, only indirect. It is a real relationship, though. I have no direct evidence of Antarctica, only indirect. I know it is real, though, and I trust the sources of evidence. I guarantee you are taking some of the evidence you present on faith. We all do this. Did you conduct the studies?
Why do I point this out? Because you are miffed your opponents don’t except (believe) your data, when you yourself seem to follow the same line of reasoning. Conclusion: They don’t BELIEVE your data or you. Against a fact there is no argument, and yet they argue. If Gabriele Amorth (exorcist) had a blog, he’d argue with you. I don’t know if low carb has reached the level of dogma yet.
Supernatural means not natural, not real – something other than reality. There is no evidence that ghosts or demons are real. Therefore, at present, they don’t exist.
If one was to say, as McDougall does, that a high carb/starch, low fat diet controls blood glucose levels in diabetics better than a low carb, high fat diet he is wrong. That is a fact.
And did I conduct the studies on what?
Antarctica exists, meaning the Earth has a south pole. It’s a globe. It has to.
Reality has facts to support it. There are ample facts to support the statement that, FE, carbohydrates raise blood glucose levels and fat does not. That is a fact. We don’t get to vote.
This is what I mean. If you don’t get that, well what can I say.
I just saw something on NOVA about how maybe all of this reality around us might be just holograms projected from black holes in space. Seriously. Very well credentialed scientists think this might actually be true. So maybe none of this is real!
Putting that aside, tho, I keep reading about people on McDougal style diets who do have good blood sugar control and good triglycerides, etc. According to the carbs==>high blood sugar thing, that shouldn’t be possible, but it apparently is.
Well, real is real as far as I can tell!
People on high carb diets that come mainly from vegetables and some low glycemic grains and no meat (meat does raise blood glucose levels but no where near as high as carbs) will greatly improve their blood sugars compared to what they had before AT THE EXPENSE of their overall health.
My main point is a low carb diet controls blood sugars to a much greater extent and in a much healtheir way. On high carb diets diabetics almost never get their HbA1c lower than six or so at best. On low carb diets you can get it in the fives and fours.
“Supernatural means not natural, not real – something other than reality.”
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster
su·per·nat·u·ral
adj
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
I don’t see in there anything about not real (= unreal, or non-existant), not nnatural (= unnatural). I am sure you know that we are supernatural in relation to animals. We are above their nature. That is all that means. And is the love you have for your wife real, even if it is only expressed in a thought? But that thought is invisible, so it must not be real?
“There is no evidence that ghosts or demons are real. Therefore, at present, they don’t exist.”
So I guess you only think things exist once we know them through our physical sense organs. What may not exist is the evidence, not the reality. Some can exist without any evidence of it. We knew nothing about space, but now we know about them. They were always there, it was only human limitation which hindered knowledge. But read Amorth and others and you get the evidence on this one particular issue. Or just watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose (based on the events of Anneliese Michel). If anything it will be a good movie.
“And did I conduct the studies on what?”
Have you conducted any of the studies you use to bolster your case on the diet recommendations? If not, you BELIEVE them to be true or a fact, but the truth may well be that they are fradulent. The point is you take these things on faith — faith in the author, or faith in the journal, or faith in the data (without personal confirmation of the data). Make sense? What you are calling a fact may well be a fact, but your relationship to that fact is belief. It may even be a very strong belief based on numerous personal success stories, but ultimately you are relying on other people’s direct study and findings. So it is with other topics.
Fred, I understand what you are saying. I just question your approach to belief, fact, real/reality. You are a well versed person in this topic, and you defer to people of higher authority than you to bolster your case. Don’t be guilty of some of the same sort of self-righteousness that makes one unwilling to concede that they may not know the truth. Because if something isn’t “real” or a “fact”, then why would anyone ever investigate such a claim and we willing to change their position. Some day the truth might fly into their head, but at that time would they be disposed to accept it?
dictionary.com:
su·per·nat·u·ral
[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
noun
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8. the supernatural,
a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.
websters-online-dictionary.com:
Adjective 1. Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings”.[Wordnet]
2. Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.[Websters]
3. Being preternatural, marvelous, unusual, extraordinary or terrific. [Eve - graph theoretic]
4. Being mysterious, mystical or mystic. [Eve - graph theoretic]
5. Being unnatural or abnormal. [Eve - graph theoretic]
6. Being ghostly, spectral or ghostlike. [Eve - graph theoretic]
7. Being divine, celestial, heavenly, ethereal or godlike. [Eve - graph theoretic]
8. Being magic or magical. [Eve - graph theoretic]
9. Being spiritual or immaterial. [Eve - graph theoretic]
10. Adjective base of the adverb supernaturally.[Eve - graph theoretic]
Adverb Form
(supernaturally) 1. In a supernatural manner.[Wordnet].
2. In a supernatural manner.[Websters].
3. In a preternatural or unnatural manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
4. In a weird or unusual manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
5. In a miraculous or paranormal manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
6. In a spiritual or metaphysical manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
7. In a magical or magic manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
8. In a psychical or psychic manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
9. In a mystic or mystical manner.[Eve - graph theoretic]
10. Infrequently used adverbial inflection of the adjective supernatural.[Eve - graph theoretic]
If I had to bet, I’d bet on Fred’s supernatural definition.
I guess you’re right Sean. The Earth might be flat, the sun might be made of paper and I might be a woman.
This is an awesome (and gutsy) post Fred. Unfortunately, there are a frightening amount of otherwise intelligent people, who still refuse to let go of pseudoscience. I recently posted a similar article about Dr. Oz and all of his ridiculous promotion of psychic readings, talking to ghosts and other pseudoscience and few people cared to read it.
I’m not surprised. I am finishing another article that I will soon post that explains why veganism is actually a pseudoscience and I assume will go over as well as a fart in church. You will find that most idealists tend to believe in ghosts, psychics, UFOs, veganism and other beliefs that are not supported by science. These are people that want to ignore facts and replace them with wishful thinking.
I salute you for having the courage to point this out — few in the paleo community dare to cover this. Vegans and vegetarians are typically leftists who prefer to believe in their idea of a utopian world they wish existed, rather than the one that can and does exist.
“I guess you’re right Sean. The Earth might be flat, the sun might be made of paper and I might be a woman.”
Ah, Fred, now you’re acting even more like the people you criticize. You take something like demons, or we can use the terms spirits if you want, whose existence is professed in one way or another by every major religion, all of which are quite ancient, including Judaism, and lump it together with ideas that are supported by virtually no one. So that way the idea of demons looks just as absurd. My advice, stick to the food and weights, and not metaphysics.
Sean – give it a break, ok? You’re a believer – I respect that. Let’s move on.
Thanks Wolverine. It needs to be said and said often and everywhere.
Fred,
I’m a type 1 diabetic. I’m not sure if when you say “diabetics”, your advice applies only to type 2s or if it includes me. A distinction between the two kinds of diabetes would be very helpful. Also, about fat not raising blood sugar…I’m not sure because I’ve never eaten pure fat. My dietary fat tends to have a little protein with it. But I certainly have to take insulin for cheese or sausage (even varieties that have no carbs or minimal carbs like 1 g). If I don’t, my blood sugar spikes, especially in the morning.
Thanks.
Wendy (workoutprof)
Hi Wendy – It goes for all diabetics. Excessive blood glucose levels are what you have to watch for right? Makes sense then to eat in a way that raises blood glucose the least.
Protein raises blood glucose levels too but to a much lesser extent than carbs. But you have to eat meats – you don’t have to eat carbs at all.
Fatty proteins raise BG levels the least as far as I know. So you don’t want lean sausage. Cheese does raise blood glucose too due to the protein and carbs together. Not much carbs, but there are some in cheese.
Fat alone does not raise blood glucose levels. This is a fact as far as I’m aware. What you can do is check your glucose in the AM. Then have 2 table spoons of olive oil or warm up some lard and have 2 table spoons. 15 minutes later check your glucose levels then again at 30 minutes.
You should not see your levels rise.
The major difference is, a VLCD can “cure” the T2D but not a T1D. Cure in the sense that you would not be able to tell that a T2D upon examination was one. Like an alcoholic that doesn’t drink – no signs or symptoms.
But I’ve talked to several docs who have told me that it is possible that if a T1D can REALLY stay VLC for a long time, some beta cell life in the pancreas can possibly spring back. So the LESS you ask of your pancreas now, the better. Let her rest and she might reward you with new life. She may not, but it’s the only shot you got.
Thanks for reading!
Hey Fred,
Great article. Your boldness is what sets you apart from the other posers. I am not a big tv watcher. Half of that sentense is correct. I am big, but I am not a big tv watcher. What is yout take on Dr. Oz’s viewpoints? I don’t watch him but people at work who are the typical people are are lost and confused when it comes to anything except from what the aminstream says, claim he is the end all and know all and these sheep follow him like no tomorrow. Please excuse my run on sentence. Sometimes my thoughts flow so fast I sometimes lose some of my message if I put split the focus among thoughts and ensuring proper sentence mechanics.
Jack
Thanks Jack.
Dr. Oz says some things that are correct but a lot of what he preaches flies in the face of science – that sat fat is bad, that eating cholesterol increases heart disease, that whole grains are healthy, etc.
I have to say, I was raised amongst a rather intellectually sophisticated group of Yale and Harvard graduates (my father being one of them), many of whom were scientists, scholars, professors and doctors, and all of them were able to embrace both scientific and spiritual realities with ease. I don’t understand the division some people create between scientific and spiritual, though I suppose it comes from lack of direct spiritual experience. I get that the atheism movement is a reaction to some of the atrocities of religion, and I respect that. I cannot endorse the understanding so many atheists I know seem to hold that atheism is essentially tantamount to a superior intellect, however. Having spent over a decade studying yoga philosophy, which is thousands of years old and is experiential rather than faith based, I am completely convinced the levels of consciousness and their changing “realities” are real. In the same way, having studied Slow Burn now for a year, I’m also convinced of IT’S power, though many out there argue with it’s methodology. Many “exercise experts” scoff at the idea that so little exercise can be effective, much less MORE effective than the endless treadmilling and other time consuming methods which are so popular… I myself couldn’t believe it when I first read the cover, Fred! Nonetheless, I gave it a chance, and I had faith in the method, and it delivered as promised. Without a little faith, I never would have tried it! Funny, huh? Aw heck, what am I going on about? It’s lunch time!
I like this holograph thing, I gotta go watch that! Much respect, R
Thanks Ramona! You’re the best!
You are so right guys! It’s sad, when people like Fred Hahn ignore, and don’t use facts.
Fred Hahn wrote: “Don’t Bother Me With The Facts”-Fred Hahn admitted, November 17, 2011.
Well, at least he admits now, that all his stuff was wrong and he can’t be bothered by using any science or facts. At least he’s out in the open now. It gives a bad name to all personal trainers and gyms when a person like this casts a smell on all personal trainers. Many people are disappointed now that he took their money for his books and may want to ask for refunds from him, and money back from their now questionable personal trainer class fees, now that this guy has admitted much of the stuff Fred Hahn has been posting and teaching in his drummed up seminars has been bereft of facts.
It’s too bad because this guy actually took advantage of people’s kids, he got people’s children into his cockamamie fitness classes and took their money taking advantage of all of you as a parent, and feeding your child all kinds of nonsense not based on facts.
Ramona… just ask for you money back. If Fred made you pay for this stuff, and now you find out he admits he can’t be bothered with facts making everything he tried to dupe you with questionable, simply write a letter to his company and ask for a refund. Plenty of people will probably be doing it now. And if he gives anyone any argument about it, just call the Better Business Bureau and Consumer Protection Agency in New York and report him citing that he’s been conducting business and selling books and when questioned he said dont bother me with facts and was insulting other people’s beliefs and bad-mouthing people’s religion.
Well, that’s the end of this guy’s gym outfit. Goodbye to “SeriousStrength” and “SlowBurnFitness” cockamamie fitness gimmicks now that he admitted he ignores scientific, medical, dietary, nutrition, and fitness facts. All customers should begin calling now, to get your money back before they shut down or something. Here: http://www.seriousstrength.com/home/contacts.php
“Don’t Bother Me With The Facts”!-Fred Hahn
Cross Fit –
Can you be a little less over the top and a bit more specific about what your rant may be about? Thanks.
Hi Fred,
One thing about vegan diets lowering HbA1c or other glucose readings – they don’t lower it near as well as low-carb diets, which I’m sure you know… but what you may not know is that weight-loss itself usually accounts for the change in the glucose readings.
Losing any amounts of visceral bodyfat will improve insulin-sensitivity and thus improve glycemic control in any Type II diabetic, or anyone with metabolic syndrome for that matter. As the vegans lose weight (from eliminating refined carbs/sugars) they also improve their glycemic control.
They have the right idea in cutting out refined/processed carbs/sugars… But they’d be far healthier (both heart-health and glycemic control) and not missing nutrients if they’d add meat/fish/poultry/eggs and healthy oils/fats back into their diets, however…
I thought the moon was made of cheese?