10 ms·

We are down to anecdotal evidences here. So as another anecdote, a guy I know went on a carb-free diet and developed diabetes as a result. His body lost the abi

We are down to anecdotal evidences here. So as another anecdote, a guy I know went on a carb-free diet and developed diabetes as a result. His body lost the ability to process sugar. Bottom line, most people needs a balanced diet - including carbs that are one of the pillars of nutrition. A given individual's body may be able to compensate for the imbalance on its own, but let's not generalize that to the entire population.

markdown 7y ago
How do we know he wouldn't have developed diabetes anyway?
maximente 7y ago
this makes no sense biochemically. your hypothesis seems to be that a lack of carbohydrates (read: sugar) caused an individual to develop diabetes, but "diabetes" generalizes down to: - the body (pancreas) does not produced insulin at all (type I) - the body's cells are resistant to the produced insulin (type II) we should be able to basically rule out type II because there should have largely been no insulin produced by this individual (glucagon would take priority due to low blood sugar), so insulin resistance seems super unlikely. and type I has a mix of factors but they are largely all autoimmune, where various pancreatic cells are destroyed by the body itself, causes generally unknown. "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. i realize you're probably not biologically trained but that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. so which form of diabetes did this individual get diagnosed with?
- baked_ziti 7y ago
  > "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. I have no idea as to the validity of this anecdote but the idea isn't unprecedented. For example, correcting an iodine deficiency can cause the same thyroid issues that a deficiency can cause.
  - Doxin 7y ago
    The main difference there is that processing sugar is absolutely vital to the functioning of a cell. If you'd actually lose the ability to process sugar there is no amount of insulin that will save you from death.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
> carbs that are one of the pillars of nutrition They're simply not, the body can manufacture all the glucose it needs. The ketogenic diet is glucose sparing, that is your insulin levels are dramatically lowered since the very small amount of glucose you're eating should go to the tissues that require it, not into your fat cells. So if you're on a ketogenic diet and then eat a lot of glucose, your body takes a little while to ramp back up insulin. That's not the same thing as insulin resistance or impaired insulin production in diabetics.

markdown 7y ago

How do we know he wouldn't have developed diabetes anyway?

maximente 7y ago

this makes no sense biochemically. your hypothesis seems to be that a lack of carbohydrates (read: sugar) caused an individual to develop diabetes, but "diabetes" generalizes down to: - the body (pancreas) does not produced insulin at all (type I) - the body's cells are resistant to the produced insulin (type II) we should be able to basically rule out type II because there should have largely been no insulin produced by this individual (glucagon would take priority due to low blood sugar), so insulin resistance seems super unlikely. and type I has a mix of factors but they are largely all autoimmune, where various pancreatic cells are destroyed by the body itself, causes generally unknown. "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. i realize you're probably not biologically trained but that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. so which form of diabetes did this individual get diagnosed with?

baked_ziti 7y ago
> "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. I have no idea as to the validity of this anecdote but the idea isn't unprecedented. For example, correcting an iodine deficiency can cause the same thyroid issues that a deficiency can cause.
- Doxin 7y ago
  The main difference there is that processing sugar is absolutely vital to the functioning of a cell. If you'd actually lose the ability to process sugar there is no amount of insulin that will save you from death.

rhinoceraptor 7y ago

> carbs that are one of the pillars of nutrition They're simply not, the body can manufacture all the glucose it needs. The ketogenic diet is glucose sparing, that is your insulin levels are dramatically lowered since the very small amount of glucose you're eating should go to the tissues that require it, not into your fat cells. So if you're on a ketogenic diet and then eat a lot of glucose, your body takes a little while to ramp back up insulin. That's not the same thing as insulin resistance or impaired insulin production in diabetics.