BBC Horizon Sugar vs Fat : explanation for the "almost prediabetic" result

#1

I’ve seen a documentary many years ago about Sugar vs Fat (Low Fat High Carb vs Low Carb High Fat) on BBC. Cf. description here. Two identical twins were put on a diet and 4 weeks later they show the result.

Some of them are bad for LCHF because the timing was not good : the brother on the LCHF diet performed less well on a biking trial because I supposed that he was not already keto adapted.
But the result for insuline resistance is perturbing and I still don’t understand what or where the error of diagnostic is (if there is an error). The LCHF brother is “almost prediabetic”.
The test is showed at 35" and it seems to be a test for blood insuline (they seems to drink glucose and wait).
The doctor said :“What is worrying is that your body is not responding to insuline as well as it is. If you eat too much fat that can stop your body responding to insuline and that can also tell your body to produce more glucose.” ?!#&@*& ?!?

So where is the twist that could explain this diagnostic and how to explain to a doctor that this is not worrying (if it is not) ? Is there any scientific article to show him ?

And is there a way to explain this result in “simple English” ? Because all this post is the result of a discussion between friends. I was trying to explain the keto diet and my friends keep referring to this documentary which seems to be anti-LCHF.

PS : BBC Horizon has a good reputation in Europe. So, it’s very influential.

(Olivia) #2

I would say one can’t argue away every test result or publication. Data scatters and you will always have conflicting results with methodological uncertainties.
You will find peer-reviewed publications, on every topic supporting every idea with a decent number of references to back up a statement be it low-fat/high-fat or any other topic.
What we know for certain is that nobody really knows what the ideal diet is and there probably isn’t one answer anyway. That’s why the concluding remark of most papers is “more research is needed”.

(Duncan Kerridge) #3

Take a look here : https://www.dietdoctor.com/sugar-vs-fat-on-bbc-which-is-worse

They only gave a fasting glucose result of 5.9 (106), not the result of the glucose tolerance test.

#4

The quick explanation is a person on a lchf diet can appear insulin resistant in a glucose tolerance test. There is a way to reverse this effect by loading glucose a few days before the test, the individual will then test as in the acceptable range.

(Randy) #5

James is right. One problem with so many of these studies and reports that are negative on LCHF is that they are way too short.

I was still struggling at 4 weeks, but at 8 weeks I felt like I had super powers compared to pre-KETO.

#6

OK ! Thanks for the explanation. I hope this will convince my friends.

#7

@Duncan_K I’ve seen that but since the website is promoting a LCHF diet, my friends think that it is biased…

@KHAN: 8 weeks ! What keep you on during 8 weeks before seeing any result ?

(Randy) #8

I didn’t say I was not seeing any results, just that at 1 month I was still struggling. I was so overweight that I was losing weight easily. But at 1 month, I was not fully fat adapted yet. So I would feel good sometimes, and then still have times of low energy and listlessness.

My point in this thread is that many of the “studies” that are negative to low carb, high fat are far too short to give accurate results. Just my opinion of course from my personal experience.

#9

Thanks for sharing your experience on this !

(Consensus is Politics) #10

This could be a new “survivor” show. Get a bunch of people, half of them are on a SAD diet, the other half are Ketogenic. Have a third party doctor confirm the diets.

The premise would be a small town, isolated from the rest of civilization due to natural disaster that washed out the only means in and out of town. Food gets scarce. Which group resorts to canibalism first😎, ok. Not really, but which group has more people drop out because they can’t take the hunger.