This is quite often reported by low carbing T1 diabetics who use that ratio to calculate their exogneous insulin requirements. No idea how it would translate into someone who has a tendency to overproduce or a regular producer though…
Well…I saw that utube video. First…he dismisses the fact that the ONLY study he references was done on dogs, claiming that their system and our is “close enough”…now, I am now a dog physiologist, but just off the top of my head I can tell you that chocolate is deadly to dogs but not us…not very close. Maybe there is a correlation but he was not able to site it.
Next…he flat out admit there is no published study on humans…not even himself. This is very important. When a study is published it is subject to intense scrutiny throughout the field. Many researchers leap in to repeat the study and findings, Repeatable by independent researchers is critical. Each protocol is studied. QA is closely examined. Without a published study anyone can claim anything. No study? Just opinion. And colorful charts is the equivalent on mere hand waving.
Too many are putting out utube videos without actual scientific facts to support their claims
He is working on remedying that situation with the assistance of Dave Feldman. There are some interesting results Dave came up with from his own data and tests from other people he knows here:
Then there is the part later on where he returns to discussing human studies. . . . not to mention data from one of his own studies that they were still writing up. . .
Dismiss Prof. Bikman if you like, but he’s doing original research, so his views are well worth considering. Time will tell how worthwhile his ideas are, but I think it’s far too soon to be rejecting them out of hand.
My feet are shrinking! I’ve gone from a 8 1/2 to a 8!
This happened to my husband. He leaned out to 13% body fat incredibly fast on keto. The fat just melted off of him but did leave him looking gaunt and older in the face. Definitely, slightly unhealthy looking even though he felt great. But a year later he looks way younger than when he started. Honestly I don’t think I’ve ever found him more attractive and I’ve been with him from when he was 21 to his current 55. I cannot get over it.
Wait, is that a thing? Really? Maybe they were just often very swollen?
So are you now buying new clothes AND new shoes?
It’s a thing. Happened when I was pregnant also. Feet grew and stayed around 8.5. Sunday I went to DSW to the 8.5 section and they were all too big!!!
I had to get my wedding ring resized. It kept falling off in the pool or if I was sweating.
My wedding ring is also very loose, especially when I fast for say 4.5 days. I use my wedding ring as a barometer of health. If it doesn’t come off easily, I’m “bloated”. I’m not sure I’ll have to have it resized, though.
If anyone thinks that protein affects their blood sugar level, buy a CGM. In the US, you can get a FreeStyle Libre 14 day for about $75 (where I am, expensive CT) for one month’s worth of data. You also need the reader, which I think is about $60. You also need strips (the European model does not) to test your blood sugar initially upon using a sensor. Those might be $30 or so, depending on how many you buy. Each sensor lasts 14 days. In Europe, these are sold over the counter, but in the US, you have to have a prescription. (If you’re diabetic, you might have the cost covered.)
So, don’t believe anyone and just test yourself. Eat very high protein and very low fat. See what happens. Use shrimp and mussels (both contain carbs, though), top round/London broil (lean), white chicken meat without skin (which I ate too much of when I was in low fat and can’t stand it anymore, but maybe you can), tuna in water, etc. Try it. Don’t take our word for it.
I did this for over a year, and NEVER found a single instance where my blood sugar went up due to protein. And I ate 200+ grams of protein in a single meal.
There may be other reasons to limit protein, but having your blood sugar go up is not one of them.
I should note that I bought a year’s supply of a FreeStyle Libre from Europe, specifically to prove that Ted Naiman was wrong. I fully expected a blood sugar rise after eating protein, which is why I ate massive amounts of protein and low fat. I wanted to test what would happen.
And what happened is that now I eat (in general, though not always) lower fat and higher protein. I found protein more satiating than fat. Again, something only you can test.
Same. Unless it is a very hot and humid day like today, I have to wear it on my middle finger or it slides right off. Someone here mentioned a ring guard. May have to get that. So far my feet have not changed. My wallet appreciate that at least.
As a note, I (and others) tested our blood sugar religiously around the time we were having the hypoglycemic effects – before, during, after. I mean going from having nothing like that. to nearly passing out after a meal, is a pretty big deal. (I couldn’t test ketones then, those meters didn’t exist in those days.) The eggs-sausage breakfast in particular really did kill my BG levels. I don’t mean it sent it high and then low. I mean it wasn’t unusual response but then it was in the dirt after. But it didn’t happen before that era. And it doesn’t happen now. So clearly something was going on – as noted, that was just following losing a whole lot of weight very fast. I still suspect it is something about some people (likely the fatter the moreso) being hyperinsulenemic, and correcting their blood glucose thanks to lowcarb, but still having the hyperinsulinemia be a problem not yet corrected. That happening in the absence of high glucose could result in that reactive hypoglycemic effect, at least that seems logical.
The reason we look for PUBLISHED studies is because through that process there is intense peer scrutiny.
He can talk all about how his study (unpublished) has proven the sky purple (unpublished protocol) and go on to wave his hands with a great show of colored charts. But where is the data? No one can see it, no one can duplicate his methods.
Way too much unsubstantiated hoopla on the web.
Like everyone says…show me the data. Can’t or won’t? Come back when you can.
@Katiekate Ansel Keys was PUBLISHED and subject to intense peer scrutiny. We debate (finally) about just how intense the scrutiny of his peers. We are now after 50+ years beginning to recover from that PUBLISHED and peer reviewed data, cherry picked to support his premise. And 50 years into one of the greatest health disasters in recorded history. My bet is the final death toll due to Ancel Keys and the peer scrutiny he received is an order of magnitude beyond the Black Death of the Middle Ages.
Sure, we want published data, REAL scrutiny and multiple replications of the results. We ought to get that BEFORE making massive societal changes, like those that occurred after Keys published. I think it might also be a good idea to be open to different ways to accomplish it. Physics seems to be the only discipline left where peer review still seems to work - most of the time.
Unfortunately even published studies can be seriously “off” due to bias, poor study design, creative statistics etc. These studies don’t always undergo “intense scrutiny” - certainly not before publication and often not afterwards either. Most people who read these studies only have access to an abstract - they don’t read the entire study nor do they have the training to analyze study design or to critique how the data was analyzed. For more on how publications are controlled see prominent lipid researcher Dr. Mary Enig’s talk “The Oiling of America” . You can find it at https://www.ForgetCalories,Org/the-oiling-of america. You’ll never look at published studies in quite the same way again.
Exactly, which why I referenced Keys. If you don’t know who Ancel Keys was and the influence his pseudoscience has had:
I agree that peer-reviewed science is a good thing, as @Katiekate said. Though it would sure be nice if I had more faith in the current state of it – many editors of the most prestigious journals are more cynical about that than we could ever be and have said so publicly.
But there is “armchair theory” and there is “life.”
Take John, some dude who would really like to be healthier, stronger, leaner. Maybe even deal with some worse health issue. John doesn’t have 40 years to sit around waiting to see if corporate money and government decide to, eventually, do experiments to find out X_. John would actually like to do something constructive about his situation NOW. And the official party lines of corporate money and government are what nearly killed him already, and are efficiently, if lucratively-slowly, killing off much of the rest of the population as well.
So John will have to take matters into his own hands, as I assume any proactive, decently intelligent person would want to do, and try to find whatever ideas he can, and experiment on himself. He’s an N=1, in an internet world of other N=1’s, it’s a whole sea of “anecdotal” – because if there were enough decent funded research on it already, then there wouldn’t be a boatload of people all over the world doing their own N=1 experiments to try and better understand this.
The good news is, they’re “crowd-sourcing” that N=1 experimentation. And sometimes, some of the most legit researchers in the field actually hear or read about it, and are able to give their input, or even structure something they experiment with in the future improved by that idea.
In order for N=1 to join the community of humans with similar interests, people have to write it down and/or talk about it or both. Many of them are not scientists, and even if they were, their situations are not remotely ‘controlled’ the way an experiment would be. Obviously there are limits in every area as a result, depending on the person. But the more people working on it, sharing information, the more chance all those N=1’s have of finding new ideas to try, or new warning advisories from someone else’s experience.
There are many sports, and even musical genres, which began solely with a bunch of people doing N=1 experiments, then getting together to share the interest and info, and eventually developing it into something much greater than it began. Much of early medicine and science was exactly this – we have changed greatly on how we go about things, and while some of it has improved, a lot of it is not improved by the changes.
I think it’s easy to armchair it all and say well, if it’s not ALREADY got someone official with official funding and official publication then it’s not “real” – sure, it’s not peer reviewed.
But you don’t need a PhD to try eating more protein and see if it works for you.
It’s sort of patronizing because it ignores that most people really pursuing health are doing it – well, for their HEALTH – but often literally to save their lives. Modern ‘medicine’ and ‘official nutrition’ is more harm than help at this point.
It should be a given that anybody who wants to live, and thinks independently, is going to pursue other sources of ideas, N=1 experiments, and so on.
This is a feature of the internet and its community, not a bug.
I don’t think people should be dissed for sharing their efforts or explorations, nor for taking seriously those who do.
Don’t forget what Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay published in peer-reviewed journals… we live in great times for science and I say that with a blend of feeling hopeful and sarcastic.
Well said. I am a N=1 experiment.
My cardiologist is now 100% into low carb, he is even doing the kraft test for his patients. He wasn’t that way when I started with him but about a year ago there was a huge change in his viewpoint. He now tells me to keep doing what I’m doing.