Greetings all. Let me begin by saying I am new to veganism - only been at it for about three weeks.
I am sure you are all aware that, in the short term at least, it appears that keto diets often do better in serious studies (not anecdotes) - more weight loss, better glucose control, better lipids. However, the counterargument, methinks, is that they (keto diets) are (a) damaging in the long term; (b) likely to not otherwise maintain these benefits over time.
In short, the vegan argument is WPFB is better in the long term. And this is why I am trying veganism (I appreciate the ethical stuff as well).
I am interested in more details about the science in relation to glucose control in particular (and perhaps no one here will know this stuff, but no harm in asking).
As I understand it, the proponents of WFPB argue that "cells clogged with fat" is the big problem with diabetes - that this fat prevents the "insulin key from opening the lock on the cell" to allow the sugar to get out of the blood (where it causes harm) and into the cell (where it belongs). If you get rid of the fat, you can eat plenty of healthy carbs and your glucose control will get better even though you are increasing the amount of "sugar" in your blood. The reason: the sugar can now get into the cells and out of the bloodstream.
Fine. So far so good.
My question is this: Would the WFPB expert say that the reason that the WFPB diets can do worse than the keto in the short term (say over 12 weeks) is that it takes time to clear the cells of this fat? By contrast, if you go keto, you will almost instantly drop your blood glucose for rather obvious reasons. I have watched a lot of videos from the likes of Dr. Barnard and Dr. Khambatta but they never appear to make this kind of case.
I hope my question is clear and I would be happy to clarify if necessary.
I am sure you are all aware that, in the short term at least, it appears that keto diets often do better in serious studies (not anecdotes) - more weight loss, better glucose control, better lipids. However, the counterargument, methinks, is that they (keto diets) are (a) damaging in the long term; (b) likely to not otherwise maintain these benefits over time.
In short, the vegan argument is WPFB is better in the long term. And this is why I am trying veganism (I appreciate the ethical stuff as well).
I am interested in more details about the science in relation to glucose control in particular (and perhaps no one here will know this stuff, but no harm in asking).
As I understand it, the proponents of WFPB argue that "cells clogged with fat" is the big problem with diabetes - that this fat prevents the "insulin key from opening the lock on the cell" to allow the sugar to get out of the blood (where it causes harm) and into the cell (where it belongs). If you get rid of the fat, you can eat plenty of healthy carbs and your glucose control will get better even though you are increasing the amount of "sugar" in your blood. The reason: the sugar can now get into the cells and out of the bloodstream.
Fine. So far so good.
My question is this: Would the WFPB expert say that the reason that the WFPB diets can do worse than the keto in the short term (say over 12 weeks) is that it takes time to clear the cells of this fat? By contrast, if you go keto, you will almost instantly drop your blood glucose for rather obvious reasons. I have watched a lot of videos from the likes of Dr. Barnard and Dr. Khambatta but they never appear to make this kind of case.
I hope my question is clear and I would be happy to clarify if necessary.