After numerous imaging and neurological tests, I was diagnosed as having 'migraine with aura' (visual disturbances). At that time, I was confused by the diagnosis, because I had yet not experienced any pain. I just had these constant flashing strobe lights in my peripheral vision and nothing else. I had never known that migraines can occur without pain. Soon afterward, I developed my first headache. It was the worse pain I had ever felt in my life.
The doctors prescribed pain medication and supplements. They basically told me this condition is chronic and had no treatment. They had medications for the auras if they bothered me too much. They suggested that I try to reduce stress and be careful with my cholesterol. People with my type of migraine were at a very high risk for a stroke. These answers were not satisfactory for me. These migraines had to be caused by something and I wanted to know what.
With time, the migraines didn’t get any better. They got worse. I was having painful headaches more frequently. During a painful attack, my speech and the right side of my face was affected. The muscles on that side felt unresponsive and weak. I developed extreme sensitivity to light and couldn’t go outside without dark glasses and a hat. I had to tint all of the windows in my home, because the sunlight coming in was excruciating. I could not focus my eyes on anything, because it would trigger a headache. I couldn’t read books anymore. I had to limit my computer usage to no more than 30 minutes a day. I had constant nausea. I felt strange crawling and pulling sensations around my neck and scalp. My scalp was very painful to the touch.
I didn’t know what would trigger a painful event or when it would happen. It could happen anywhere, at any time. The symptoms would just keep coming. I would have dizzy spells, light headedness, sleep disturbances, excessive yawning, paresthesia, olfactory hallucinations, narcolepsy and pseudobulbar affect. The more tests they ran, the more things they came across. I was also diagnosed with seizures and this seemed to be the culprit for my neurological problems. This was all on top of my high cholesterol, high blood pressure, chronic back pain, widespread body pain and issues with anxiety.
Then the right side of my vision disappeared. I was blind in one eye. When my vision came back, minutes later, my head was exploding in pain. After more scans, they gave me the same migraine diagnosis and prescribed seizure medication. “Sometimes they change,” the doctor explained. Thankfully nothing new appeared on the scans. My brain looked the same. I had to go home and accept that every once in a while, I would go blind. I wondered what type of long term damage this could be causing to my brain, since I had all these new symptoms. Whatever this was, it was obviously serious enough to cause parts of my brain to stop working. I had to get answers quickly, because this migraine was indeed changing, it was getting worse. I was losing my sight about once or twice a week. Sometimes it would be followed by excruciating pain and other times not. I just didn’t know how it would be at any given moment. Now I had to stop driving.
The migraines were a concern to me, but I became obsessed over another abnormality that the doctors had missed. It was my postprandial blood glucose. My husband obtained a blood glucose meter from the clinic and insisted for me to check my fasting and postprandial blood glucose. I thought it was a big waste of time since my fasting blood glucose had always been normal, except for a few times, which the doctor didn’t seem concerned about. The doctor never discussed postprandial blood glucose. I figured that if the doctor wasn’t worried, there was nothing to worry about, but I would humor my husband and check anyway.
My fasting blood glucose seemed pretty good, but when I checked, two hours after eating, it would be very high. Three hours after eating it would be even higher. It was usually in the high 200 mg/dL for hours. My husband insisted this wasn’t normal, but I wasn’t sure what these readings actually meant. Postprandial blood glucose readings were something that I was completely unfamiliar with.
Surprisingly, I was actually eating “healthy”, at least according to the guidelines. I had to because of my cholesterol, which I had been battling for years. I had been eating the recommended, heart healthy diet all through this battle. I ate no fat, salt and very little meat. The little meat I did eat had to be lean. No eggs and dairy products were eaten, unless they were fat free. Since I didn’t like fat free dairy, I didn’t eat it at all. Fast food, like pizzas and burgers, where rarely on the menu. To confound problems further, I was never a "big eater". I only ate once a day, twice on the weekends. I had been this way since childhood.
The next day I reduced my meal portion to see what affects it would have, but my postprandial blood glucose remained high. I got rid of the little bit of meat I ate, to see if it would make a difference. My blood glucose went even higher. I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I didn’t know where the blood glucose was coming from.
I logged my blood glucose readings for two weeks and took it to my doctor on the next visit. I was certain I would finally get answers from her, but I got an unexpected reaction instead. The doctor seemed disturbed that I had been checking and logging my blood glucose. I was not diabetic. My last routine lab work had shown a normal fasting blood glucose, so why was I logging it? I should be concerned about my cholesterol instead. But, I had done everything to control my cholesterol, by this point, and it was still in the low to mid 200’s. I basically gave up on it, because nothing I did lowered it to a number the doctors were happy with. Every time I thought I had lowered it enough, I would get the “still too high” lecture. I was already on a no-fat diet, so I couldn’t lower the fat content further. I was convinced my cholesterol was beyond my control. So, my curiosity had shifted to my blood glucose instead.
The doctor reluctantly looked at my blood glucose log. She didn’t seem concerned. I was, once again, taken aback by her reaction. I wasn’t expecting such a nonchalant attitude toward blood glucose readings in the 200 mg/dL range. I had been sure that once she saw those readings, her attitude about this situation would change. It didn’t. She told me that I had multiple high readings, but that was because I must have eaten “junk food”. I told her that I didn’t eat “junk food”. I ate the recommended cholesterol lowering diet the cardiologist had recommended and I even gave her several meal examples, which she had no qualms about. She insisted the only other explanation was that I had simply "eaten too much".
I told her that I had already reduced my meal portions, especially of meat. She seemed pleased by this. I had guessed she would be. Meat is always the culprit of everything that can possibly go wrong with your health. Even if you did nothing else for yourself, pulling out the “I eat less meat” card will always get you kudos. Unfortunately, if reducing meal portions wasn’t enough and I had to eat even less, as she suggested, I wouldn’t be eating at all.
My doctor went on a rant about how blood glucose was simply “units of energy”. She immediately grabbed onto the fact that I ate once a day, as the obvious explanation of what was happening to me. I shouldn’t be eating once or twice a day, but much more frequently and in smaller portions. She told me to divide my lunch into two or three meals. I couldn’t imagine eating that frequently or that my lunch portion was large enough to be divided. I supposed it could be several snacks.
All I wanted to do was lower my blood glucose, no matter what I had to adapt to in order to achieve it. What bothered me more than the inconvenience of eating in intervals though, was that my doctor wasn’t making any sense. If she believed blood glucose was simply “units of energy” (calories), wouldn’t eating more equate to more calories? After all, my one meal was not going to cut it if I divided it. I would have to increase it. That would technically make matters worse. At the very least, even if I didn’t eat more, wouldn’t dividing my lunch into smaller portions and eating it throughout the day, equate to the same number of calories I was already consuming? That would basically leave me right where I started. Why would eating the same amount of energy, in intervals, be any different from eating it all at once? After all, it’s just calories. These calories would equate to the same amount at the end of the day, regardless of how I ate them.
I didn’t bring this up to her. I felt it wouldn’t be appropriate to do so. She was smarter than me. She was a doctor and didn’t go through twelve years of medical school to get a degree and then be questioned by a disabled patient that barely graduated high school. I figured that I didn’t understand this mechanism thoroughly, because I was a layperson. I couldn’t continue taking up more of her time by continuing to ask questions. She was a doctor, not a teacher. She was already irritated with the whole topic as it was.
Things continued going downhill when the conversation turned to exercise. I had never been active. As a child, I never was interested in sports or any physical activity, for that matter. I couldn’t see myself out in the hot Florida weather trying to exercise. I was always sweating and uncomfortably hot, even under air conditioning, so the thought of being outdoors was not a pleasant one. I did not have the financial means to join a gym. I was also walking on a cane. I couldn’t imagine what type of physical activity I would be able to do, when I couldn’t move around very well. But, the doctor insisted that I could walk short distances. I went home with no more answers than I had before the visit.
The doctor not only shunned what was happening to me, but she also didn’t want to give me a prescription for blood glucose monitoring supplies. She deemed it unnecessary. Since she wouldn’t give me the prescription, I decided to get my own. I continued changing what I was eating and playing with portions, just to see how it would affect my blood glucose. I had to get to the bottom of this. The portions were not affecting my numbers much, but I started to see big differences in them depending on what I ate, rather than how much.
On my next meal, I had meat, no rice and my postprandial blood glucose was normal. The next day, I had meat, beans, no rice and my postprandial blood glucose went up. Then I had meat and a banana. My postprandial blood glucose went up again. What about meat and a salad? My postprandial blood glucose was normal. Finally meat, rice, a banana and my postprandial blood glucose was nearly 300 mg/dL. Who would have thought that bland rice, the world’s most unsweet food, would be causing the effects of a Crème Brule?
The migraines were a concern to me, but I became obsessed over another abnormality that the doctors had missed. It was my postprandial blood glucose. My husband obtained a blood glucose meter from the clinic and insisted for me to check my fasting and postprandial blood glucose. I thought it was a big waste of time since my fasting blood glucose had always been normal, except for a few times, which the doctor didn’t seem concerned about. The doctor never discussed postprandial blood glucose. I figured that if the doctor wasn’t worried, there was nothing to worry about, but I would humor my husband and check anyway.
My fasting blood glucose seemed pretty good, but when I checked, two hours after eating, it would be very high. Three hours after eating it would be even higher. It was usually in the high 200 mg/dL for hours. My husband insisted this wasn’t normal, but I wasn’t sure what these readings actually meant. Postprandial blood glucose readings were something that I was completely unfamiliar with.
Surprisingly, I was actually eating “healthy”, at least according to the guidelines. I had to because of my cholesterol, which I had been battling for years. I had been eating the recommended, heart healthy diet all through this battle. I ate no fat, salt and very little meat. The little meat I did eat had to be lean. No eggs and dairy products were eaten, unless they were fat free. Since I didn’t like fat free dairy, I didn’t eat it at all. Fast food, like pizzas and burgers, where rarely on the menu. To confound problems further, I was never a "big eater". I only ate once a day, twice on the weekends. I had been this way since childhood.
The next day I reduced my meal portion to see what affects it would have, but my postprandial blood glucose remained high. I got rid of the little bit of meat I ate, to see if it would make a difference. My blood glucose went even higher. I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I didn’t know where the blood glucose was coming from.
I logged my blood glucose readings for two weeks and took it to my doctor on the next visit. I was certain I would finally get answers from her, but I got an unexpected reaction instead. The doctor seemed disturbed that I had been checking and logging my blood glucose. I was not diabetic. My last routine lab work had shown a normal fasting blood glucose, so why was I logging it? I should be concerned about my cholesterol instead. But, I had done everything to control my cholesterol, by this point, and it was still in the low to mid 200’s. I basically gave up on it, because nothing I did lowered it to a number the doctors were happy with. Every time I thought I had lowered it enough, I would get the “still too high” lecture. I was already on a no-fat diet, so I couldn’t lower the fat content further. I was convinced my cholesterol was beyond my control. So, my curiosity had shifted to my blood glucose instead.
The doctor reluctantly looked at my blood glucose log. She didn’t seem concerned. I was, once again, taken aback by her reaction. I wasn’t expecting such a nonchalant attitude toward blood glucose readings in the 200 mg/dL range. I had been sure that once she saw those readings, her attitude about this situation would change. It didn’t. She told me that I had multiple high readings, but that was because I must have eaten “junk food”. I told her that I didn’t eat “junk food”. I ate the recommended cholesterol lowering diet the cardiologist had recommended and I even gave her several meal examples, which she had no qualms about. She insisted the only other explanation was that I had simply "eaten too much".
I told her that I had already reduced my meal portions, especially of meat. She seemed pleased by this. I had guessed she would be. Meat is always the culprit of everything that can possibly go wrong with your health. Even if you did nothing else for yourself, pulling out the “I eat less meat” card will always get you kudos. Unfortunately, if reducing meal portions wasn’t enough and I had to eat even less, as she suggested, I wouldn’t be eating at all.
My doctor went on a rant about how blood glucose was simply “units of energy”. She immediately grabbed onto the fact that I ate once a day, as the obvious explanation of what was happening to me. I shouldn’t be eating once or twice a day, but much more frequently and in smaller portions. She told me to divide my lunch into two or three meals. I couldn’t imagine eating that frequently or that my lunch portion was large enough to be divided. I supposed it could be several snacks.
All I wanted to do was lower my blood glucose, no matter what I had to adapt to in order to achieve it. What bothered me more than the inconvenience of eating in intervals though, was that my doctor wasn’t making any sense. If she believed blood glucose was simply “units of energy” (calories), wouldn’t eating more equate to more calories? After all, my one meal was not going to cut it if I divided it. I would have to increase it. That would technically make matters worse. At the very least, even if I didn’t eat more, wouldn’t dividing my lunch into smaller portions and eating it throughout the day, equate to the same number of calories I was already consuming? That would basically leave me right where I started. Why would eating the same amount of energy, in intervals, be any different from eating it all at once? After all, it’s just calories. These calories would equate to the same amount at the end of the day, regardless of how I ate them.
I didn’t bring this up to her. I felt it wouldn’t be appropriate to do so. She was smarter than me. She was a doctor and didn’t go through twelve years of medical school to get a degree and then be questioned by a disabled patient that barely graduated high school. I figured that I didn’t understand this mechanism thoroughly, because I was a layperson. I couldn’t continue taking up more of her time by continuing to ask questions. She was a doctor, not a teacher. She was already irritated with the whole topic as it was.
Things continued going downhill when the conversation turned to exercise. I had never been active. As a child, I never was interested in sports or any physical activity, for that matter. I couldn’t see myself out in the hot Florida weather trying to exercise. I was always sweating and uncomfortably hot, even under air conditioning, so the thought of being outdoors was not a pleasant one. I did not have the financial means to join a gym. I was also walking on a cane. I couldn’t imagine what type of physical activity I would be able to do, when I couldn’t move around very well. But, the doctor insisted that I could walk short distances. I went home with no more answers than I had before the visit.
The doctor not only shunned what was happening to me, but she also didn’t want to give me a prescription for blood glucose monitoring supplies. She deemed it unnecessary. Since she wouldn’t give me the prescription, I decided to get my own. I continued changing what I was eating and playing with portions, just to see how it would affect my blood glucose. I had to get to the bottom of this. The portions were not affecting my numbers much, but I started to see big differences in them depending on what I ate, rather than how much.
On my next meal, I had meat, no rice and my postprandial blood glucose was normal. The next day, I had meat, beans, no rice and my postprandial blood glucose went up. Then I had meat and a banana. My postprandial blood glucose went up again. What about meat and a salad? My postprandial blood glucose was normal. Finally meat, rice, a banana and my postprandial blood glucose was nearly 300 mg/dL. Who would have thought that bland rice, the world’s most unsweet food, would be causing the effects of a Crème Brule?
What I Did
It certainly couldn’t be as easy as just low carbohydrate dieting, could it? Well, yes and no.
During my research, I came across a lot of different ways to follow low carbohydrate diets. I was bombarded with different information, from many sources, some of it contradictory. Navigating the world of low carbohydrate is not much different than reading the tabloids at the store checkout. Every day there is a new headline and some new “miracle” research that will “change everything we have known so far”. Weeding out all of the misinformation was time consuming and difficult, but I was up for the task.
Luckily, I have always been the type of person that has questioned everything. My research had led me to the knowledge that I was eating nothing but glucose in the form of rice and legumes. Both were a carbohydrate, so naturally, I began researching carbohydrates and their effects on the body. That started my journey. But this journey wasn't easy. It took me through many twists and turns. Just when I thought it had delivered me to my destination, I realized it had all been a lie.
Journey Through The World Of Low Carbohydrate
The world of low carb is all smoke and mirrors. When you research foods and blood glucose, you will run across this world but you won't be aware it's a scam. You will be duped by it because what you will find there will correlate perfectly with your experience and this will make you believe it has to be true. But, like I said before, I question everything so I didn't stay long in this land run by charlatans. Lucky for me, I ran across them after I had reached my goals.
I had already lost my weight when I came across Fung. So you have to understand that I was looking at all of this from the stand point of having already reached my goals. I think that is what made me not as vigilant as I should have been over the information that was being given. After all, these were "doctors" and I'm not. I'm just thankful that because I had already lost my weight I didn't end up like so many others who followed this nonsense to their own detriment.
I lost my weight by following a modified carbohydrate restricted diet which was lower in carbs than typical Atkins. I had removed all the sugar and grains from it. I stopped avoiding saturated fats and used them instead of vegetable oils. This was a protocol I had designed for myself after reading 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Gary Taubes. I ran across his book during the time I was researching how changes in my diet were affecting my blood glucose.
Later on, when I came across Fung, his protocol made sense as it matched closely to what I had already read. Interestingly enough, I found Fung not through fasting research but through cholesterol. Fung had extensive information on cholesterol and saturated fat intake which I was interested in because I had stabilized my blood glucose by this time, but my already high cholesterol had become worse.
Before then, I had never heard of fasting as being "a thing" but I figured it was a new approach for treating diabetes. When I started fasting for 16 - 18 hours a day and continued losing weight, it verified to me that everything was Kosher. I failed to realize that the fasting protocol was not what was causing my further weight loss. I had just continued being leptin sensitive and would have resumed losing weight even without the fasting protocol. You can see that at this point, I had not delved deeply into human metabolism and obesity research. I was going by basic general information on insulin resistance, provided by the low carb community. I never corroborated what was being said.
As time went on, I started noticing inconsistencies though. For instance, the more people fasted, the less results they seemed to have. This was always downplayed because they would have "lower" blood glucose or "lower" lipids while fasting, "proving" that it was working. They would also lose 5 or 10 pounds and consider that a victory even when they regained them after they ate again. I was baffled as to why these people were being given the repeated advice to continue with something that was obviously not working. No answers were ever provided to explain this. This bothered me because I figured that if they were clear as to why they believed their protocol worked, they should also be clear as to why it wouldn't. After all, they were the "professionals" but the advice remained to just fast longer.
I did not understand why these longer and longer fasts were being promoted when they obviously didn't work. It started to feel like a sporting competition, rather than a serious treatment. This is not how I lost my weight and I didn't see anyone else lose theirs this way either. In fact, the few who were able to succeed, never followed these fasting protocols at all. We were just people who had already lost a significant amount of weight, following a carbohydrate restricted diet, and were now trying to find further information for fine tuning our approach, receive advice for weight maintenance or address new issues that might have arisen during our journey, like my higher cholesterol.
Aside from this whole fasting quackery, I saw multiple errors with the dietary advice being given. It seemed like all the emphasis was being put on the ability to fast longer and longer while the diet remained mediocre at best. Many times, the diet would just worsen with time and people would try and "fix it" through longer fasts. Again, that is not how I lost my weight. I lost my weight following an extraordinarily strict diet and I ate every day. I knew that exercise was vitally important as well but it was always glossed over or not mentioned at all.
I started questioning the people who were giving all of this advice. They weren't nurses or medical professionals. They were just recruited from an online pool of followers and given a fake "coach" title that didn't mean anything. Most of these "coaches" were obese themselves and seriously struggling with the protocol they were advising on. These individuals didn't know anything about how to treat obesity. Yet people were paying a program for these nobodies to provide them with "advice" about something they can do themselves.
Finally, I came to the conclusion that all of this was a blatant scam. I can't think of another word that would best describe it. This doesn't just pertain to Fung, by the way. I saw it everywhere in the low carb community. All of these people were basically selling snake oil. From bogus "fasting aids", to useless "one on one" sessions, to books, recipes, website accesses, supplements, event tickets and finally online schools so you can scam too. This is why a lot of these low carb advocates started expanding their scams into other areas like cancer, "longevity", fertility, the magical effects of salt, etc. They know they can't put all their effort into one scam because the gig will eventually be up.
And the gig was up. People were complaining that they weren't getting results or reaching their goals. Many simply gave up and walked away years later, as obese as when they first arrived. I saw people become more obese with time. Some ended in the hospital. Some ended with full blown diabetes and/or other serious conditions. Some ended up dead because they thought they could treat their cancer through fasting and "starving it of sugar". Now the scam was not only simple theft of the naïve but it was actually harming people. And it's all legal because they can simply hide behind their disclaimers and say they had nothing to do with any of it. After all, it's up to you to discuss their "advice" with your doctor.
The followers weren't the only ones who noticed the gig was up. Researchers were coming forward and complaining that their studies were being misinterpreted and misapplied. Some doctors jumped ship as they realized this was a farce and didn't want to be associated with it anymore. More and more quacks and non professionals were being invited to speak at these "conferences" because legitimate people did not want to be caught dead there. A few scandals broke out behind the scenes. Even the goal post was being moved, inch by inch, until weight loss was no longer even being promoted. The entire house of cards was toppling over and low carb's 15 minutes of fame was up.
That's when I left. I didn't want to be associated with that circus. Not only did I leave, but now I was very curious about the naysayers I use to ignore. I became interested in what they had to say rather than just chalk them up to being "hating trolls". I started to do what I should have done from the beginning. I went deep into diabetes and obesity research. Not "low carb" interpreted propaganda but actual medical literature and real biology. I didn't have to go far to realize all of the misinformation being spoused by the low carb community. It only verified that I had done the right thing by leaving.
After I had left, I was finally vindicated in my decision and it occurred in an unexpected way. Dr. Peter Attia conducted an interview with Dr. Tom Dayspring, a board certified doctor of internal medicine and clinical lipidology. Now, Attia may have questionable beliefs but this interview was eye opening as they had a special guest on the show - software engineer Dave Feldman. What occurred during this interview, in my opinion, put the final nail on the coffin for the low carb community. Feldman was embarrassingly obliterated by Dayspring. Feldman knew nothing of what Dayspring was talking about and had to be corrected multiple times. Finally, Dayspring told him, in no uncertain terms, that his "experiments" were already known in the world of lipidology and basically ignored as being absolutely meaningless in the context of cardiovascular disease. Feldman discovered nothing new. He was just witnessing how lipids are suppose to work. The software engineer went back to hiding in his hole and plotting out a new way to make money without working.
Even Attia threw some dirt over Feldman's grave by challenging him to attend a real lipidology conference and present his research, if he was so confident in it, instead of always going to low carb conferences. Of course, Feldman was not up for that task and made multiple excuses as to why he couldn't, even though Attia gave solutions for all his obstacles. Feldman never did take Attia up on that advice, by the way. Instead, Feldman now also has some bogus paywall site that teaches you all about cholesterol and helps you do his meaningless experiment at home. The experiment may not protect you from a heart attack but many have used it to help them acquire life insurance. In other words - insurance scam. This is what made me wonder, what else do these people have wrong? Worse, how many more of them simply don't care they have it wrong?
Me Today
I now relay what is really known about obesity and diabetes to my readers and how they can apply it safely to their lives to help with their treatment. I hope that what I experienced helps people to not take anyone's word for anything. Research it yourself. Cross reference everything. Be very careful because the internet is like the wild west when it comes to information.
I try to share my story with as many people as I can and I debunk the lies about obesity. I think this information can be useful for others who are struggling and that is why I opened this blog. I also administer the Journey To Metabolic Health Facebook Group, for those who are serious about improving their metabolism.
No comments:
Post a Comment