FWIW that use for GERD symptoms is new to me. It seems that there is at least one small study supportive as well. Interesting as I had understood that smaller more frequent meals was the way to go, other than trying to have an early last meal with a big window before bed.
What time did you restrict to?
I only ate supper, skipping breakfast, lunch, and after dinner snacks, one or two days a week. Basically, i didn’t produce a lot of acid until i started eating, and had a day of little pain and, i believe, healing.
It wasn’t something medically recommended or supervised, it was something i fell into because it provided a lot of pain relief. And i had a lot of pain. Probably, i would have done better to just tell my doctor that this reduced antacid schedule wasn’t working.
(My bedtime is late, so supper is several hours before bed time.)
Let’s define our terms.
Those are proven benefits of intermittent fasting, that isn’t anything I personally reported on.
More properly it falls under (generally speaking) calorie restriction.
There is no way to burn fat without a marked reduction in caloric intake. There is more than one way to do that. Let’s keep this stuff separated, and call it by what it is.
Losing weight is a good thing, if it looks stupid and it works, well then it isn’t stupid! I just can’t get over the general hostility to this.
I was diagnosed type II diabetes but I disagree strongly with the diagnosis. The doctors can’t explain why if I eat a powdered donut and wolf it down in a couple of minutes I’ll spike but if I take two hours to eat the same powdered donut, a small nibble every 10 minutes or so, there’s zero change in my glucose. They also can’t explain why insulin shots don’t seem to work. They just threw that diagnosis on me more or less to get the meeting over with I feel, or to keep the money go round happening. I eat what I want when I feel like it, but I eat everything extremely slowly. It takes about 3 hours to eat lunch or dinner, so frequently I just get something big and nibble on it all day.
More sugar in a shorter time means a higher spike. Drugs such as Trulicity and Ozempic work by slowing down digestion so that the sugar is processed more slowly.
That’s trivial to explain.
T2 diabetes isn’t the absence of natural insulin. It’s the limited production and limited effectiveness of what is produced.
If you eat either carb-lite enough, or slowly enough, the instantaneous insulin demand doesn’t exceed your body’s reduced instantaneous ability to provide.
The problem is that your pancreas is like a trickle charger for a battery. As designed, over the course of a day it can produce enough insulin to keep up with normal eating. But it does that slowly and gradually and continuously, with the pancreas storing what’s not needed right now. Until you eat a big meal, when the pancreas then squirts out, say, the last 6 hours of production in the next 5 minutes.
The point there being that if over 24 total hours you eat more carbs needing insulin, or you’re sufficiently insulin resistant, that your poor pancreas can’t produce that much insulin in those same 24 hours, you have a problem. The pancreas will try to work overtime. But it can only do that for some months or years before it starts to die from overwork. And each cell that dies means more overwork for the survivors. It’s a one-way ratchet down an ever-increasingly steep slope to no natural insulin at all.
Don’t go there.
Okay thanks. Now why can’t the doctors explain that? What’s their motive for not telling me that straight up?
I can’t answer that.
Doctors generally don’t explain disease processes to patients. When I was diagnosed, they prescribed attending a group course taught at the hospital by nurses. Which took about four 4-hour sessions. Along the way I and everyone else in attendance learned a lot about the laymen’s level explanation of how glucose regulation and the regulation defect called “diabetes” works. We also learned how best to live with it. We had homework and I still have their 50-page booklet around here somewhere.
The economic model for medical care in this country doesn’t and can’t spend that kind of time using MDs and doing it one on one. I bet if you ask you’ll find there is diabetes education available to you.
Overall your first post comes across as mildly hostile and definitely resistant to new or unwelcome information. Was that perhaps a factor when you were talking to the doc(s)?
Not exactly hostile, just massive distrust. I don’t want to fight with them because of the energy involved, but I feel I must. And it’s not with just doctors but all medical personnel. I’m very quick to tell any medical personnel that I’m the one making the final decisions, and I need the information to make intelligent decisions. I’d say about half of them are respectful of that, but half of them think they’re in command. I’m direct and blunt by nature, because I see these sorts of things as, okay this is what it is, what’s my reaction? I want the answer uncensored and as direct as possible. I’m all for the information being new and I’m willing to handle what I don’t want to hear, but when it comes to deciding how to combat it, I’m the man, that’s the end, not budging on that.
It took two years to get a doctor to describe the actual affliction after the first surgeries, which is hypercoagulation. I spent at least 6 years faffing about with the diabetic argument and it’s only when a wound wouldn’t heal and I died for 45 minutes due to septic shock that I actually got some answers as to what the problem was. Yes I had to go through that to find out what was actually wrong because no one would give me the full answer. Why wouldn’t I be angry that it took so long? This couldn’t have been prevented, but the journey should have started 6 years ago when my limbs started discolouring.
The diabetes (or diabetic tendency as I think of it) is under control and I tend to run low (around 80) just from my natural eating habits (very low carb, piscan based). When I spike it’s never over 160. I am not taking anything for it, just relying on that and it seems to be working. The actual affliction is that with my blood trying to clot inside my body, I’m in serious danger of 4 known aneurysms bursting at any time, and that scenario is very likely how I’ll make my exit. My dad went that way. I am on blood thinners just to keep it flowing, and the acid test is whether I could perform sexually. If enough blood gets there I know it’s flowing as it’s supposed to.
While I didn’t know the information that you gave me, it did answer the question. Thank you.
Here’s the analogy I use. Think about it like a town in the old days when they used firewood for their energy. Let’s say everyone had a lock on their door, so that the person who delivers wood needs a key to get in and drop off the wood.
Type 1 diabetes is like the town police getting confused and smashing up the shop of the key maker (the pancreas) who makes the keys (insulin).
Type 2 diabetes is like the timber cutters cutting down too much wood (glucose), overwhelming the delivery people. They all compensate, the key maker makes more keys, and the delivery people stop by more frequently to deal with all the extra wood, but gradually the locks start wearing out due to the doors having to open so often. Eventually the mechanisms used to compensate also wear out, but the primary problem is the locks (insulin receptors) shutting down due to being overwhelmed by the load of wood (glucose) that they have to deal with.
Both end up with a similar end pathway, where the excess fire wood lying around in the streets (elevated glucose levels in circulation) clog up the streets (damage arteries) and subsequently the other businesses that depend on those streets being open (organs like the kidneys, heart, eyes, etc.) get damaged due to that. But the reasons they got there are completely different.