Details of vegetarian diet and history

What is the vegetarian diet? What are the benefits of a vegetarian diet?

A short history of vegetarianism

The earliest records of vegetarianism come from the 6th century B.C., in India, Greece and the Greek civilization in Southern Italy. In all these cases vegetarianism was closely linked to a desire not to harm animals. In India this peace towards animals was called ahimsa and was a common lifestyle among religious people and philosophers.

The conversion to Christianity of the Roman Empire virtually eliminated all traces of vegetarianism from Europe. Many orders of monks in medieval Europe either banned or limited meat consumption as a gesture of personal sacrifice or abstinence - however, none of them shunned fish. It was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that vegetarianism started to get a foothold again in Western society.

The Vegetarian Society was formed in England in 1847; equivalent societies soon followed in Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries. During the 20th century vegetarianism caught on swiftly throughout Western society. People´s motivations were for ethical, environmental, or economic reasons - and sometimes a combination or two or three reasons. Approximately 70% of the world´s lacto-vegetarians are in India, it is estimated. Approximately 20% to 42% of India´s population is vegetarian.

The term vegetarian generally means a person who does not consume animal products; this includes land and sea animals. Most vegetarians generally do consume eggs and dairy products (milk products).

Somebody who does not consume any animal protein at all, not even eggs, dairy, or honey, is a vegan. Some people call themselves vegetarians, but they consume fish.

According to the National Library of Medicine1, if you follow a vegetarian diet you should be able to get all the nutrients you need. However, you need to be careful that you eat a wide variety of foods to make sure you meet your nutritional requirements.

The four main types of vegetarians are:

•Lacto-vegetarians - they consume dairy products, but no eggs. Most do consume honey.

•Ovo-vegetarians - they consume eggs, but no dairy. Most do consume honey.

•Lacto-ovovegetarians - they consume eggs and dairy. Most do consume honey.

•Vegans - only consume plant-based foods (no dairy, eggs or honey)

, vegetarian refers only to people who do not consume protein of animal origin (not even fish or seafood), with the exception of eggs, dairy and honey - Lacto-ovovegetarians.

Virtually all vegetarian and/or vegan societies and associations do not accept the term "semi-vegetarian", in the same way a doctor will not accept the term "a bit pregnant".

Scientists from Italy and Japan reported in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry that vegans and vegetarians have a higher risk of developing vitamin B12 deficiency compared to people who consume animal-based products. They showed that the human body is unable to use the plant-based form of the vitamin.2

What are the benefits of being a vegetarian?

Until a few years ago, the benefits of vegetarianism were more anecdotal than clinically proven. However, over the last couple of decades several studies have indicated that a person who adopts a vegetarian diet will:

•Have a lower body weight - one study carried out by Cancer Research UK, found that those who continue eating meat will carry on putting on more weight over a five year period, compared to those who switched over to vegetarianism. The study found that vegans put on even less weight as they get older, compared to vegetarians and meat eaters. The study looked at 22,000 meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans.3

•Have better cholesterol levels - scientists at the University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital demonstrated that a vegetarian diet made up of specific plant foods can lower cholesterol as effectively as a drug treatment. The study, published in the July 23 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, compared a diet of known cholesterol-lowering, vegetarian foods to a standard cholesterol-reducing drug called lovastatin.4

The diet reduced levels of LDL - the 'bad' cholesterol known to cause clogging in coronary arteries - in participants by almost 29%, compared to a 30.9% decrease in the lovastatin participants. The diet consisted of a combination of nuts (almonds), soy proteins, viscous fiber (high-fiber) foods such as oats and barley and a special margarine with plant sterols (found in leafy green vegetables and vegetable oils).

•Live longer - several studies have shown that vegetarians have a much lower risk of becoming obese, developing diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. All these conditions and diseases reduce one´s life expectancy (see the list of related articles below).

•Have a lower risk of developing cancer - several studies have shown a reduced risk of developing many different types of cancer among vegetarians, compared to meat eaters. A recent study carried out by UK researchers, working on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) found that vegetarians had a significantly lower overall risk of developing cancer, compared to meat eaters.5

The study also found, however, that vegetarians have a higher risk of developing cancer of the colon.

•Have a lower risk of developing several diseases - see the list of related articles below. In them are mentioned several diseases and conditions that a meat eater is more likely to develop, compared to a vegetarian.

An article published in Food Technology in October 2012 informed that plant-based diets either reduce or completely eliminate people's genetic propensity to developing long-term diseases, including diabetes type 2, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.6

Vegetarian food is generally lower in fat, especially saturated fats, and much higher in fiber, than animal based foods. However, a vegetarian, like a meat eater, has to watch his/her intake of calories, snack foods, refined carbohydrates, whole milk dairy products, and non-meat junk foods.

34 Replies

  • My previous blog on eight popular alternative diets had response from two bloggers saying the best among eight diets is "VEGETARIAN DIET": They may be the persons desiring to know more on their choice. This post is primarily meant for their attention. Others who felt I am persisting in posting primarily to be little their preferred diet presently followed need not see this if they feel so . I have no motivation in posting this except the feeling that it will add to our knowledge.

  • There is no doubt about your pious intentions,but instead of this long copy paste, a short summary would have been more beneficial,at least for me.

  • yes what you say is true. I could have epitomised and posted. I was scared of doing this for two reasons

    1.The way people attach motives it would have invited more hostility

    2.Reproducing has the effect of better authenticity as you would notice I did show the author as well as source and bibliography used by the author.

  • Inspite of revealing that it is not my view but view of people qualified to speak on the topic and analyse ,I was shocked when I was attacked to even say that I paid money sat at home and acquired my qualification without merit etc., even without knowing me or my academic background. Therefore when mediocracy is rampant in this forum it would appear "where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise." to be a better strategy.

    I am sorry for digressing from the topic.

  • ragivji,

    it is always better to give a synopsis

    as well as the entire document at the bottom.

    regarding the other things

    about some one telling your money paid degrees:

    just ignore them is the best strategy.

    my views on vegetarianism.


    in case of any animal :

    a certain basic food is inlaid in its biology

    when it was born itself.

    look at the 32 feet alimentary canal of humans.

    it is pointer to vegetarian foods.

    but very few raw foods we can eat that way.

    beet root or elephant foot[yam] and meet , for instance we cannot eat..

    after boiling or heating these things becomes digestible. and becomes similar to the earlier mentioned

    'basic food inlaid in its biology'

    at least approaches the natural food of the animal.

    my vegetarianism is purely due to the belief that we should show reverence to higher animals at least and as far as possible to to all life.

    good luck

  • Our long intestines are short in comparison to chimpanzees or gorillas for example. That implies that we aren't built to ferment as much vegetation.

    It has been hypothesised that we have larger brains because of this reduction in the size of our guts.

    Whether this gut reduction is to facilitate animal food or tubers such as yam is unclear. However, eating mostly carbohydrates is not good for DM, and we have to consider where vitamin B12 is to be obtained.

    Jeopardising our health renders us less able to care for others and animals in the long-term.

  • @Concerned,

    If we look at pigs, relating intestine length with vegetarian/non-vegetarian FAILS. Pigs are Omnivores and their intestine is 15-20 times the body length, compared to 10-11 times in humans and 10-12 times of a herbivore. Intestinal absorption is more of a surface area than length issue. Both dogs and cats are carnivores but dogs are far toward carnivores than cats if we look at intestine. Humans are between the two.

    Archaeological records state that humans are omnivores by design. Isn't this true?

    Many try and base their logic on jaw muscles, jaw opening, teeth shape etc, but when they do so they forget (conveniently perhaps) that humans don't use their MOUTH for hunting, so no point basing the conclusions on these variables.

    Humans don't have fermenting Vats. So, there is no ground in anatomy or physiology for the assuming or presuming that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. This is as per John McArdle. Vegetarianism for humans is just a MYTH. There's no scientific basis.

  • dear concerned,

    thanks for response.

    can you show source of this:

    "It has been hypothesised that we have larger brains because of this reduction in the size of our guts."

    it is quite in contradiction to my somewhat extensive knowledge in anthropology.

    no where i heard

    such a thing discussed.

    the length of the gut is purely in proportion to the time for digestion-

    vegetarian foods take longer time to digest.

    there may be exceptions ,but common sense tells so.

    thanks for response.

    somewhere you had asked for explaining further as to what is balanced food .

    but i had skipped and thought i would answer elsewhere later.

    here it is.

    balanced food is

    considered the food that contains

    all the nutrients necessary for the body.

    neither more nor less.

    for example if for

    repair work body needs only 30 grams of proteins ,

    feed 30 grams proteins only.

    if for cell wall synthesis ,repair again, give only that much of fats.these things will have great variations

    because the body is no doubt made for

    Darwin's survival of the fittest,.

    exploiting these survival routes is then not the right path except for some superstitious person who thinks medicine is worse in comparison to rearrangements of diet.unscientific.

    your oft quoted hunter gatherer theory in turn cannot stand the gene theories and evolution of Darwin and/or Lamarck

    nutrition is the longest chapter in any book on diabetes..

    good luck

  • Read about

    "The expensive-tissue hypothesis"


    "Leslie Aiello's theory."

    This also proves that humans are not "vegetarians".

    This will add a new dimension to your somewhat extensive knowledge in anthropology.

  • As Meetu77 eludes, there is plenty that has been written on the expensive tissue hypothesis.

    It's not at all in contradiction to your anthropological learnings; essentially our guts have shortened in proportion to other great apes, therefore the food we evolved eating was more calorie dense/needed less digestion. This allowed increase brain development, which is a very energy demanding tissue.

    With regard to protein, you're right it is about having the right amount that you use/need. 30g does seem a little low, with the Reference Intake for the UK 45g for a woman, and 56g for a man I believe, but let's face it most people are not going to be that precise. What's important is that we get sufficient, and not too much.

  • dear concerned,

    first of all i don't read the responses of meetu and some other persons.

    i will not elaborate but

    i gave a format for anyone who wants me to read their response.

    1]about an year and a half back i told a person medfree ,not to fling a web link , a research paper on to me.url.

    if he wanted me to read,

    then the relevant part in the article or link has to be quoted first ,

    and the url presented for clarification.this is the standard practice in text books and my practice as well.

    simply to go somewhere and produce a website --who has time to read an entire research paper.?

    he himself could not understand it - he did not have the necessary substrate knowledge to follow such research papers.just show. i have an impatience for anyone who claims phd with out bsc-

    2]scientific arguments are to be presented in the form of a geometrical theorem.not as a politician's rhetoric.

    you just see my replies .all are arguments constructed by me.

    not asking to read some web link.

    he violated both the protocols and i dropped out of reading his responses.[ the protocols of scientific people]

    the same applies to all.

    coming to u again:

    "This allowed increase brain development, which is a very energy demanding tissue."

    evolution doesn't take place like that.

    in order to evolve our genes have to alter.

    they do not alter the Lamarckian way--it was a hypothesis once upon a time.

    a more probable hypothesis is that agriculture brought a lot of food and and the leisure time increased enormously, thus knowledge and brain power increased.

    heating food materials also gave an opportunity for him to gather easy food.

    and more leisure time

    then by the survival of the fittest,

    better selection for certain groups the modern society and its proportions arose.

    lot of typing mr concerned.

    you kindly read through what they say about evolution and some text book like website-- not going here and there in the internet.

    no knowledge acquired in a generation gets transmitted into the young one=next generation.

    humans found out language and writing

    ... so they could transmit knowledge to the next generation --

    so he conquered the planet.

    at birth we have a tabula rasa.meaning none of the the parents knowledge, aquired by them, is in our brains.

    i will return to one sentence.

    that we became hunter gatherers

    does not change our genes or any physiology, though organ development after birth is influenced. natural selection and adaptations still would work through.

    proteins 56 grams is correct.

    but see my reply.

    "if 30 grams of protein is required" then feed 30 ..

    29 and 31 are not the components in a balanced food.

    i was rapidly typing .

    did not want to present the true amount.

    good luck.


  • I don't have a reference for this, but the archaeological evidence supports that our brains developed to their largest pre-agriculture. We lost stature as a species with the introduction of agriculture, though our adoption of agriculture may have coincided with otherwise diminishing food supplies which would also contribute to the physical decline.

  • dear concerned,

    i was reading and studying anthropology some 30 years ago.

    after that i never picked up any book on anthropology.

    my memory of those days for brain size .

    is 200ml for monkeys

    400 for anthropoid apes

    ----- for ------------

    1500 to 2000 for homo sapiens[humans]

    the dotted lines above is

    800 for homoerectus

    the missing link.

    it is from this 800 Eugène Dubois predicted that 'his animal' as the missing link.the homoerectus formerly the pithecanthropus ..

    i will tell you a wonderful anecdote.

    dubois was traveling back from java with his wife ,children and the bones[fossil] of the missing link .

    the ship was caught up in a terrific tempest[storm].

    ship thrown from side to side.

    Eugine dubois picked up the bones and held close to his chest

    and cried to his wife

    you please hold the children

    i will take care of these bones.

    when i narrated this to my wife

    what she said:

    'so ,there are other people like you in this world .'

    within my knowledge of evolution ,

    the brain size cannot change by agriculture or any such thing.

    in my understanding if cooked meet or anything is biochemically acceptable within the stomach ,

    then it is vegetable like .

    the rest is sociological.

    i am a sociological vegetarian.i am opposed to killing animals, at least higher animals.

    good luck

  • The earliest evidence of homo sapiens dates from 200,000 years ago. Agriculture dates from around 10,000 years ago.

    Our ability to think is a definitive trait of humankind. It goes hand in hand with our increased brain size.

    We can see a natural order to favour size increase in nature, such as the Giant Tortoise from the Galapagos Isles (or historically with the dinosaurs).

    We also see that food restriction causes growth restriction; you may have seen the 'hobbit' sized people's bones that were discovered? Poor people that lack adequate food suffer stunted growth.

  • dear concerned,

    it is very interesting to note that you have interest in the pre historic ,archeology ,anthropology etc.

    in fact in my memory you are the only one in this forum

    trying to find the true diet of humans on the basis of such stone age research.

    though i disagree vehemently on such an attempt- as it is futile,

    i would like to give congrats.

    you are a person with what i should say honesty of purpose.

    my only concern is we must search for text book like websites for a preliminary understanding[of any subject] .then only go for projects.

    otherwise we will be in a whirlpool of cut piece information out of which escape will be difficult.

    good luck and


  • @indiacratus --


    "1]about an year and a half back i told a person medfree ,not to fling a web link , a research paper on to me.url."


    Again you brought in medfree. His knowledge and approach changed life of 150+ diabetics for the better. Majority believed in him. That's what counts.

    You couldn't even answer why USDA Pyramid Failed. In fact you came up with an answer which showed complete lack of knowledge on USDA Pyramid.

  • there was no mention of medifree by either indiacratus or concerned.Where did you see the name?

  • @ragivrao --

    "1]about an year and a half back i told a person medfree ,not to fling a web link , a research paper on to me.url."

    copy-pasted from indiacratus post. Wasn't this avoidable?

    I am surprised you couldn't find it.

  • There is no mention of memedifree in this thread.You appear to pick up quarrel unnecessarily.This kind of mentality is disposable and dishonest way of blogging not advised by the moderator. you should mend yourself more than others .If you cant argue cogently you should keep quiet Don't indulge in personal abuse by taking a matter you or some one said a year and a half back when you joined the forum only 7 months back.. They are discussing anthropology and not medifree. Please understand not to bring extraneous matter in this thread

  • @ragivrao

    Before lecturing do this:

    On your keyboard hit CTRL+F

    A search box will open which will search for text on this page

    Type medfree and then you will find who mentioned medfree unnecessarily. I am very sure before I post anything. So, please don't lecture becasue I don't need to learn manners from people like you who selectively attack me here. Tell your friend(s) whom you are defending not to bring unrelated (medfree) matters in discussion.

    I even copy-pasted the text from the post. But you preferred to ignore it as you had pre-decided to attack me.

    Let admins take a call. I am sure they will find what you couldn't find and then unnecessarily are getting personal.

  • How are you concerned what transpired one and year back between the two You are meetu77 and not medifree who is, I believe, capable of replying on his own .Unless you are either a proxy or medifree.your self no need to represent another blogger. It is unnecessary digression to the discussion on the topic on hand.

  • @ragivrao --

    Apply same rules that you are throwing at me, let indiacratus reply then. No need to talk on his behalf.

    Not responding to you anymore.

  • Yes what I said to you applies to others as well. Inducratus is capable of discussing the topic on hand on his own and is doing well to educate on the issue whether our body is tuned to vegetarian or non vegetarian diet. He has extensively quoted the reasons with authority.. similarly concerned.. In between you butt in and brought the name of another blogger and attempted to disrupt the discussion. That is how I thought of correcting you. If similar thing happens I will apply the same rule..It is not my rule it is the rule of thumb of moderator to create proper atmosphere and reminded .all in his post a few days back. If you have knowledge of anthropology by all means challenge him on his view. and get into argument with him on the topic. which will enhances your debating skill..

  • I appreciate your efforts Please be brief so that all interested can conveniently asses these. Thanks.

  • Full of rhetoric and dogma that can be challenged.

    The reduction of ldl for instance is not beneficial. It is vldl that is harmful, and too much carbohydrate causes it. Do you really think we evolved eating natural foods but need the processed soya/vegetable oils of modern commerce to make us healthy?

    The Ancient Egyptians suffered chronic ill-health including heart-disease, cancer and type-2 DM; this is thought to be because of their heavily grain-based diet.

    Vegetarians are not the longest lived people; until recently the Okinawans had that honour, and they are omnivorous (despite people trying to distort that fact).

    The studies relating to red meat increasing the risk of cancer tend to be observational studies, in which case these people tend to eat refined carbohydrates as well, or in the case of Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) used processed meat along with red meat. The most essential fact about cancer according to Dr Ron Rosedale is that we all keep it in check as multi-celled organisms, and that an excess of glucose provides the stimulus to start the uncontrollable mutations.

  • @Concerned --

    Great Post.

    Keep coming back and keep challenging such rhetoric and dogma. You have a formal training in the field that you talk. I always believed that experiments can be designed for failure.

    CARBS is the REAL culprit, but people find every "unthinkable" reason to blame something else.

  • concerned

    can you co relate this with your earlier post 3 months back titled "world,s best diet" for the sake of information and knowledge?

  • @Concerned --

    I have often read here that meat eating causes CANCER. You have explained the real reason and how studies can be manipulated to ignore the obvious and think of unthinkable to put the blame on. To take it further I would like to add following:

    USA Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists lead a near identical life except for one difference. Mormons eat meat also. And, now the surprise :)

    "Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average"

    Interesting isn't it?

  • As you can see from that post, Channel 4 claimed that the Icelandic diet has now surpassed the Okinawan diet in terms of health and longevity. That is why I included 'until recently' in my reply above.

    The key features of the Icelandic diet seem to be its relative lack of processed foods, particularly sugar and HFCS. It is also an omnivorous diet.

  • can you amplify what HFCS means Lacto vegetarians who eat butter, drink milk etc., and some vegetarians who eat fish as written in the post are they in your opinion deficient in nutrition in your opinion ?

    Does the diet has any relevance to climate or it is okay if a person in tropical country adipts Icelandic diet?what is the composition of Icelandic diet if you are aware?

  • HFCS = High Fructose Corn Syrup.

    There is a risk of over-generalisation; I think it is possible to be a healthy lacto-vegetarian for instance, and it is possible to eat unhealthily being a lacto-vegetarian too. I do think it is difficult to eat healthily without any animal foods because we need vitamin B12, and fat soluble vitamins that are more plentiful in animal foods.

    Taking that into consideration, natural food tends to be more nutrient-dense, with intensively-farmed food less so, and processed food even less so.

    This does link into your question about climate. People that are adapted to living in sunnier climates will have more difficulty obtaining sufficient vitamin D in colder climates for instance. This can be helped by having animal fats though, which also provide vitamin A which complements vitamin D; they keep each other in check and enhance each other's effectiveness.

    Rickets was almost a disease of the past in the Western World, yet it has re-emerged in Wales for instance due to people being warned from going out in the sun (to avoid sun cancer), putting on sun lotion, and eating a diet deficient in fat-soluble vitamins.

    I haven't done any further research into the Icelandic diet. What was shown was that it is quite low in fruit and vegetables, but more importantly low in processed foods. They were said to have plenty of fish, seafood, dairy and some meat. I think it is difficult to dispute it is a high-fat diet.

  • can the vitamin12 deficiency not be overcome by supplementing by eating eggs and dairy products?

    In so far as the two diets, they appear to be practically unknown confined to two places diametrically opposed in climate conditions ,and other climate limiting any case not popular as compared to the eight diets mentioned..Your comments will be useful. I am trying to get details of the two diet patterns and will come back if successful

    In the mean time what you have blogged adds to the knowledge on the topic for which I thank you.

  • Mr Concerned

    Further to my reply I have been successful in finding out the two diet patters you had posted earlier.I am also reproducing replies to your earlier post which also throws some light. I also found to my surprise one of the bloggers”Hidden” who comes here off and on is using low fat food such as skimmed milk etc.,

    Hope all the fellow bloggers are now sufficiently posted on the various diet patterns and are able to decide what is good to them.

    t features of Okinawa diet:-

    1.Calorie restricted ( 20% lower in calories than an average Japanese consume.) TAnti-oxidant rich ( composes mainly green/orange/yellow (GOY) vegetables, fruits, roots, and tubers. Low in fat and sugar low in fat and has only 25% of the sugar and 75% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake)..Vegetarian and seafood rich: (t includes a relatively small amount of fish and somewhat more in the way of soy, low calorie vegetables like bitter melon, and other legumes. Almost no meat, eggs, or dairy products)

    Featuresof Icelandic diet:

    lamb, dairy, and fish, due to Iceland's proximity to the ocean. Popular foods in Iceland include(smoked lamb), a selection of traditionally cured meat and fish products served withdense dark and sweet rye bread Much of the taste of this traditional country food is determined by the preservation methods used; pickling in fermented whey or brine, drying and smoking.

    REPLIES TO YOUR POST ONThe World's Best Diet

    5 Repliesnths agoConcerned

    At number 1 is... the Icelandic diet. High in natural foods, surprisingly low in fruit and veg, with low to moderate amounts of low Gi carbs such as rye bread for example. Plenty of natural fat; another French paradox (which came in at number 8 btw).

    3 months agoHidden

    I saw this too and was very interesting, hopefully my brain will log into their advice too, although I do use skimmed milk, low fat cheese, low fat margarine and do try and use fresh veg and fruit daily, so think may have to lower portions, but agree was a very interesting programme

    Yes I watched it too. I must say, having been to Iceland the people do look pretty well on it . Got chatting to an old couple, age 78, who still mountain walk and ski ! However, I can't say the menu choices were very "exciting", but a few too many " exciting" foods are what made me fat in the first place!

    months agoPenel

    Interesting comments on how we now rely very heavily on a few foods, wheat, dairy, oil, and that this may not be a good idea.

    And of course the French paradox is not a paradox at all, if you have no good evidence that eating natural fat is a bad idea.

    •3 months agofenbadger

    Was interesting, though I'm always sceptical how statistics are collected. (lies, damn lies and statistics). It's probably not terribly relevant that there are another 70 odd countries. Top 50 was plenty.

    We used to rely on a few basic foods before the 20th century. The program confirmed one of my views that a lot of these problems started after WWII. (it's just a good milestone).

    The top diets all had a large proportion of fish.

    Can I share this nutty email? Please do not take it seriously.

    1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Brits.

    2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Brits.

    3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Brits.

    4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Brits.

    5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Brits.

    CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.

  • @Concerned:

    " I think it is difficult to dispute it is a high-fat diet."

    And this "high fat" diet works unquestionably. Those who fail because of their reluctance or attempt to find a in-between-path find different reasons to console themselves.

    Of the 400 odd Indian diabetics who have been influenced by LCHF as a result of many sharing their own experiences (and not discussing theory of diets) on LCHF, none have failed.

    Those who couldn't achieve what was supposed to be achieved was due to same reason -- trying to find an in-between-path

    In fact, very recently a 60+ year diabetic ho went cataract operation has dropped insulin from 12 to 5 and yet hits PPBS in 130-140 range. Someone else already reported that he/she is off PANCREAS Whipping drugs and yet achieved A1C of 5.9

    I am not sure why such encouraging figures and achievements should make anyone unhappy. Numbers don't lie. Some people don't read my posts as they have no answers to what I write. If we diabetics on LCHF would have been preaching anything wrong, 400+ would not have been the number. It's well over two years now :)

You may also like...