Prevention and Reversal of Chronic Disease (Why Nutrition Matters, Part C) 

Wow, that's amazing. Thank you for sharing. I agree that ultra-processed foods are likely one of the major culprits of overeating, obesity, and cardiometabolic disease. If you haven't seen it yet, I made a video about this as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZACaF8pD6JI.html Warm wishes, Mario

@@nourishedbyscience I live in America and I see people here more than six times a day and they eat junk. Human bodies are not designed to handle chemically made products for many years. Thanks for your time spent on providing such videos. Every word is precious and listen to it.

Congratulations! We all need a change, that is sure.

Thank you for your advice. I need this advice. Thanks.

​@@mirzamanmirzaman1482❤ nice feedback

A good physician!

Yes. You are right. Some of them are not even doctors and upload videos for making money. We need to find the real knowledgeable people.

@@mirzamanmirzaman1482 And medical doctors generally know almost nothing about nutrition. It's not part of their education, as unbelievable as that is.

Must remember: what works is the truth. Incomplete details of the patient, diet, exercise, and environment are unfortunately common. @@mirzamanmirzaman1482

I agree wholeheartedly. In 9 months on a very low carb diet (

Not bad, but probably could be better.

When you say you were “put on a low-carb diet” who recommended that diet? I have always had the opposite problem. Once I discovered that I had pre-diabetes (my doctor never mentioned the significance of my fasting blood glucose being over 100), I went on a ketogenic/Low-carb diet with intermittent fasting against her advice despite my weight loss and better numbers. She retired and every doctor since then strongly recommends a low-fat, higher carb diet (grains, fruits and vegetables) which is def better than a SAD way of eating, but despite epidemiological evidence I just can’t believe is better for someone who has had a carb addiction. I’m not necessarily high fat, just low carb. I’ve always included my own fat as part of my energy source an am maintaining an 80-lb weight loss. But! I DO have FH and I did have a stroke last January. I do worry about whether I’m doing the right thing, but feel most comfortable keeping to my No sugar, No grains, No seed oils kind of diet.

Sir , Your comment inspired me and scared me too

@@bonnieo8 what is FH?

If you want to enjoy potato you can put them peeled in water for few hours and this way they do not contain so much starch, then cooked them as you like.

@@katkalucky4060 Cooking the potatoes and then cooling them overnight in the refrigerator will convert some of the digestible starch to resistant starch. This can be repeated through subsequent heating and cooling cycles, but the amount of starch being converted falls off quite a bit each time.

@murraybrockway6540 - Congratulations on such an amazing success! If you happen to see this comment, I'd enjoy hearing about the amount of meat and eggs you were eating at the time of your last comment. Also, have you ever been diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia? That stinks that you weren't able to successfully incorporate foods like bread, dates, and potatoes without your A1c increasing. Personally, I have a weakness for Medjool dates. I still eat them, but not very often. I used to think that eating dates was like a great secret that few others knew -- that I could eat a whole food that was also like a dessert. Eventually, I started reading nutrition labels and realized I had been blissfully unaware. I was really dismayed to realize the amount of calories and sugar they contained. Sadly, there's always a catch. Anyway, you got me thinking again about the two guys on the Mastering Diabetes channel. They're both Type 1 Diabetics and eat several hundred grams of unprocessed, whole food carbohydrates per day (one of them, Cyrus, has reported that he sometimes eats upwards of 800 grams of unprocessed, whole food carbohydrates per day) and they both inject only minimal amounts of insulin. Both are very lean, too. I believe both have always been lean, if I recall correctly, including before they were symptomatic and diagnosed. It makes me wonder: If folks like you and me are unable to eat even moderate amounts of unprocessed, whole food carbohydrates, does that mean we still have ectopic fat that is preventing us from being able to metabolize unprocessed, whole food carbohydrates like a healthy person? Or, I wonder if it means we have permanent damage and we'll never be able to return to a normal, healthy baseline metabolism? I guess it would take an abdominal MRI to gather more data to help reach a conclusion. Final question: After your remarkable 50 pound weight loss, were you quite lean? Do you know what your BMI was at the time? I realize BMI is imperfect, as it doesn't account for body composition. Still, I'd be curious to know what your BMI was after your weight loss, if you care to share. If not, no worries. I hope you're continuing to do well.

Thank you.

One of the best minutes I have spent reading your comment ...:-)...! Thanks so much for the kind feedback. Best, Mario

A “balanced” diet with whole, healthy carbs just doesn’t work for a section of the population. At the core of it is the chemical signaling concerning satiety. Genetics and damage would be the contributors I would think. I’ve heard it from learned sources that roughly 2/3 of the general population can eat what ever macro mix they want, but not so for the other 1/3. Particularly as they age and have abused their systems.

I also wonder why it has to be one or the other. I'm sure there is a balanced approach, which can incorporate both.

Nice! One important point: insulin resistance does not automatically trigger high blood sugar levels, because in many cases, the pancreas can simply produce more insulin. That in and of itself may not be good in the long term, but it's important to understand the relationship between dietary carbs, insulin resistance, and glucose intolerance, as there is a lot of wrong information and confusion around these topics. To understand the relationship between insulin resistance, the amount of insulin produced by the pancreatic beta-cell (i.e., beta-cell function), and a third factor called glucose effectiveness, feel free to check out this video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yg9AS2sfY9Y.html Warm wishes, Mario

A1c < 5% is very low. Keto-Gurus say < 5,4% Doctors say < 5,8% (below prediabetes) or at least < 6,6% (below diabetes) Fruits, vegetables and legumes have (often) other health benefits When you reduced your A1c down the (pre-)diabetic level the real risk is cardiovascular, not glucose alone. For example: bacon, eggs and grilled tomatoes are glucose friendly but not for cardiovascular risk, the gut microbiome, vascular function or your blood pressure. There is a lot more to say. So do not focus solely on one number!

I am T2 and do N=1 a lot. One morning took Dogs for a short walk(warmup) and checked Blood Sugar, 7.1. I then had Porridge at 1200hrs, checked BS at 1400hrs 7.1. Big surprise, I expected BS of 8-9.

There's no "it make sense " in nature . Either you know how it works, or you don't

Thank you for your feedback. I am not overly familiar with the Blueprint Project, but will look into it and may share thoughts at some point. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers Mario

Went on the carnivore diet and went from mild diabetes, 120-150 everyday numbers, to pre diabetes, 100- 130 in 2 weeks and lost 10 lbs, only meat products w/ hi fat, Dr Berry, RU-vid. Now on ketovore with higher numbers, have to quit cheating too. Age 74, gym rat, organic eater.

Carnivore diet, zero sugar, zero carbs, zero plants, high protein, high saturated fat, cures t2 diabetes in short order in virtually everyone who eats this way. Also, statin meds cause diabetes and other neurological issues. You can reverse diabetes in a few weeks by going Carnivore diet. Ive done it, and seen it done. Diabetes is a choice, not a lifelong sentence.

Thanks so much Dan!

Definitely will have some dedicated videos about these topics. Even if we look at just one endpoint, such as the serum lipid profile, the complexities come into play because there are a lot of different saturated fatty acids, it matters what we are comparing these saturated fats to (mono- or polyunsaturated fatty acids, complex or refined carbs etc.), and the health effects differ depending on the food in which the saturated fatty acids are eaten (dairy fat from butter vs. cheese, for example). I am looking forward to talking about this, because there is a lot of confusing and also misleading or incorrect information about this online. Cheers Mario

I would also love to see a video on this topic. I'd also love to understand if chicken /fish is an acceptable protein vs red meat.

Laura, next video, to be published on Wednesday, will cover the measurement of insulin resistance. Cheers Mario

Thanks so much!

Thanks for sharing. Couldn't agree more. All over the internet, people are fighting whether low-carb or low-fat is better, where in reality the most important thing by far is low-ultra-processed. I think the scientific evidence is such that people can be pretty healthy eating most whole foods, as long as they are meeting their micronutrient requirements and stay away from the packaged stuff in the center or the supermarket as much as possible. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscienceI don’t understand why my sugar goes up when I eat complex carbs with no processed food. I are brown rice w steamed veggies. Protein and fats were from lentils and almonds. All home cooked. My post prandial was 285. Dr wants me to go on Metformin but I worry if it will stop my liver from functioning completely. My a1c is 6.5 now. I exercise and am very thin. I ate the protein first then veggies and carbs.

Thanks for your comment, and your support, Steve! You hit the nail on the head with that comment. By far, the biggest obstacle to eating well is the convenience, availability, and highly-rewarding quality of ultra-processed and fast foods. I find that an approach similar to acceptance and commitment therapy works well for me. I have long accepted that I crave certain unhealthy foods, such as potato chips and ice cream, but I have made a commitment to eat these foods only very rarely (as an occasional treat, and only in the context of social events) so that I can be healthy and functional for as long as possible, enjoy time with my friends and family, and be there for them when they need me. I guess everyone needs to find their own why, but in the end, no one likes being sick and ailing ....! So for me, many of the options out there don't effectively exist. I never visit fast food places, and I stay out of the middle sections of grocery stores entirely. I may invite a colleague at some point to talk more about this approach to actively choosing a healthy lifestyle, rather than being at the whim of the obesogenic environment again and again. Warm wishes, Mario

make your meal portions smaller

Do what the doc said. Low carb/hi fat. Carnivore diet is the best.

The first thing I would say is that we should challenge your assumption that high-fat low-carb reduces the risk of diabetes while low-fat reduces the risk of CVD. A low-carb diet is an excellent way of eating for people who already are glucose intolerant and insulin resistant. However, if you watch my recent video on 'Do Carbs Cause Insulin Resistance' (link below), you'll see that the totality of the evidence does not support the idea that eating carbohydrates per se causes insulin resistance and diabetes. As long as the carbs we do eat are whole-food-based sources of carbs and not mostly refined grains and added sugars, of course. Lastly, a low-carb diet does not necessarily have to increase the risk of CVD, and I'll talk about that in detail in a future video. I'd say that in most people, a well-designed low-carb diet lowers the risk of CVD. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZcVenUbqsYY.htmlsi=vqrKmzu2YSlizpFE Similarly, you do not need to limit fat intake to lower your risk of CVD. That's partly why I mention the trial in this video in which participants substantially lowered their CVD risk by adopting a whole-foods diet rich in legumes, vegetables, fruit, and MORE olive oil and nuts. As to your other question, blood sugar spikes do likely increase the risk of CVD, if we define a spike as an increase to 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) or higher. As long as someone is reasonably glucose tolerant, I'd say that complex carbs with ideally a low glycemic index are fine, ideally still combined within a meal that also contains some fiber and some protein. Here are a few more videos that may be of interest to you: The Regulation of Blood Sugar: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yg9AS2sfY9Y.htmlsi=TV2it2G0XzsOzAz3 How to avoid blood sugar spikes: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yg0Y3eNSANg.htmlsi=jXGplM5bCPkewgTy Q&A Video about that: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LVw60RIhbzg.htmlsi=Vwp1gRUX1XErcEss Best wishes, Mario

@@nourishedbyscience. Thank you for taking the time to answer this person about their question. You are truly a wonderful person and I also appreciate you so much!❤

No, the participants were all on lipid-lowering medication. Here, for example, is the official abstract: Abstract Coronary artery disease is essentially nonexistent in cultures whose nutrition assures cholesterol levels

Thank you for your comment. Which evidence do you see that removing carbs completely can be dangeous? I am not aware of that. I also don't see the keto diet, or low-carb in general, as fad diets. I do see plenty of evidence that low-carb diets and keto can have major benefits in certain health conditions, and to me, a well-designed keto diet is clearly a better choice than the diet most people eat. At the same time, and that was one point of the video, I also see evidence that very high-carb diets can be beneficial, and hold the view that it would be beneficial to keep an open mind as to why that may be possible. Best wishes, Mario

@@nourishedbyscience Hi Mario. Well, I could only track down one source: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nEjuZsP8o7g.html. The other one basically said that there's evidence that if you remove all carbs, the body shuts down its ability to break down carbs, which could be dangerous. Any thoughts?

@@TheTwangKings Oh my, that is not a video I would recommend to anyone. But, I don't 'debunk' people here, and like to focus on the claims made, so let's do that (briefly): - The video claims that the ketogenic diet is likely deficient in essential micronutrients, and specifically mentions vitamin C and selenium. That doesn't make any sense to me, as I could get enough vitamin C from bell peppers and selenium from Brazil nuts alone, neither of which are off limits on a ketogenic diet. It may be true that there could be micronutrient deficiencies on keto diets, but that is really the case on any diet. A vegan diet that consists mostly of decadent chocolate cake would probably not provide all micronutrients either. Eating a mix of different whole foods will make it a lot easier actually to meet requirements for all micronutrients on a keto diet than on a vegan diet (and I am not for or against either of these). - The video mentions that keto diets are likely low in fiber because key fiber-rich foods such as whole grains and legumes cannot be eaten. I also disagree there. It's quite easy to meet requirements for fiber from non-starchy vegetables, nuts and seeds, and maybe some berries. I have yet to see any good evidence that we 'need' fiber from whole grains and legumes. - The video mentions that studies show an association between ketogenic diets and poor health outcomes in observational studies, such as an increased risk of CVD. That's not true. The presented papers are all based on observational studies that have grouped participants by a 'low-carb score'. However, we must consider several things when interpreting these data. First, those eating a diet with the highest low-carb score (i.e., the lowest carb content) were not eating keto diets or even low-carb diets. They were just eating a little bit fewer carbs and a little bit more fat. But they were still eating quite a bit of carbs, and in most studies, mostly refined carbs and added sugars. That's because at the time these studies were conducted, the percentage of thepopulation that was following an actual keto diet was tiny. Second, when these studies were initiated, the dietary guidelines recommended low-fat diets. As a result, all of these observational studies see strong associations between fat consumption and unhealthier lifestyles, simply because those who chose a healthier lifestyle chose to follow the guidelines and ate less fat. So who were those in the group eating the lowest-carb diet? Not health-conscious people eating an actual keto diet, but people who didn't care about their health, who smoked more, who drank more, and who ate a diet consisting mostly of fast foods and convenient foods. That creates a huge problem with potential confounding (any of those associated factors could cause the health problems, not the higher fat or lower carb intake). In any case, these types of studies cannot tell us anything about the long-term health effects of a whole foods ketogenic diet. Almost no one in these studies ate this way. Further, it's important to keep in mind that a keto diet doesn't have to be super high in saturated fats, and it doesn't have to raise LDL-cholesterol and apo B concentrations. - My greatest dislike is that the video is so lopsided. There are clear benefits to a ketogenic diet (blood sugar effects for example, or a much smaller amount of antinutrients) that are not mentioned at all. Lastly, your question: yes, glucose tolerance is lower on a low-carb or keto diet, due to a diminished first phase insulin response. But that is temporary, and I have not seen any evidence that the body's ability to deal with carbs is chronically diminished in someone who has been on a low carb diet. I would say it's not a problem as long as someone on a keto or low-carb diets eats low-carb meals at all times. The glucose intolerance would only become a problem (cause a spike) if the person ate a high-carb meal once in a while. Check out this video here if you'd like to know more about the first-phase insulin response and how it's affected by a low-carb diet: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LVw60RIhbzg.html Hope this helps. I will cover all of this ion more detail in future videos. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscience Thank you so much, Mario. I appreciate the time you took to clarify this for me. I'll keep these points in mind.👍👍👍

Well, gotta eat something, so low-carb low-fat would mean very high protein. It's not really an option to eat most of your calories in the form of protein, mostly because there are almost no foods available that come only as protein and little fat and carbs. Also, google 'Rabbit starvation' if you'd like to know more about why eating only protein without much fat and carbs is not a good idea. Aside from very high protein, I do think eating a diet with modestly elevated protein is an interesting option, for a number of reasons, and I'll cover that in separate videos soon. Cheers Mario

Good to know that though. If you haven't, try eating the fruit as a desert after a meal that contains some protein. It may raise your blood sugar much less then.

Add some nuts (Walnuts, Almonds, Pistachios, Brazilnuts) Try different fruits.

Everyone is different but there are a number of different kinds of berries that are relatively easy on your blood glucose. Try some strawberry

That question is impossible to answer, I am sorry to say, as it entirely depends on many personal factors I know nothing about. I suggest you discuss this with a dietitian/nutritionist personally. Best, Mario

I eat Irish butter every day. Some days, I just eat half a stick. My blood numbers are all optimal. Cheers.

Because we cannot know why people dropped out (unless this information was collected, which was not the case here), we should try to account for all participants that were enrolled into the study by conducting the analyses on all participants (i.e., conducting an intent-to-treat analysis), not just those who finished the study. I was merely giving examples to illustrate why it is possible that the high drop-out rate could have distorted the results from this clinical study, and why we should be at least a bit skeptical of the data presented. You are correct that there were likely numerous reasons why people dropped out, including some who just moved away or who couldn't keep the time commitment up, but it's similarly possible that several developed diabetes, or gained weight, or developed other health conditions, and therefore dropped out. In a proper clinical trial, it would be critical to account for all of these. Don't get me wrong, the study still provides some valuable insight and helps us develop hypotheses. The methodological limitations (no control group, no intent-to-treat analysis) simply mean that the results are not conclusive in any way. Cheers Mario

Complex question that I cannot answer here. I will make several dedicated videos about low-carb diets, later this year. Cheers Mario

They are talking well below 50g a day. Most at 25g. An actual keto diet that produces a fair amount of keytones (ketosis). Some seem to adapt quite naturally, many don’t. I’ve eaten a variety of ways in my 62 years, and do best at what I’d call a lower carb diet: around 150g a day. When I was younger I was slamming down way over 600g a day. Truth is, it all comes down to satiety. Higher carbs for me, higher hunger, bigger belly. When I was younger, didn’t matter what I ate, or drank😂

Thank you, Eric.

Hi Carina, Yes, true. At the same time, remission and reversal of type 2 diabetes is not always clearly defined. In most cases, people talk about remission when someone with type 2 diabetes achieves a normal HbA1c off diabetes medications. Some investigators have also called this reversal. I don't care too much what we call it. What I am mostly worried about is that HbA1c can get reduced on low-carb diets even though the pathophysiological changes that led to the glucose intolerance (ectopic fat deposition, low-grade inflammation, insulin resistance) have not necessarily been addressed. Usually, these get better, particularly if people lose weight. However, in some cases, they don't, and that may still keep diabetes-associated risks such as CVD or kidney disease elevated despite the lowered HbA1c. Good comment. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscience Thanks! So it comes down to semantics, but I think it gets less confusing if "reversal" is referred to when insulin resistance is actually improved rather than covered up by keeping spikes low while not being able to eat foods that humans should be able to eat like normally healthy carbs 🙂.

​@@carinaekstrom1 Yes! I feel like the goal should be to reverse all of the pathologies that led to the diabetes, not just the elevated blood sugar levels. That's a much more ambitious goal, and you would need to monitor body fat distribution, ectopic fat deposition, insulin resistance and a few other things, so this is never done in clinical care or even in most research studies. But personally think this should be the goal. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscience Or just lose weight and do a glucose tolerance test. Some people can handle more fat in their organs than others. Of course you know all this, so I feel we are in agreement 🙂.

Hi Scott, Thank you for watching the video, and for your comment. You touch on many issues, so I hope you will forgive me that I am unable to respond to every point you make. Your main point seems to be that there are many healthy populations that have traditionally eaten diets rich in pasture-raised animal foods. I don't disagree with you. Was it your impression that I am suggesting that only a vegetarian or vegan diet can be healthy? My apologies if that was the impression. Take a look again at my conclusions, highlighting why I made the video (time point 25:36): 1. Diet can have a very substantial impact on health. 2. There is no one 'healthy' diet. Taken together, the research discussed in the video and other studies suggest strongly that people can be healthy eating a wide variety of diets. 3. All studies are informative about what we should NOT be eating: ultra-processed foods and empty-calorie foods. Do we have any disagreement on any of these main points? Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscience sorry for tor the delayed response. much of the grief is with the fake med diet. the longest lived groups in that area don't eat much fish and consistent with the 5 meta analysis on saturated fat they also had a diet rich in saturated fat and low in fruits etc. Unfortunately these days I see these same long lived groups giving their children potato chips most presumably cooked in seed oils. So to answer the 3 points you made: 1. Yes, diet can even create a six pack with limited exercise required. 2. Not really. 'Balance', 'Variety' etc are more essential to sell products rather than improve health. You feed most 1 single food, like beef or eggs etc and people would survive, from what we can tell, a long life with minimal issues. In a 1930s study of the Massai found the only health issues they seem to have which we unsual was associated to the very high consumption of milk (constipation and R arthritis). Apart from that they were healthier in essentially every metric of their genetically identical vegetairian neighbors. 3.Studies can muddy the water as with the Esselstyn one. Rather than inform many of these are designed to point the light elsewhere. In scientific studies we see an increase in refusing to release the data, algorithm and conflicts of interest. An example of conflict of interest is pretty much any study Walter Willet produces. He usually cites no conflict of interest whereas the work of Belinda Fetkke showed he had 23 pages of conflicts with several on each page. Thanks for your response.

Hm. Do you mean the Diabetes Prevention Program? What do you call long-term? The follow-up was 4 years, and the lifestyle group was still weight reduced compared to the two other study arms. And actually, even 22 years later, people who had been randomized to the lifestyle arm still had much lower risk of diabetes: diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2020/new-data-from-diabetes-prevention-program-outcomes-study-shows-persistent-reduction-of-t2d-development-over-22-year-average-follow-up

For it to have been equally comparative, the exercise either should not have been included or it should have been promoted in all groups.

@@nourishedbyscience People who died were removed from the study, so the claims of outcome are radically biased to healthy subjects. Total garbage, IMHO.

@@nourishedbyscience Do you just read the title headlines?

@@nourishedbyscience As far as long term, there are a number of studies showing that people who do calorie diets regain the weight and more after they stop the diet. Anecdotally, I know lots of people who were able to control their weight somewhat early in life by dieting but ended up very overweight as they got older. Opra Winfrey is the queen of this. It seems it works a few times but stops working later.

I am afraid it's a German accent. The region in the US where I have lived and spoken English for most of the last 20 years is the Pacific Northwest/Seattle. Cheers Mario

As you will see in future videos on this channel, I agree with you on some points and disagree on others, but I certainly don't have nearly as strong opinions as you on most of these points simply because the science is too inconclusive or nuanced to allow such strong statements IMO. For one, you may want to watch my two videos about ultra-processed foods and the obesity epidemic. IMO, the existing data much more strongly suggest that the emergence of industry-designed and factory-produced ultra-processed foods are a major cause of the twin epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes than the fat-phobia driven reduction in fat intake and concurrent increase in carb intake, as you contend. For example, countries such as Italy and Japan consume diets rich in carbs, but they have stayed largely stayed away from ultra-processed foods and so far have very low rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscience Thanks for the nice reply. Looking forward.. As long as you are metabolically healthy you can tolerate a lot of carbs and some fake food. Important triggers for hyperinsulinaemia are constant stress and lack of sleep, at least for me. Keto(vore) helped me a lot to lose more than 33 pounds (on more calories) and dropped my A1c without excessive cravings. Cutting calories is the best recipe for hunger imo. I learned a lot from Nina Teicholz, Robert Lustig, Benjamin Bikman (why we get sick) and Paul Mason. Cheers Henk

Could have included that as well, but the low-carb type 2 diabetes prevention study I talked about was already from that same group (Virta Health), and the type 2 diabetes treatment study I covered had a better design, with control group, than the Hallberg et al.-paper you mention. It's fair to say though that it wasn't the point of that video to review the entirety of the evidence on this topic. I will do this in much more detail in later videos. My main objective was to pick some examples from the literature, imperfect as some of them may be, and show that a variety of diets has substantial potential to prevent - or even reverse - major chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Cheers Mario

@@nourishedbyscienceso basiclsly any Calorie reduced diet can control diabetes?