[ShottleBop]

I trust my meter. It says to stick to nonstarchy veggies (lots of mixed greens) and reasonable amounts of low-carb fruits--principally berries and avocados.

[HelenM]

I understand that recently published long-term studies have discredited the idea the fibre is protective of the GI tract.

I don't know about a more recent study, but the EPIC study . (a cohort study of 478 040 men and women from 10 European countries) said this:

There is a much controversy as to whether high meat intake increases risk of bowel cancer. In the European study, we have found that high dietary fibre intake lowers and high meat intake increases risk of bowel cancer. However, there is an interaction between the different foods. Meat intake increases cancer risk only in those people with low intakes of dietary fibre; high dietary fibre or high fish intake appear to protect against the effects of meat intake and risk of bowel cancer.

Norat T et al. Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:906-16.
All 'nutrition' abstracts for this study accessed viaEPIC-Norfolk: Publications

[fgummett]

So high meat and high fish without high fibre is OK..?

I actually doubt that it is this simple anyway... I am with John in believing that we need to be looking at what our food "eats"... in other words, not all meat is created the same.

I'll have to check my sources but if memory serves I was referring to the Nurses Study.

[fgummett]

Helen... I am going to now try and read the full article but the abstract I found from your link does not even mention fibre..? Just a comparison of red meat plus processed meat, compared to fish.

Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition -- Norat et al. 97 (12): 906 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

I also read with interest this correspondence regarding the above article: Re: Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition -- Gonder and Worm 97 (23): 1788 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

[Gary_W]

Originally Posted by fgummett

Gary, you raise some interesting points for discussion. I am not aware of any GI tract issues associated with eating a higher-percentage of fat. I understand that recently published long-term studies have discredited the idea the fibre is protective of the GI tract.

I would ask you to consider why you asked, "Is low-carbing a case of reducing risk with diabetes but increasing risk elsewhere?" instead of, "Is low-fat eating a case of reducing risk in one area but increasing risk elsewhere?" both are equally valid questions, and yet the default position seems to be that it is the low-carb which has to be on the defensive.

Fat is not a demon... many physiological systems including the brain rely on a careful balance of fats.

By the way, I do not believe that the traditional Japanese diet was chiefly rice and noodles.

Hi Frank,

Yes, you can ask the question the 'other way'. The reason it's asked the way round that I did is that a diet that includes all food groups with carbs being the biggest group is because it's the norm for the vast majority of the planet; a high fat, low carb diet is not.

I am just asking 'are there any negative consequences in other areas' for a diet that you (and many others) consider beneficial in terms of blood glucose and feeling full etc. Just trying to get a balanced view. Low carb clearly gives benefits to many people in some areas, but is there another part to this story?

And yes, I'm simplifying the Japanese diet. But again it's to point out that some folks do just fine on a diet that is very high carb just as the Inuits seem to on high fat.

I do not think that fat is evil. Some folks certainly think that carbs are. Not aiming that at you, but there is a lot of venom chucked in the direction of carbs as a group and it isn't all entirely deserved.

Gary

[fgummett]

...a diet that includes all food groups...

Why does everyone assume that low-carb means no-carb... is the same assumption applied to low-fat..?

I could argue that such a diet is not the norm for the majority of people on the planet.

---

BTW "Inuit" means "The People" and is already plural... the singular is "Inuk"

[xMenace]

Originally Posted by Gary_W

The reason it's asked the way round that I did is that a diet that includes all food groups with carbs being the biggest group is because it's the norm for the vast majority of the planet; a high fat, low carb diet is not.

This paragrapgh encapsulates some of the basic arguments low carbers give as justification:

We used to eat low carb
We didn't have a wide-spread obesity problem and had low incidents of diabetes.
We now eat high carb
We have a wide-spread obesity problem and high incidents of diabetes.

The majority of the world now eats high carb and we have 250,000,000 cases of diabetes worldwide!

Are Suadis new experiencing the same crisis as th west due to high refined carbs or high fats? Are native peoples around the world sufferring because of the carbs or the fats? Science has been unable to differentiate the cause with total certainty, hence our dilemna.

So what works? We know that general dieting may work, combined with exercise. We know that general dieting also fails for many. It's failed for me, Frank, and I'll guess most type 2s on DF. I don't know about type 1's.

In my case I tried low carbing for a couple of months this summer, and it was not extreme low carbing. I was as full if not fuller than normal, and I lost 10lbs. My lipids remained great. I was impressed. I slowly reverted back to higher carbs and gained 5 back. I'm now giving it a second go.

I have yet to see anyone on DF say low carbing did not help with BGs and with weight loss. I have not seen anyone complain about any other negative effects. Everyone seems to have better BGs, weight control, lipid panels and feel much better.

[Gary_W]

Originally Posted by fgummett

Why does everyone assume that low-carb means no-carb... is the same assumption applied to low-fat..?

I could argue that such a diet is not the norm for the majority of people on the planet.

---

BTW "Inuit" means "The People" and is already plural... the singular is "Inuk"

When most conventional dieticians would tell someone of my size that I need 300g of carbs per day and Bernstein tells me I should have <30g, there isn't right a lot of difference It is still a radical departure from the norm. That doesn't mean the norm shouldn't change. I eat 200-250g of carbs a day, so according to a dietician I eat lower carb too...

It is hard to argue that <30g of carbs each day is a balanced diet between the food groups. It may be right, it may work for you and it may have 'here and now' benefits for some people with diabetes. Balanced it isn't in conventional terms.

Sorry for any offence caused to Inuit people by my poor pluralism. Not sure if any visit here to be offended. If none come here, is it because of the diet meaning they don't get diabetes or is it the fact that you don't get many Wi-Fi hotspots up there

John - My question really is one of balance. What is the bad side of low-carbing for long periods (if indeed there is one)? It is clear that it has short term benefits for many members here and (if this leads to a lower HBA1c) then this leads to long term benefits too on the diabetes front. It is also clear that some people find weight easier to lose on low-carb diets than 'conventional' diets. I just can't help feeling that too much of one food group may not be for the best in the long run in other areas of overal bodily health. When the primative peoples low-carbed (one of the usual arguements in its favour) they killed what they ate and it came with no artificial additives. These days I read of people low-carbing starting the day with 'turkey ham' (whatever on earth that is) with highly processed cheese to go with and going on from there.

Has anyone studied what 40 years of turkey ham and cheese does to a person vs 40 years of eating a varied diet with carbs as the main food source that is free of refined foods (i.e. how Westerners USED to eat until 50 years ago and most of them did pretty well on it....).

[RedRD]

[quote=fgummett;404630]I probably meant to put a smiley at the end of that... I did not mean it to sound so harsh but I was rushing to respond before leaving for work.

I still maintain that I would rather discuss this with facts and reason.

And just because you put a smiley at the end of a post, doesn't make it less harsh-sounding...

But I'm growing very accustomed to that emotion around here. I'm gathering some facts for you, Frank.

[RedRD]

[quote=xMenace;404768]This paragrapgh encapsulates some of the basic arguments low carbers give as justification:

We used to eat low carb
We didn't have a wide-spread obesity problem and had low incidents of diabetes.
We now eat high carb
We have a wide-spread obesity problem and high incidents of diabetes.

The majority of the world now eats high carb and we have 250,000,000 cases of diabetes worldwide!

Are Suadis new experiencing the same crisis as th west due to high refined carbs or high fats? Are native peoples around the world sufferring because of the carbs or the fats? Science has been unable to differentiate the cause with total certainty, hence our dilemna.



Let us consider the possibility that increased intake of FOOD - all types - and a sedentary lifestyle has contributed to an increase in diabetes moreso than the claim that the majority of the world eats high-carb.

Along Frank's thinking, does eating a diet including more carbs or as many carbs as protein+fat combined = a "high carb" diet?

Still gathering my FACTS, Frank.

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by fgummett

In short "Carbs + Insulin = Fat"

So, Frank - if it is that simple, then why is it that non-diabetics who eat moderate amounts of carbs (50% - what I practice) and have a "normal" insulin response are not always overweight/"fat"?

Still gathering facts...

[REDLAN]

We used to eat low carb

we did???

when was this???

The staple diet for most people in the west for the last god knows how long has been cereals. In medieval times in Europe the staple for the vast majority of people was bread. This was supplemented with weak beer (the only safe way to drink water), vegetables - peas & beans. Before the potato the ancestor of the parsnip was the main starchy root staple. Many people also had access to cheese. Meat was a rare and valuable commodity, and only occasionally eaten by ordinary people.

Bread has remained ever since the main staple in the west. I fail to understand how this could be construed as a low carb diet.

And correct me if I am wrong but a significant proportion of the US population comes from European descent - people who historically farmed and ate cereals.

The notion that stone age peoples (e.g. the american indian peoples) ate a diet predominantly of meat and little vegetable matter is false. The fact is that there was a wide variation in diets, and some indian peoples farmed and processed cereals.

Grindstones dating back 10,000 years have been shown to have been used to process cereals. Humans have been eating diets high in cereals for a rather long time.

We didn't have a wide-spread obesity problem and had low incidents of diabetes.

The issues around obesity are rather complex and it is not as simple as we're fat because we eat too much and don't do enough exercise. Depending on how you measure calorie intake, you can either show that it has risen, or that calorie intakes are virtually unchanged for the last 25 years. If you measure calorie intake based on the amount of foodstuffs add a fiddle factor which estimates nonhuman consumption as well as non food uses, then calorie consumption has risen by loads. If you give people a questionaire and get them to fill in what they have eaten (done by NHANES) then you find people are eating within recommended guidelines, and it's broadly unchanged.

On exercise if you get people to fill in a questionaire and only count leisure time exercise as activity and exclude work based activities (I kid you not some surveys have done this), then you find that we are all lazy toads sitting on our sofas watching TV all day. If you gather a sample of people and measure actual energy expenditure (which you has been done) then you find that overall energy expenditure has remained unchanged for the last 25 years, and that for our size it is inline with other mammals.

Type 2 epidemic??? - again this depends on how you measure it. Has there been a recorded increase in type 2 diabetes? Yes most definitely. About 4% between each NHANES survey.

However almost everywhere will quote the raw figures. But what you need to know is that the section of the population that is most at risk of type 2 has been growing faster than any other section. Nobody bothers to correct for this - I did a rough back of the postcard calculation (so not that accurate) and estimated that the aging US population accounts for around 50% of the increase.

what about the other 50% - Correct me if I am wrong but type 2 was not even recognised as a separate disease until 1954 (I think it was 1954??). In that time diagnostic criteria has changed dramatically, better tests have been developed to diagnose it, and most importantly there is greater awareness than ever of the risk of people developing type 2 diabetes. How much of the remaining 50% is accounted for simply by this factor?

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by RedRD

And just because you put a smiley at the end of a post, doesn't make it less harsh-sounding..

The fact that I bothered to re-post expressing concern about how my previous post might be taken should be proof enough of my intentions but take it however you wish.

Originally Posted by RedRD

if it is that simple, then why is it that non-diabetics who eat moderate amounts of carbs (50% - what I practice) and have a "normal" insulin response are not always overweight/"fat"?

Please read the entire post rather than taking one sentence - that refers back to a previous paragraph - out of context. Or if you prefer take it as a statement of proven bio-chemistry.. the fact is that without carbs and insulin we cannot store fat... as in "fat cells", not "overweight".

What really surprises me is that we have been told for 30+ years that "fat will clog our arteries" or that "ketones are unhealthy" or that "protein is bad for our kidneys"... so why is it taking so long to find some proof of these facts..?

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by fgummett

What really surprises me is that we have been told for 30+ years that "fat will clog our arteries" or that "ketones are unhealthy" or that "protein is bad for our kidneys"... so why is it taking so long to find some proof of these facts..?

Because, Frank, high-fat, high-protein diets have not been so vehemently proposed and practiced for "so long" - and the literature from scientific studies that you want to see aren't readily available because of the same reason - have not had the opportunity to study.

And might I suggest that you also look at an entire post - you seem to infer that I am suggesting low-fat, low-protein, when I am not. I suggest MODERATE amounts of all macronutrients. Of course, I know someone will jump on that argument: "What is moderate?"

I have been searching - with success - for studies. And I will probably paste them to a PM just for you.

But, really - do you need to have the studies cited to admit that there is evidence to show that a generally high-fat diet increases one's risk for cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. This is with the focus being on saturated fats, not on those "healthy" fats present in diets such as the Mediterranean Diet (which also includes a good amount of complex carbs, i.e. pasta). The main problem with a specifically high fat diet is that it is usually excessive in calories in general d/t the fact that fat comes with over 2x the caloric value of carbs and proteins.

Now, am I a low-fat fan? No - I do not buy "low-fat" products. We all know that they tend to come w/higher amounts of carbs.

Why am I not a HUGE fan of the high-protein diet? Because I have seen many patients who put added strain on their already strained kidneys with such a diet. And why are ketones harmful? Again - a strain on the kidneys. When a person is in renal failure (before dialysis), what diet is prescribed? A low-protein!!! Why? Because too much protein is a renal stressor. These are facts. You can find the studies or info on your own.

I follow a MODERATE diet - moderate carbs (~50%), moderate protein (15-20%), moderate fat (30-35%). Somedays I go over on one or more of all of the above. If a diet is "high" in something, then it has to be "low" in something else.

I am not and have not "attacked" any diets on this forum - have always said "Do what works!"

However, I want people to understand that IT IS POSSIBLE to eat carbs. And it is a simple lifestyle for some to follow - counting carbs, backing the carbs up w/meds, following a moderate diet. And I am not the only one this is working for...must I continue to defend it from you, Frank?


Proof that my diet and moderate exercise regimen works for me:
A1C of 5.7
BMI of 22
cholesterol - 127
LDL - 42
HDL - 67
Trig - 112

Frank - Just out of curiosity, how are your above numbers?

I hope to get back to you via PM with those studies (have them save to another doc).

[fgummett]

Red... you asked the same question about my blood results in another thread... I obliged: anyone recognise this

taken after a 12 hour fast on the morning of 14th November 2008:
A1c 5.0%
Triglycerides 60.23 mg/dl
HDL-C 42.08 mg/dl
LDL-C 71.43 mg/dl
Total-C/HDL-C Ratio 3.0
Triglycerides/HDL-C Ratio 0.6

My BMI is going to be much higher than yours... what do you expect when I have Metabolic Syndrome and you have Type 1

Please show me where I say to eliminate all carbs in any post? If low-carb means no-carb then what does low-fat mean?

I ask that you post any studies here rather than a PM... because I don't think that there are any studies which show high-fat leads to atherosclerosis, or that ketones or protein are damaging to healthy kidneys. These statements have been made for at least 30 years so you must believe there are studies to prove it.

Here is a study concerning kidneys and protein: The Impact of Protein Intake on Renal Function Decline in Women with Normal Renal Function or Mild Renal Insufficiency -- Knight et al. 138 (6): 460 -- Annals of Internal Medicine

Conclusions: High protein intake was not associated with renal function decline in women with normal renal function. However, high total protein intake, particularly high intake of nondairy animal protein, may accelerate renal function decline in women with mild renal insufficiency.

[my bold emphasis]
As for renal function, I have mine tested on a regular basis by my Endo - isn't that standard practice with Diabetes - if not, it should be.