[fgummett]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

My personal view on low carb versus low fat diets is that theoretically there should be an advantage for a low carb approach in improving symptoms for type 2. However I am aware through reading that this may not be so. That the effect of diet may mostly be through weight loss.

I'd also be interested in what you read that led you to this statement. While my BGs do continue to improve as my weight continues to drop, my BGs did initially stabilise when I changed to low-carb... before any weight loss had occurred.

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by PERKDOUG

I have been on and supervised others on the low carb and ketogenic diets. Only fanatics like me can endure the ketogenic diet for more than a 2 to 4 weeks without sneaking a few carbs. Reading anything into these diet trials after more that a few weeks into the trials is a waste of time. Most if not all the test subjects cheat. The cheating progresses with time and the blood test markers (B.S. A1c ect.) converge as I would expect.

But don't give up!

We have our own low carb trials going on here as we blog.

Take for example Lloyd. Look at his numbers in his profile above this post. I believe he follows the low carb (~50g/day)but not the Ketogenic diet. Now correct me if I am wrong, it appears his numbers are not converging to what they were before the diet was undertaken. How can this be if the studies cited in this thread predict he will revert to his old numbers? The answer is simple, he can stay on the D*** diet. His case is not the exception, its the rule on DF. Now take many of the posts from Newbe's to the DF. Many show results of following the ADA high carb diet. What is their results in most cases? The septic tank of rising B.S., A1c's and triglycerides.
But I will go with Redlan on a very important point. These L C diets are not easy to stay on for long periods of time. But, at 50g/day of carbs, many of us can be successful!

These type threads are so much fun. Keep up the good work!

Very good, REALISTIC points here.

And Frank, is it okay that he is saying MANY show results...MOST cases...? You took issue w/my use of many/most. I guess it is okay that he uses them since he seems to favor low-carb. You know what? I'm okay with it.

You know what else? I don't consider myself a high-carber
(50%), but am probably a high-carber compared to most here -and I don't have a septic tank does not include rising BS, A1C, or triglycerides. Hmmm...

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by fgummett

I'd also be interested in what you read that led you to this statement. While my BGs do continue to improve as my weight continues to drop, my BGs did initially stabilise when I changed to low-carb... before any weight loss had occurred.

The omission of carbs on BG levels is immediate. Weight loss occurs over time. If you continue to have BGs that improve (implying that there is room for improvement) while following such a low-carb diet, what do you suggest is causing them to have room for improvement?

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by RedRD

And Frank, is it okay that he is saying MANY show results...MOST cases...? You took issue w/my use of many/most.

You sure don't let go of a thing do you Red..?

You said...

And your diet works for you, but would not for many people

I said...

I would rather say that my diet may not work for everybody rather than "not for many people"

For example:
Take a group of 100 people... if I said, "not many of these people have red hair". What percentage would you guess I was saying have red hair? 50% or less than that? Could I possibly mean more than 50%? To me another way of saying "not many" is "a few". So based on that statement I would guess that less than 25 had red hair.

Now if we take that same 100 people and I said, "not everybody in that room has red hair". How many could be red haired? Anywhere up to 99 out of 100 could be red haired.

End of English lesson.

---

Back on topic...

Originally Posted by RedRD

The omission of carbs on BG levels is immediate. Weight loss occurs over time. If you continue to have BGs that improve (implying that there is room for improvement) while following such a low-carb diet, what do you suggest is causing them to have room for improvement?

I expect my BGs and/or need for exogenous insulin to continue to improve as my weight reduces and - as a result - my Insulin Resistance (IR) also reduces (or Insulin Sensitivity increases - if you prefer). I am not sure if I will ever be off all exogenous insulin; as I am unsure if I have any Pancreatic Beta Cell function left... time will tell.

---

Originally Posted by RedRD

I don't consider myself a high-carber
(50%), but am probably a high-carber compared to most here -and I don't have a septic tank does not include rising BS, A1C, or triglycerides.

You have Type 1 D which has its own very different set of issues to deal with... does not usually include IR or a back-log of obesity.

[EdnBama]

Originally Posted by Subby

That's an irrelevant statement. You still have no data pertaining to certain groups inside the "sample group".

It's really not irrelevant, at least not for those who claim to be relying on "scientific" studies.

Without a representative sample, then you do not have a study that can be reasonably evaluated and applied to the population at large.

[xMenace]

Originally Posted by PERKDOUG

I have been on and supervised others on the low carb and ketogenic diets. Only fanatics like me can endure the ketogenic diet for more than a 2 to 4 weeks without sneaking a few carbs. Reading anything into these diet trials after more that a few weeks into the trials is a waste of time. Most if not all the test subjects cheat. The cheating progresses with time and the blood test markers (B.S. A1c ect.) converge as I would expect.

I agree it is very hard to low carb, especially when there are so many temptations. DW made a pizza last night. I never touched it. I don't know how long I can do that. I found after a month this summer I was cheating, and I was well over 100g a day. It's tough.

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by fgummett

You sure don't let go of a thing do you Red..?

You said...

I said...


For example:
Take a group of 100 people... if I said, "not many of these people have red hair". What percentage would you guess I was saying have red hair? 50% or less than that? Could I possibly mean more than 50%? To me another way of saying "not many" is "a few". So based on that statement I would guess that less than 25 had red hair.

Now if we take that same 100 people and I said, "not everybody in that room has red hair". How many could be red haired? Anywhere up to 99 out of 100 could be red haired.

End of English lesson.

---

Back on topic...
I expect my BGs and/or need for exogenous insulin to continue to improve as my weight reduces and - as a result - my Insulin Resistance (IR) also reduces (or Insulin Sensitivity increases - if you prefer). I am not sure if I will ever be off all exogenous insulin; as I am unsure if I have any Pancreatic Beta Cell function left... time will tell.

---

You have Type 1 D which has its own very different set of issues to deal with... does not usually include IR or a back-log of obesity.

I think the same can be said for you, Frank.

Don't need an English lesson - I didn't take issue w/the wording. You did.

Yes, time will tell.

And I'm very aware of what type I have, and the obvious differences in the types. Was he referring to classifications of diabetes, or diets? If we are talking about how different diets affect the different classifications, then why don't separate our threads and only discuss within our classifications?

I doubt any of us want to do that...

[rotcoddam]

Originally Posted by fgummett

I'd also be interested in what you read that led you to this statement. While my BGs do continue to improve as my weight continues to drop, my BGs did initially stabilise when I changed to low-carb... before any weight loss had occurred.

I was taught that, in the average person, about 1/3 of the "glucose load" in the blood is from recently eaten/digested foods, and about 2/3 is from release of stored calories (glycogen, fat converted to sugars, etc.) The proportions vary depending on fasting state, weight, etc.

So cutting out carbs quickly drops the sugars, but only to a point. Eliminating calories without regard to carbs has a similar but slightly less dramatic effect. Losing weight tends to drop all the sugars all the time so that any high glucose after eating is superimposed on a lower starting point. (Plus losing weight imoproves insulin sensitivity so that the rise after eating carbs is less.)

I have often seen that, while patients are losing weight from point A to B, their sugars drop dramatically. Once stable at point B, the sugars go back up, but not as high as before they started. Repeating this cycle until the sugars come down and stya down is the cure. (Assuming that one can reach a weight which gives them normal glucoses).

So one sort of simple way of looking at it is that carbs are important and weight loss is mimportant, at a ratio of about 1 to 2. Sort of.

[bunbury]

For me the effect of cutting the carbs was immediate and substantial. My BS fell from an average of around 150 on the meter (with peeks over 200) to an average of 100-110 in about 2 weeks. I also felt better a soon as I started.

This was before the weight-loss kicked in. As I lost weight my BS continued to improve - but much more slowly. After 6 months my meter average is now 90. If I stray a little and eat carbs, my BS goes up immediately. My weight has been pretty stable for 3 months and the small weekly fluctuations I get have no detectable effect on my BS.

My experience is that carb intake has a very big impact on my numbers. Weight has also made and impact in two ways: It has helped lower BS, but by much less than low-carbing, and it has improved the speed at which my numbers fall after a meal (now much quicker than in the early weeks of low-carbing).

If weight was the more important than low-carbing, then I should able to increase my carbs to, say, 80 grms a day and see little effect on my meter. I can't - If I ate good slice of pizza my numbers would soar.

Maybe this is just me ... but I don't think so!

I take no medication.

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by bunbury

Maybe this is just me ... but I don't think so!

I have experienced the same... rapid improvement of BGs with cutting the carbs, slow continued improvement as weight and IR reduces BUT even after dropping 60 lbs since August, if I ever eat a higher carb food my BG still spikes as before. I don't ever expect that I will get to a weight-loss state where I can eat as I did before cutting the carbs... nor do I want to eat that way ever again... I do not feel deprived on the rich, tasty, variety of food that I now enjoy... more importantly I no longer feel hungry all the time between meals - which I attribute 100% to the carbs.

AND to everyone who suggests that it is the weight loss which is more important, I do see your point BUT I have only found success in weight loss by going low-carb... so it is kind of a purely academic argument. There is no magic wand that produces the weight loss without regard to other factors such as changes in what we eat.

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by rotcoddam

I was taught that, in the average person, about 1/3 of the "glucose load" in the blood is from recently eaten/digested foods, and about 2/3 is from release of stored calories (glycogen, fat converted to sugars, etc.) The proportions vary depending on fasting state, weight, etc.

I am not aware of a pathway where the body can convert fat to sugar? I have read that as Triglycerides are broken down into 3 fatty acid molecules, the Glycerol molecule which binds then can be used as Glucose - but that is where it came from in the first place so its not really a net gain. The body then uses the Fatty Acids as energy, either directly or as Ketone Bodies to supply the Brain and nervous system.

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by fgummett

I have experienced the same... rapid improvement of BGs with cutting the carbs, slow continued improvement as weight and IR reduces BUT even after dropping 60 lbs since August, if I ever eat a higher carb food my BG still spikes as before.

For 6 months at the beginning of last year I tried a low-fat diet. An unintended consequence was an increase in carbs (I didn't know any better). I lost 7lbs (from 200lbs), maybe a bit more, and all my numbers from BS, a1c, lipids and neuropathy got worse.

[Constantin74]

500 calories/day?? And exercise regimen included? To my logic
there should be something deadly risky about it.. Even if the person lied in bed 24 hours the body would need many more calories to survive I believe, for the vital organs like heart and brain to continue running.
And remembering research like this one MedlinePlus: Strict Blood Sugar Lowering Won't Ease Diabetes Heart Risk which (to my understanding) says implementing approaches in type 2 diabetic patients to intensively bring down BS to "normal" levels would not render any heart benefit, and another one, ACCORD, which says intensive lowering and aggresive approach to do that would actually significanly increase the risk of death from heart risk... I understand standard approach aims at A1C below 7, intensive lowering targets to bring down below 6. But while trying to achieve that aggressive target of 6, apparently so many more people have died unexpectedly from heart /stroke problems during the ACCORD experiment, compared to those who died under treatment to target 7.
I am sure many people here would know abt these researches better than me, and the subject was brought up in DF; it just seemed relevant to me in regard to 500 calories/day thinking. How about the view that says a diabetic patient would not be the same as a healthy person who has nothing to do with diabetes /insulin resistance-irregularity, and therefore a target like 5.0 or 5.2 which is normal for a fully healthy person would not be reasonable or even healthy for a diabetic of so many years?
I have achieved to bring my A1C below 6, and it might probably go further down if I followed better low-carbing, taking supplements etc, but I am rather confused per above..

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Constantin74

500 calories/day?? And exercise regimen included? To my logic
there should be something deadly risky about it..

Very risky indeed. Who is doing 500 calories a day? If you mean me, I'm on about 2000-2500 a day and my weight's been stable for 3 months at slightly above mid-range by my BMI (if you believe in BMIs).

[PERKDOUG]

Originally Posted by Constantin74

And remembering research like this one MedlinePlus: Strict Blood Sugar Lowering Won't Ease Diabetes Heart Risk which (to my understanding) says implementing approaches in type 2 diabetic patients to intensively bring down BS to "normal" levels would not render any heart benefit, and another one, ACCORD, which says intensive lowering and aggresive approach to do that would actually significanly increase the risk of death from heart risk..

If I remember right these 2 studies used mostly heavy oral meds and insulin to lower the BS and A1c. Therefore, these studies tell us nothing about the health benefits of lowering BS and A1c by low carb dieting. Also, the people in these studies were very sickly and advanced diabetics many having already had CVD events.

Correct me on this if I am wrong.