[Constantin74]

In the opening message of this thread xMenace has cited a research by Duke U. which said one of the two diabetic patient control groups in the research was given a 500 calories/day diet (pls correct me if I'm wrong.) I wanted to express that it sounded quite surprising to me that such a low level of energy taking would be adopted as one of the alternative treatment regiments on a body of diabetics. To see what people in this forum would think of such a low number, and if there would be people who would know more abt such a diet and its merits if any.

[PERKDOUG]

Originally Posted by Constantin74

In the opening message of this thread xMenace has cited a research by Duke U. which said one of the two diabetic patient control groups in the research was given a 500 calories/day diet (pls correct me if I'm wrong.) I wanted to express that it sounded quite surprising to me that such a low level of energy taking would be adopted as one of the alternative treatment regiments on a body of diabetics. To see what people in this forum would think of such a low number, and if there would be people who would know more abt such a diet and its merits if any.

My opinion:

They do not mean a 500 cal/day diet. Riots would break out among the test subjects. They mean a diet reduction of 500 cal/day from the weight maintenance diet. As an example, if the normal maintenance diet is 2000 calories then the test diet would be 2000 - 500 yielding 1500 cal/day.

[GretchO]

Originally Posted by xMenace

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.

I find this to be my greatest struggle w/ low(ish)-carbing. I tend to keep my carb intake between 80-100 each day, with the vast majority of my carbs coming from legumes, veggies and whole grains. I cook a LOT of the food I eat. However, neither my husband nor daughter are interested in low carb (daughter is almost 4 and can be officially classified as a carbitarian) so even though I can make all the low-carb meals I want, temptation is EVERYwhere, and is often hard to overcome.

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Constantin74

In the opening message of this thread xMenace has cited a research by Duke U. which said one of the two diabetic patient control groups in the research was given a 500 calories/day diet (pls correct me if I'm wrong.)

Ah - I see the point you are making. My apologies, I misunderstood you. I read that to mean a reduction of 500 calories ... not a reduction to 500 calories.

[Gary_W]

It seems that on this (and threads like it) the alternative diet mentioned by fans of low-carbing is low-fat.

How about a diet that isn't low in anything, so you eat a good balance between the food groups of natural, non-processed foods but you eat less of everything? Would this be a reasonable alternative?

Reason I'm asking is this.... I accept that many folks in the world of healthcare have recommended a low fat diet for people with diabetes (of any flavour). I also accept that many healthcare professionals continue to do so and that this advice is not helpful for BG control. If you eat less fat than you should, you have to up something else which is usually the carbs, hence the horrible numbers. I can see why folks who have been put on a low-fat diet would find a vast 'numbers' improvement with low-carbing. To me, this seems like going from one extreme to the other.

But what about someone going from low-fat to normal fat? And normal carb and normal protein? I just worry that severe reductions in any part of the diet is not good, whether it be leaving out the majority of fats, carbs or proteins. You get immediate feedback here and now from eating too many carbs (your BG goes up). You get no immediate negative feedback from excess fat consumption. This does not mean that there isn't a problem waiting for you down the line.

Two things concern me about low carbing:

1. Until we are many years down the line of people sticking to a Western diet that is extremely high fat (frying chicken in bacon fat and adding full fat cream for instance ) then we can't know if there will be long term effects of eating in this manner. You can't compare it with ancient tribes as they didn't have double cream on a daily basis

2. The diet is potentially offputting and difficult to stick to.

If a lower calorie but not low in anything else diet was proposed then surely this would be helpful? I say this simply because low-carbing is oft proclaimed as the best way of 'doing' diabetes of any type.

For many years with T1 I bounced off the end stops of control simply because I had no clue how to deal with it. I eventually found this place, learned some valuable information and life has improved dramatically. Why is this relevant?

Because a couple of years before I found diabetesforums, I went to a.n.other online forum and tried to get some advice on how to feel better. The first thing suggested was low-carbing. Fans of low-carbing do tend to 'go tell it on the mountain' and it can blind some of them to other potential ways to manage our condition, and it's especially annoying because most extreme low carbers seem to be T2 whose need / management of insulin will be different to a T1. I found it offputting to be confronted by a bunch of people who more or less made out that I would be blind and one legged by the time I was 50 if I didn't give up eating toast.

IMO, pointing out that low-fat = high-carb and that high carb can be difficult to manage with diabetes is a sensible thing to tell anyone in our boat. It's a shame that a half way house of 'eat a varied diet with a little bit of everything and not too much of any one food group. Oh, and don't eat too much overall' isn't given before immediately recommending a diet where we don't know the long-term effects and that lots of people would be put off even trying so they stay as they are on the damaging low-fat...

I welcome your thoughts, and also would like to know if any of the folks who now low-carb went straight from low-fat to low-carb or did anyone try a 'eat a balance of the groups but less of it' approach as outlined above?

Gary

[Evermont]

Originally Posted by Gary_W

...or did anyone try a 'eat a balance of the groups but less of it' approach as outlined above?

That's me. I know there are others here too. My approach is to eat a balance of what what I call "good" carbs, fats, and proteins. We can discuss what I mean by "good", but essentially if it went through lots of machines in a factory - it's probably not "good". I don't always worry about balance for a single meal, or even a particular day. I don't measure. Generally, I know food and I'm learning more about it all the time. I eat less, I fast sometimes, I seek a balance of quality carbs, fats and proteins featuring lots of fresh produce. I go for organic produce for items known to be laden with pesticides etc. I focus on foods that are known or suspected to be healthful. I find creative ways to prepare them. I seek a wide variety.

It's like that.

[Rad Warrier]

I hear a voice of sound reason in your post. I fully agree with all that you say in the post.

Originally Posted by Gary_W

It seems that on this (and threads like it) the alternative diet mentioned by fans of low-carbing is low-fat.

How about a diet that isn't low in anything, so you eat a good balance between the food groups of natural, non-processed foods but you eat less of everything? Would this be a reasonable alternative?

Yes. It is precisely this alternative that I am following.

I just worry that severe reductions in any part of the diet is not good, whether it be leaving out the majority of fats, carbs or proteins. You get immediate feedback here and now from eating too many carbs (your BG goes up). You get no immediate negative feedback from excess fat consumption. This does not mean that there isn't a problem waiting for you down the line.

The immediate (good) effect on blood sugar brought on by avoiding carbohydrates is measurable by meters. But we don't have convenient home meters and strips to measure other immediate or long term (bad) effects, if any, of avoiding carbohydrates.

If a lower calorie but not low in anything else diet was proposed then surely this would be helpful?

It has been very helpful in my case. My diet that alluded to above is lower in calories (because it is lower in total quantity) than what I ate before my diagnosis but not significantly less in anything else. My glucose levels are very much in the non-diabetic range now.

... a couple of years before I found diabetesforums, I went to a.n.other online forum and tried to get some advice on how to feel better. The first thing suggested was low-carbing. Fans of low-carbing do tend to 'go tell it on the mountain' and it can blind some of them to other potential ways to manage our condition, and it's especially annoying because most extreme low carbers seem to be T2 whose need / management of insulin will be different to a T1. I found it offputting to be confronted by a bunch of people who more or less made out that I would be blind and one legged by the time I was 50 if I didn't give up eating toast.

I hear you Gary even though I am not a type 1.

It's a shame that a half way house of 'eat a varied diet with a little bit of everything and not too much of any one food group. Oh, and don't eat too much overall' isn't given before immediately recommending a diet where we don't know the long-term effects and that lots of people would be put off even trying so they stay as they are on the damaging low-fat...

Well said Gary. I personally try to eat a varied diet - a bit of everything and not too much of any one food group as you say.

In the ultimate analysis, I feel it best not to cling to any dogma as far as diet is concerned. Experiment, and find out what suits you best in both the short and the long range, making it a point to eat a diet as varied and as less processed as possible. For me, 'a lower calorie but not low in anything else diet' has worked. In my condition, I can tolerate a decent amount of carbohydrates, it appears. So, I don't have to go for low carb or low anything diet, except low quantity (and hence low calorie).

Regards,
Rad

[fgummett]

Gary, I have recently read Micheal Pollan's - "In Defense of Food" and he also makes some good points: what I got most out of it is that we need to eat real, whole, nutrient-rich food... spend a little more and get quality over quantity. Like John's grass-fed beef or Evermont's organic produce - real recognisable food.

But as an obese Type 2 I also have to recognise the indisputable bio-chemical/physiological link between carbohydrates, insulin, BG levels/stability, and stored-fat. No such link exists between insulin and dietary-fat or protein.

I also recognise for myself the lack of hunger cravings since I stopped eating nearly all carbohydrates. I suspect that this is different for many people... maybe particularly a Type 1. With respect, I doubt that you fully understand what I am saying when I talk of hunger cravings between meals... I have likened it to the need to breathe.

As for low-fat being offered as the alternate... where have you been for the last 30 years? Have you watched a cooking show, or a talked to a dietitian, or even gone shopping? Low-fat is THE NORMAL DIET that we are all told will keep us fit and healthy. Low-carb is still very much marginalised and if I seem over-zealous it is only as a reaction to the weight of the establishment pushing back with low-fat.

Apart from myself -- who seems to be an oddity with such a low-carb diet and so far no problem with compliance or, sticking with a diet that is "off-putting" -- most others here seem to be on a moderate to low-carb diet. Every newbie to DF is told to cut back on the "white" starches.

Why do you feel the need to paint this diet as "extreme" and assume that here must be some hidden dangers lurking in it?

Until we are many years down the line of people sticking to a Western diet that is extremely high fat (frying chicken in bacon fat and adding full fat cream for instance ) then we can't know if there will be long term effects of eating in this manner. You can't compare it with ancient tribes as they didn't have double cream on a daily basis

You are obviously using my recent meal as an example but you make it sound like I deep fried the chicken in lard instead of just re-using the same pan in which I had cooked my breakfast bacon, and I used maybe 2 tablespoons of full-fat cream to make the sauce for three servings.

As for eating this way long-term: the Masai have lived on a diet of milk and blood with occasional meat from their cattle, for thousands of years... I presume the milk is full-fat, unskimmed and unpasteurised. I am not advocating that as a diet,and I fully recognise that I am not a Masai tribes-person, but simply using it as an example of how such an "unbalanced", "un-moderate" diet can still be successful and healthful.

[EdnBama]

As for me, I have often looked askance at penny-pinching fat grams or carbs each meal (0g-20g per day). Neither effort seems "normal" to me, but that's just me.

I don't run in circles where people debate the fine points of dietary fat and ketogenic diets. Most people I know, when they talk of dieting or eating better, talk about caloric reduction -- 1500 calories, 2000 calories -- and balance.

The fat vs carb debate has tended to be in the realm of people looking for a short cut diet ... rather than eating a "balanced" (yes, I know that's a subjective term) with fewer grams of fat and fewer grams of carbs.

Of course, we diabetics have a particular interest in managing our carbs so there's often a strong interest in low carb diets due.

The bottom line to me seems that each person has to decide what his or her health goals are and then structure his or her diet accordingly -- with the only measure of whether the diet is really right or wrong is whether he or she is meeting those goals.

[EdnBama]

Frank, I'm still trying to get a grasp on the characterization of your hunger as being like the need to breathe.

Are you saying that your eating is autonomic and you are unable to consciously control it for any significant length of time?

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by EdnBama

Frank, I'm still trying to get a grasp on the characterization of your hunger as being like the need to breathe.

Are you saying that your eating is autonomic and you are unable to consciously control it for any significant length of time?

To a large extent, yes.

From my reading, appetite or hunger control is less about a conscious choice and more about the current nutritional state of our bodies. This has been shown with animal studies but then of course, many folks do not feel that we are animals and somehow we are above all that kind of thing

For example, if food is "diluted" with water or clay, animals (rats are often used for testing) will increase the volume that they eat to still maintain the same nutrient intake... similarly if nutrients are provided directly in the stomach or intravenously, the animal will decrease its intake to again maintain the same balance. Another study offered water sweetened with sugar or saccharine... both equally sweet but the latter containing no energy. After a short time animals realised that they could only be satisfied with the sugar water... again not a decision based on taste, but nutrient requirement.

Hunger is a very low level response from what has been called the "reptilian" brain... so while we can consciously hold it off for a time, it is constantly there, nagging and reminding us. Our need to drink water when thirsty, serves as another example. Sure we can stay thirsty for a time but if surrounded by water sources will will eventually take a drink.

We may think that appetite is a conscious choice guided by our eyes, smell and taste... but the same food that has us drooling when we are hungry leaves us cold when our bodies are satisfied.

I was constantly feeling hungry (for about the last 25 years)... as soon as one meal was over I was looking around or planning for the next. For me, that craving stopped almost overnight when I cut out virtually all carbs. I still get hungry around meal times but the rest of the day I can walk past tables of sweet treats without a second glance. Yes I still recognise the sweet treats on a conscious level and I remember that they would give me a "brain high" if I ate them BUT without that low-level craving it is easy to ignore that temptation and I do not want to go back to that way of feeling out of control of my own body.

I now understand that there is a biochemical reason that high-levels of insulin and carbohydrates lead to hunger cravings, which to me explains why I was constantly hungry and why I am not anymore.

[EdnBama]

Frank -- What nutrient were you missing that your body was trying to get you to ingest when you were hungry all of the time?

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by EdnBama

Frank -- What nutrient were you missing that your body was trying to get you to ingest when you were hungry all of the time?

Glucose. My body was starving for energy because high levels of insulin had everything locked away in fat cells.

[Gary_W]

Originally Posted by fgummett

snip

As for low-fat being offered as the alternate... where have you been for the last 30 years? Have you watched a cooking show, or a talked to a dietitian, or even gone shopping? Low-fat is THE NORMAL DIET that we are all told will keep us fit and healthy. Low-carb is still very much marginalised and if I seem over-zealous it is only as a reaction to the weight of the establishment pushing back with low-fat.

Apart from myself -- who seems to be an oddity with such a low-carb diet and so far no problem with compliance or, sticking with a diet that is "off-putting" -- most others here seem to be on a moderate to low-carb diet. Every newbie to DF is told to cut back on the "white" starches.

Why do you feel the need to paint this diet as "extreme" and assume that here must be some hidden dangers lurking in it?
You are obviously using my recent meal as an example but you make it sound like I deep fried the chicken in lard instead of just re-using the same pan in which I had cooked my breakfast bacon, and I used maybe 2 tablespoons of full-fat cream to make the sauce for three servings.

As for eating this way long-term: the Masai have lived on a diet of milk and blood with occasional meat from their cattle, for thousands of years... I presume the milk is full-fat, unskimmed and unpasteurised. I am not advocating that as a diet,and I fully recognise that I am not a Masai tribes-person, but simply using it as an example of how such an "unbalanced", "un-moderate" diet can still be successful and healthful.

I watch lots of cooking shows. Few on this side of the pond go with low fat ingredients. The current trend seems to be for using the best quality ingredients where you know where they come from, and then there is the odd program on how to make 'real' food but quickly for those with busy lives. Far from high fat being marginalised, over the last few years we have had loads of books such as 'Atkins' style cookbooks. 'Ready meals' still have low-fat ranges but these are far outweighed by the regular stuff. And the full fat Greek yoghurt sits on the shelf right next to the low fat.

If you have another look at my post, I'm pointing out that we don't know the dangers (if indeed there are any) of eating the fats available to you (as a modern, Western world man) as the main part of the diet rather than as a balanced part of the diet. Please keep in mind that I view low-fat with suspician as well. You have no problem with pointing out the obvious dangers that you see with a low fat diet. The reasons you are aware of these dangers is that a lot of people have done the low fat thing for years and now we have a lot of overweight people. If I'm reading it correctly, you believe these two things to be related.

Why are you so convinced that unforseen problems cannot possibly come from low carb? Neither you nor I know if problems will occur from eating this way long term as Western people have not done so in great enough numbers for us to know. Surely you must see that problems are possible?

If you take the centre ground of eating a bit of everything and not too much of it, you'll find that this has worked very well for Westerners for hundreds of years; it is a proven method.... It's only been the last 50 years in the US and 20 years in the UK that you have seen the explosion in obesity levels; until then, most people were of average weight and lived a fairly healthy life provided they could actually afford to eat.... There are many theories on what has caused the problems of recent years. I don't know which one is correct. The cheap availability of convenience food plus the move from active to sedentary jobs for many people probably hasn't helped.

As to the Maasai, that's an interesting one. I'm led to believe they rarely suffer from heart disease which could lead one to believe that a milk and blood diet is good. Most Westerners don't get heart disease until they are in their 50's either. Various sources quote the average age at which a Maasai male dies is mid-40's so one wonders if this makes the stats a little one sided? Also, if you are using them as a good example of eating low carb (and keep in mind that they probably get a lot more excercise that you or I do) then I think you need to find another example

As an example to come back with, think to the Japanese. The traditional Japanese diet has around 55% of the calories coming from carbs. They have lower obesity rates, lower rates of T2 and live longer than we do. Not saying it's because of the carbs, but clearly it is possible for a modern person to live a healthy life on the carbs.

[RedRD]

Originally Posted by Gary_W

How about a diet that isn't low in anything, so you eat a good balance between the food groups of natural, non-processed foods but you eat less of everything? Would this be a reasonable alternative?

EXCELLENT - exactly what I have been saying from day one (when Frank "humbly" suggested that I consider a diet less than 50% carbs).

What seems more "extreme?" A diet consisting of 45-50% carbs, 15-20% protein, 30-35% fat - OR - a diet consisting of 5-15% carbs, 30-45% protein, 40-65% fat...

EXTREME
1 a: existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b: going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical <went on an extreme diet> c: exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
2archaic : last
3: situated at the farthest possible point from a center <the country's extreme north>
4 a: most advanced or thoroughgoing <the extreme political left> b: maximum
5 a: of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes> b: involved in an extreme sport <an extreme snowboarder>
synonyms see excessive


MODERATE
1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker> b: calm , temperate
2 a: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b: having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4: limited in scope or effect
5: not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma