Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MrsMia

Low carbing - makes me wonder

Recommended Posts

MrsMia

I'm putting this thread in this forum so as not to offend those that do something different to manage their diabetes. But when all told, are those that are not low carbing really low carbing? Even those that claim to be "moderate" carbers? What is the threshold of carbs one eats in a day that constitutes low carbing?

 

One of the first things when we are diagnosed with diabetes is that we are told to count our carbs. That's whether you take insulin or not. If you want to lose weight, lower your carbs. It's seems like it is always carbs implicated in every dietary angle for diabetics. When you lower the carbs and start losing weight the bgs also seem to fall in line. Along with lab tests. So I'm seriously perplexed why some people will be adamantly against low carbing when they probably are low carbing themselves in some ways. What possible reasons would people be against low carbing when it seems to work so well for diabetics and non diabetics as well? I've got my own personal ideas but isn't it counterproductive for CDEs, nutritionists and doctors to be telling us to count and limit the amounts of carbs we eat if they aren't the major culprit to our current health challenges with diabetes? That they more than anything else we eat drives our insulin responses to be abnormal?

 

Everything I've been reading seems to point to insulin being involved in so many major diseases and the aging process. If that is true, which it seems to be learning towards, then why wouldn't we try to control our carbs which helps to control the insulin response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan B

My thoughts are related to leaving out "healthy" foods, such as fruits, grains, legumes, etc.. And another thought goes back to when I was first diagnosed. I asked my doctor why I should have orange juice when it raised my bg. His answer was that diabetics still needed fruits and vegetables, and a well rounded diet, and that we should balance those higher carb foods with insulin (type 1 perspective). By eating a variety of foods, we would be healthier.

 

Since reading Dr. B's Diabetes Solution, I rarely eat starches any longer and I'm back to being a meat eater. My carb intake is often under 40 per day.

 

I think all diabetics who want to care for themselves will cut out the common desserts and junk food (cakes, pies, donuts, etc.), thereby lowering carb intake. The question is how far will they go to get to "low-carb". Squash, potatoes, beans, beets are not considered unhealthy, but the idea of thinking all carbs are bad is where some diabetics go to what other people might consider extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwags

I think you hit the nail on the head. To manage your diabetes, you need to be aware of carbs and their effect on bgs. We all have different sensitivites to carbs. I know I am super sensitive, others may be able to tolerate a few more than me. I also have set pretty low bg goals for myself, much lower than my CDE. It has taken me 4 years but most of the day now I am under 100. By eating lower carb (10-20 per meal) I can control the insulin response needed. The nice side effect of the low carb diet is weight loss. I was happy when I was dx'd at 148, but now I am back to my college weight 118. I feel so much healthier, I eat fantastic, I have learned how to bake low carb so I don't miss anything. I think people are afraid of going low carb because they have to give up sugar, flour and their favorite treats. Thanks to all my online friends we have shared so many great recipes that now I can make almost anything I made before, just low carb. Now that I eat low carb, my husband has also jumped aboard and has lost 18 pounds and bettered all his lipid numbers. So people should give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foxl

I think that many times, it is the brainwashing on what we are supposed to eat, that is hard to overcome.

 

Other times, it is simply the stomach, talking ... in the sense of cravings, which are then heavily reinforced by cultural input (you MUST eat x, y, z, for your health; you MUST eat p, q, r because it is your cultural heritage, etc, etc, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clebo

To me, low carb is around 60 or less. Super low carb is 30 or less. I don't think you will ever get control of your Diabetes till the carbs are lowered ...whatever that number is that works for you personally....I consider myself moderate carb because I consume 110-125 carbs.

Mia , you can post where ever you like... I only take offense to disrespect....not to posting...Life is Good...Clebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

I think this entire discussion might be missing the mark. Carbs - as much as we love to argue and nit-pick about them are not really the point IMO.

 

What is the point? I focus on two things:

 

1) glucose, and

2) macronutrient balance

 

This is IMO much more productive then focussing only on "carbs". A single measure, say 50g of carbs per day can have vastly different meanings depending on how much one eats altogether and the proportion of the other two macro-nutrients.

 

I also don't think concentrating on BG levels alone is an adequate method of addressing T2 diabetes - most especially progression. Diabetes is the body's inability to handle GLUCOSE, not carbs and while clearly very related, I try to stay focussed on the actual problem not just the [main] source.

 

We poured way too much glucose into our blood through a combination of excessive carb consumption (which MEANS relative under-consumption of one or both of the other two choices) and/or just plain over-eating. This took off like a rocket in the last 30 or 40 years (when most fats were either eliminated or replaced with plastic) during which time T2 diabetes TRIPLED according to most estimates.

 

This excessive glucose produced excess methyl glyoxate which began killing our beta cells. It also triggers our body's "defense mechanism" to the whole error we are making which is insulin resistance. This is your body telling you: "TOO MUCH GLUCOSE" - eat something else!. Mind you, MG production doesn't come about when carbs are digested or when glucose reaches the bloodstream. It takes place when glucose successfully enters the cells and is metabolized (converted to ATP and used for energy). THAT's what we need less of. So, while elevated BG is definitely harmful in and of itself, pushing it into the reluctant cells by insulin, meds or even exercise addresses the symptom but is making the actual disease worse!

 

So, what is needed is to reduce GLUCOSE as it ENTERS the bloodstream, not simply trying to get rid of the excess by any means.

 

This is most effectively done by regulating the RATIO of the three macronutrients. The Ketogenic Ratio, was not developed exactly for this purpose - it is the scientific method for reducing INSULIN in non-diabetic people. This is why it gives a 10% "negative" impact to fat (90% positive) even though fat has ZERO ability to produce glucose - it can create an insulin respons. Since insulin and glucose rise and fall together in non-diabetics it is very useful and accurate also for reducing total glucose "throughput".

 

Although it's a little more work, I think we would get much more benefit by measuring our diet against the Ketogenic Ratio than just "counting carbs". It would also allow us to discuss in a more "apples to apples" manner, reduce the mysteries and decrease the constant need for "YMMV".

 

Give it a shot! All you need is a days grams of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, plug them into the formula and see what you get. The SAD (standard American diet) is around 0.3. Attempting to address T2 with diet you should be at minimum over 1.0. As long as I stay over 1.5, I have completely normal BG with no meds or insulin. YMMV (but your direction of travel will not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

I don't use a forumal, and I'm sure that most "low carbers" would not consider my diet "low" in carb - buit it is definitely variable.

 

Most days, I'd eat in-and-around 60-80g split across my meals, but on a "carby" day I might double that to 150-180 ... (and feel sick for days afterwards fighting the dreaded diabetic yo-yo ... but it feels good on the day); other days I'd be hard pressed to even get as high as 40 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raffi

I believe it has been posted before, but here is what I found. The nutrients are in grams not calories.

 

(Ketogenic)/(Anti-Ketogenic) = (0.9*fat + 0.46*protein)/(1.0*carb + 0.1*fat + 0.58*protein)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrsMia
I think this entire discussion might be missing the mark. Carbs - as much as we love to argue and nit-pick about them are not really the point IMO.

 

What is the point? I focus on two things:

 

1) glucose, and

2) macronutrient balance

 

This is IMO much more productive then focussing only on "carbs". A single measure, say 50g of carbs per day can have vastly different meanings depending on how much one eats altogether and the proportion of the other two macro-nutrients.

 

I also don't think concentrating on BG levels alone is an adequate method of addressing T2 diabetes - most especially progression. Diabetes is the body's inability to handle GLUCOSE, not carbs and while clearly very related, I try to stay focussed on the actual problem not just the [main] source.

 

We poured way too much glucose into our blood through a combination of excessive carb consumption (which MEANS relative under-consumption of one or both of the other two choices) and/or just plain over-eating. This took off like a rocket in the last 30 or 40 years (when most fats were either eliminated or replaced with plastic) during which time T2 diabetes TRIPLED according to most estimates.

 

This excessive glucose produced excess methyl glyoxate which began killing our beta cells. It also triggers our body's "defense mechanism" to the whole error we are making which is insulin resistance. This is your body telling you: "TOO MUCH GLUCOSE" - eat something else!. Mind you, MG production doesn't come about when carbs are digested or when glucose reaches the bloodstream. It takes place when glucose successfully enters the cells and is metabolized (converted to ATP and used for energy). THAT's what we need less of. So, while elevated BG is definitely harmful in and of itself, pushing it into the reluctant cells by insulin, meds or even exercise addresses the symptom but is making the actual disease worse!

 

So, what is needed is to reduce GLUCOSE as it ENTERS the bloodstream, not simply trying to get rid of the excess by any means.

 

This is most effectively done by regulating the RATIO of the three macronutrients. The Ketogenic Ratio, was not developed exactly for this purpose - it is the scientific method for reducing INSULIN in non-diabetic people. This is why it gives a 10% "negative" impact to fat (90% positive) even though fat has ZERO ability to produce glucose - it can create an insulin respons. Since insulin and glucose rise and fall together in non-diabetics it is very useful and accurate also for reducing total glucose "throughput".

 

Although it's a little more work, I think we would get much more benefit by measuring our diet against the Ketogenic Ratio than just "counting carbs". It would also allow us to discuss in a more "apples to apples" manner, reduce the mysteries and decrease the constant need for "YMMV".

 

Give it a shot! All you need is a days grams of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, plug them into the formula and see what you get. The SAD (standard American diet) is around 0.3. Attempting to address T2 with diet you should be at minimum over 1.0. As long as I stay over 1.5, I have completely normal BG with no meds or insulin. YMMV (but your direction of travel will not).

 

I know I've seen a posting somewhere of yours where you actually gave a sample of a daily meal you consume with regards to the formula you talk about here. Could you post another example? It is easier for me to visualize and then connect the math to it than to just try and figure it out on my own. After I see your sample then I can figure out my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrsMia
To me, low carb is around 60 or less. Super low carb is 30 or less. I don't think you will ever get control of your Diabetes till the carbs are lowered ...whatever that number is that works for you personally....I consider myself moderate carb because I consume 110-125 carbs.

Mia , you can post where ever you like... I only take offense to disrespect....not to posting...Life is Good...Clebo

 

 

I could have posted it in the other forums, Clebo, but I kind of like the ability of posting things that deal with low carbing in the low carb forum. I think sometimes there are agitators that just want to agitate and truthfully, I don't like people who just like to stir the pot and tick others off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwags

I really think many of us at least in the West have grown up eating carbs and many of us are addicted to carbs. I remember thinking I had to start every day with OJ too, because it is advertised as healthy. But when you think how many oranges go into 1 glass of OJ and no fiber, you would be better off eating 1/2 an orange. When I was first dx'd I did eat fruit but over several years I realised it spiked me too much. I still eat blueberries and strawberries once in awhile. I would put myself in the moderate carb group (40-70). I basically go by my meter though. If I can eat something and stay under 110, I will eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clebo
I could have posted it in the other forums, Clebo, but I kind of like the ability of posting things that deal with low carbing in the low carb forum. I think sometimes there are agitators that just want to agitate and truthfully, I don't like people who just like to stir the pot and tick others off.

I definitlely feel your pain and understand where your coming from Mia!!...believe me!! Life is Good ..Clebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

Part of the point I was attempting to make is that just looking at carbs doesn't always mean as much as we think it does. Over the last year, I have eaten probably everything from 20g of carbs in a day to 99g - but on THE EXACT SAME DIET. That's because when I ate 99g in a day, I was eating close to 4,000 calories (AND losing weight, BTW) while when I ate 20g I was eating much less, but maintaining approximately the same ketogenic ratio. Not out of any discipline or conscious decision, but sometimes I just feel like eating more others less. Oddly, when I started eating less (but with the same macro-nutrient ratio and therefore the same excellent BG), I stopped losing weight. Go figure.

 

I find that looking at all three macro-nutrients (ratio) is much more useful and much more able to predict results than any other method. It seems the company that ships me strips may have lost my records as I haven't seen a shipment in a while. I'm not so worried. I've been testing less and less since there is simply nothing new. In fact, I don't really need to test much at all any more. For me personally, that is just so much more "livable" then constant before- and after- meal testing.

 

If I ever lose insurance, I'd never buy very many strips - they're just too expensive. Maybe I'd test once a week and do an A1C every month or two and that would be enough. This is not me being lazy. Rather, it is the advantage of this method over others.

 

 

 

I don't use a forumal, and I'm sure that most "low carbers" would not consider my diet "low" in carb - buit it is definitely variable.

 

Most days, I'd eat in-and-around 60-80g split across my meals, but on a "carby" day I might double that to 150-180 ... (and feel sick for days afterwards fighting the dreaded diabetic yo-yo ... but it feels good on the day); other days I'd be hard pressed to even get as high as 40 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WantHealth

I'm finding this thread fascinating but I need to investigate further.

 

Salim,

Is there a book you can recommend so I can delve deeper and understand this?

Right now I'm solely counting carbs and to fully grasp the point you're making I'd need to delve much further into it.

A "daily diet" would be immensely helpful -- what did you eat today? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

I've posted some before. I'll see if I can find some. Meanwhile, it's just like counting carbs only you just count the other two, also. From the label if available or from one of the many websites or books which list such things for various foods.

 

Try a sample day, plug it into the formula and see what you get. In my case, reducing the carbs is definitely the easy part. The difficult part is getting enough fat. Since many fat sources also have protein, it is too easy to end up with too much protein. If that happens, BG numbers will not be as good (at the exact same level of total carbs) and you are likely to gain weight.

 

Maintaining the ratio is a good motivator, too. For example, I used to love California Medjool dates - about 15g of carbs, mostly fructose in a single one. If I was just counting carbs I might say to myself, "Oh, I've been pretty good at around 50g (or whatever), what's another 15g on a one-time basis going to hurt?"

 

On my diet, on the other hand I look at that single date and say to myself, "Hmm, if I add that to today's food I will need to eat 1.5 scoops of whey protein powder or equivalent plus 10 tablespoon of heavy cream or equivalent or I will upset my balance." I can't eat all that! Easy to step away from that date.

 

 

I'm finding this thread fascinating but I need to investigate further.

 

Salim,

Is there a book you can recommend so I can delve deeper and understand this?

Right now I'm solely counting carbs and to fully grasp the point you're making I'd need to delve much further into it.

A "daily diet" would be immensely helpful -- what did you eat today? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM
So I'm seriously perplexed why some people will be adamantly against low carbing when they probably are low carbing themselves in some ways. What possible reasons would people be against low carbing when it seems to work so well for diabetics and non diabetics as well?

 

It's a question of definition. The debate gets polarised and you end up with this ridiculous position that people are chastised as being high carbers with a bad diet because they eat a few spuds or a sandwich once in a while.

 

Low-carbing works. Not low-carbing can also work as well. Humanity has done pretty well over the last 10,000 years with a diet that has been predominantly grain and starch based. Every great civilisation has been fuelled by either grain or rice. It's possible to eat these foods without having an 'excessive' insulin response that allegedly causes so many diseases and problems. However it's also perfectly possible to have a good life and not eat these things. It's a question of individual choice and personally I think it's important people know they have a choice.

 

I don't low carb (by my standards). I'm also willing to bet I'm at least as good shape as anyone else on this forum, if not better by virtue of my age. On the other hand, maybe my diet is low-carb by official standards. I don't eat footlong subs every day for lunch. I don't eat cakes and sweets on a daily basis. I don't eat massive bowls of pasta. I just eat the carbs that work for me. I suspect really we should be having fewer discussions about 'low-carb' or 'high-carb' and more about 'right-carb'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clebo
It's a question of definition. The debate gets polarised and you end up with this ridiculous position that people are chastised as being high carbers with a bad diet because they eat a few spuds or a sandwich once in a while.

 

Low-carbing works. Not low-carbing can also work as well. Humanity has done pretty well over the last 10,000 years with a diet that has been predominantly grain and starch based. Every great civilisation has been fuelled by either grain or rice. It's possible to eat these foods without having an 'excessive' insulin response that allegedly causes so many diseases and problems. However it's also perfectly possible to have a good life and not eat these things. It's a question of individual choice and personally I think it's important people know they have a choice.

 

I don't low carb (by my standards). I'm also willing to bet I'm at least as good shape as anyone else on this forum, if not better by virtue of my age. On the other hand, maybe my diet is low-carb by official standards. I don't eat footlong subs every day for lunch. I don't eat cakes and sweets on a daily basis. I don't eat massive bowls of pasta. I just eat the carbs that work for me. I suspect really we should be having fewer discussions about 'low-carb' or 'high-carb' and more about 'right-carb'.

 

You couldn't have said it better Deus!! I am honestly inspired by everyone here for taking charge of their Diabetes and just plain doing something about it period- whatever "that " is.

 

For now, I don't low carb, I'm moderate by my own standard(110-125 carbs a day) and no meds. Just trying to eat the "right" carbs(from all food groups that are BG and Diabetic friendly to me, exercise everyday, and test(glucose) 2x a day, plus whatever each new day brings me...I'm doing fine, for me ,and have never ever felt better!!

 

Later on, I may have to go down another road, which may include lower carbs, meds, insulin, and much more. That's why I appreciate all options that are discussed here...I may need some or all of them in order to survive. I would love to think, that I will live to 90 or 100 (that's my wife's plan for us-no 2 ways about it),and I will never need any other options...other than what my lifstyle is now..but..

 

Life and Diabetes give no guarantees, and I'm finding, out as I go along, what I believed and said in the beginning in the forum as a defiant newbie -who didn't want to hear that Diabetes is a progressive disease and most end up on meds and insulin- (come up for air, Clebo) is that if I don't take control- I will have to go down another road, whether I like it or not..it may be out of my hands...regardless. At least I will have learned from all of you what I can expect if and when I go down that road...It's All Good and Life is Good..Clebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samorgan

People, no one has to apologize for eating a potato! I have never seen anyone "chastize" anyone for eating medium-carb or whatever. There seems to be some kind of hyper-sensitivity here.

 

Everyone has a right to their personal decisions. I don't think anyone here questions or doubts that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrsMia
It's a question of definition. The debate gets polarised and you end up with this ridiculous position that people are chastised as being high carbers with a bad diet because they eat a few spuds or a sandwich once in a while.

 

I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody chastised as being an active high carber who is able to manage their diabetes by high carbing. Most of the high carb people who admit to being high carbers that I've seen post are those that have said that they fell off the wagon in controlling their diabetes and came to the board or came back to the board seeking support to get back to controlling their diabetes. They almost always say that they need to get back to lowering their carbs, choosing food more wisely, loose weight and start exercising again. I've seen even those that didn't think they should/could lower their carbs because they were taking insulin eventually admitted that they must lower their carbs. I do think it comes down to a question of definition though. That is certainly up to the individual to decide. But if they come to the forums and ask non specific general questions about diet, carbs and what works for people then they will get what they ask for. They, (like I did), can take the info given and decide for themselves what works best in their situation.

 

Low-carbing works. Not low-carbing can also work as well. Humanity has done pretty well over the last 10,000 years with a diet that has been predominantly grain and starch based. Every great civilisation has been fuelled by either grain or rice. It's possible to eat these foods without having an 'excessive' insulin response that allegedly causes so many diseases and problems. [/quote[

 

I don't know if I am convinced that this is true. Not any longer anyway. Has humanity done pretty well over the last 10,000 years eating grain and starch based food? That's pretty much the $64,000 question. From my particular viewpoint, I would say yes, if that means that humanity survived. But that doesn't mean that humanity has thrived by eating these foods. That is where I believed individuality is different than the masses. Don't know if there is an answer or ever will be an answer but I do believe that how individual humans genetically metabolize their food is the unique difference between us all. And that is what determines how some respond perfectly fine by eating grains and others (such as my two sisters) cannot touch grains because of serious consequences to their health.

 

However it's also perfectly possible to have a good life and not eat these things. It's a question of individual choice and personally I think it's important people know they have a choice.

 

It is a question of individual choice. If I have diabetes and I know by testing after eating pasta or rice that I it sends my bgs up too high then I know (or should know) that that food must be avoided. If I continue to eat it simply because I love it, even though I know I don't respond well to it then I shouldn't complain about my bgs being high. It was my choice. You talk about it being important that people know they have a choice. Of course. But the question is, to what degree does an individual have a choice? I find that most people will choose whatever they want to do regardless of whether it is good or bad for them. Sometimes it seems like it is just a formality for some to ask before they do what they were determined to do anyway.

 

I don't low carb (by my standards). I'm also willing to bet I'm at least as good shape as anyone else on this forum, if not better by virtue of my age.

 

 

Yes, I think youth covers a multitude of sins. At least for awhile. But just awhile.

 

On the other hand, maybe my diet is low-carb by official standards. I don't eat footlong subs every day for lunch. I don't eat cakes and sweets on a daily basis. I don't eat massive bowls of pasta. I just eat the carbs that work for me. I suspect really we should be having fewer discussions about 'low-carb' or 'high-carb' and more about 'right-carb'.

 

I don't see 'low -carb' being in opposition to 'right -carb'. However, I do see 'high-carb' directly opposed to 'right carb'. But that is neither here nor there if we both have different definitions of what is high, low or right carbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM
I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody chastised as being an active high carber who is able to manage their diabetes by high carbing.

 

You're missing the point. If I start my day with a slice of toast, have a sandwich for lunch and then have steak and potatoes for dinner, this is apparently high-carbing. Someone who starts their day with a jam-filled donut, eats a bowl of pasta for lunch and then has curry, rice and a naan for dinner, with ice cream for desert and then a couple of pastries for snacks during the day is also a high carber. Personally I think there's a bit of a difference. When carb intake becomes 'high' seems to be a wifully arbitrary definition which never seems to take into account metabolism or activity level. I also don't really like this whole quasi-religious nonsense that seems to surround low-carbing, that apparently people who don't worry too much about their carbs then admit they're terrible sinners who fell off the wagon and then need to reform themselves by accepting Bernstein as their personal saviour. I know you're trying to be helpful but unfortunately you're just demonstrating my point that there seems to be a strand in many low carbers that seems less concerned with 'right-carbing' and more about justifying their choices.

 

I don't know if I am convinced that this is true. Not any longer anyway. Has humanity done pretty well over the last 10,000 years eating grain and starch based food?

 

Well, here's a record of human acheivements:

 

500,000 BCE - harnassing of fire

500,000-70,000 BCE - turning bits of pebble into pointy things

8,000 BCE - farming invented. People start living in houses and villages. The wheel discovered

3,000 BCE - Pyramids built. Bronze smelting discovered. Writing invented

1000 BCE - Iron smelting discovered

 

Then after 1000 BCE the acheivements of humanity simply become too much to list in one forum post. Without grain, you simply don't get stone buildings, books or the ability to put a man on the moon. Simply put, homo spaiens has been around 140,000 years. For 130,000 of those years, the population remained probably under 1 million and the best thing we acheived was making slightly pointy rocks into pointier ones. When agriculture is discovered, it's like someone stepped on the accelerator and suddenly we've got art and writing and technology. More 'stuff' was acheived in the first 1,000 years of agriculture than in the entire preceeding 129,000 years.

 

So yeah I think that having a secure food supply in the form of grain and starch has probably been quite a good thing, and it's only now when we seem to have an excess of food that problems are starting to emerge. Before, we survived. It's only after we get bread that humanity starts to thrive and do all the things that make us different from animals.

 

You talk about it being important that people know they have a choice. Of course. But the question is, to what degree does an individual have a choice?

 

That doesn't change the fact that people should know they have a choice. It's not a fait accompli. The amount of times I've seen people on here say they're having trouble with their T1 and they then get 5 or 10 responses all saying they need to cut down on their carbs. That's one choice. They might also have options of exercising more, or taking more medication, or changing their medication. They also have a choice about what they want their A1C to be. I know this is incredibly hard for T2s to appreciate but changing carb intake is just one of a panopoly of options available to a T1 and I'm not convinced the stock answer to every blood sugar problem is always just 'cut your carbs'.

 

Yes, I think youth covers a multitude of sins. At least for awhile. But just awhile.

 

Aha, yes, it'll all get me in the end and I expect then I'll have my prodigal son experience, right? This is hilarious. I make some appeal that people need to find the right route that works for them in the belief that we're interested in balanced discussion, and surprise surprise, it turns out that low-carbers aren't interested at all because hey, you're right, right?

 

I don't see 'low -carb' being in opposition to 'right -carb'. However, I do see 'high-carb' directly opposed to 'right carb'.

 

Quod erat demonstratum. Here's a question - if someone can eat what you call a high-carb diet, get an A1C in the 5s and not put on weight or suffer any health issues (and it does happen, you're talking to one such person right now), are they still wrong to follow the diet they're on? And if so, why and how would changing their diet improve things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clebo

I'm am 59 years old. I think 55 is is now being accepted as senior citizen. My point is , being older doesn't necessarily make you wiser. The younger folks (generation) are indeed wise beyond their years and can say directly and to the point what they mean. It would take me volumes to just say what Deus(my mind is slipping, I keep wanting to call you Zeus) has said . Well done "Young Man". You remind me of my Sons and Daughter, who have that same , honest, direct and well thought out, wise approach. I wish I had been given that gift. Being wise has no age limit... Life is Good..Clebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrsMia
You're missing the point. If I start my day with a slice of toast, have a sandwich for lunch and then have steak and potatoes for dinner, this is apparently high-carbing. Someone who starts their day with a jam-filled donut, eats a bowl of pasta for lunch and then has curry, rice and a naan for dinner, with ice cream for desert and then a couple of pastries for snacks during the day is also a high carber. Personally I think there's a bit of a difference.

 

 

Well, there is obviously a difference between the two scenarios. How do you come up with the conclusion that having a few slices of bread and some potatoes in a day equates to not only the latter scenario but that it is also considered high carbing? Can you tell me how many carbs you believe are in approximately 3 slices of bread and some potatoes?

 

When carb intake becomes 'high' seems to be a wifully arbitrary definition which never seems to take into account metabolism or activity level.

 

Of course it is a willfully arbitrary definition. Simply because it is the individual that must test and tweak their low carb lifestyle to their own metabolism and activity level. They decide. Nobody else can do that for them. I don't know if there is anybody here that has not given a response based upon what a poster has actually offered about themselves and their personal fitness regimes. And if it isn't known, somebody will ask.

 

I also don't really like this whole quasi-religious nonsense that seems to surround low-carbing, that apparently people who don't worry too much about their carbs then admit they're terrible sinners who fell off the wagon and then need to reform themselves by accepting Bernstein as their personal saviour. I know you're trying to be helpful but unfortunately you're just demonstrating my point that there seems to be a strand in many low carbers that seems less concerned with 'right-carbing' and more about justifying their choices.

 

I'm not going to tell somebody with diabetes that counting their carbs and lowering them doesn't matter. That the only thing that matters is that they continue to eat what they love except in smaller amounts. That was one of the most bizarre things I was told by a nutritionist when I was diagnosed. That diabetics can eat anything that non-diabetic can eat....only in smaller amounts. Really? That may be technically true. But my bgs through testing tell me otherwise. I fully believe that everything we've been taught was healthy to eat is now suspect at best. The best thing I ever got out of diabetes is a meter where I can actually see what "healthy" carbs are doing for me. And I'm not impressed. And for what it's worth, I don't follow Bernstein. Nor do I recommend him to anybody. Not that I would have a problem with it. I just believe that when the student is ready the teacher appears. And I believe most students aren't ready.

 

 

Well, here's a record of human acheivements:

 

500,000 BCE - harnassing of fire

500,000-70,000 BCE - turning bits of pebble into pointy things

8,000 BCE - farming invented. People start living in houses and villages. The wheel discovered

3,000 BCE - Pyramids built. Bronze smelting discovered. Writing invented

1000 BCE - Iron smelting discovered

 

Then after 1000 BCE the acheivements of humanity simply become too much to list in one forum post. Without grain, you simply don't get stone buildings, books or the ability to put a man on the moon. Simply put, homo spaiens has been around 140,000 years. For 130,000 of those years, the population remained probably under 1 million and the best thing we acheived was making slightly pointy rocks into pointier ones. When agriculture is discovered, it's like someone stepped on the accelerator and suddenly we've got art and writing and technology. More 'stuff' was acheived in the first 1,000 years of agriculture than in the entire preceeding 129,000 years.

 

I take it this is your personal opinion and not actual fact? That's acceptable. However, just because mankind found a way not to be hungry a lot of the time doesn't mean that eating an agricultural diet means that mankind thrived. Survived, yes. Thrived, don't know about that. But then again, my idea of "thrive" might mean something totally than yours.

 

So yeah I think that having a secure food supply in the form of grain and starch has probably been quite a good thing, and it's only now when we seem to have an excess of food that problems are starting to emerge. Before, we survived. It's only after we get bread that humanity starts to thrive and do all the things that make us different from animals.

 

Well, it is quite interesting that the egyptian mummies tell a different story. The autopsies that were done on many of those well preserved bodies showed many of the diseases of civilization that we have now. Obesity, cavities, arthritis. How odd of a coincidence.

 

 

That doesn't change the fact that people should know they have a choice. It's not a fait accompli. The amount of times I've seen people on here say they're having trouble with their T1 and they then get 5 or 10 responses all saying they need to cut down on their carbs. That's one choice. They might also have options of exercising more, or taking more medication, or changing their medication. They also have a choice about what they want their A1C to be. I know this is incredibly hard for T2s to appreciate but changing carb intake is just one of a panopoly of options available to a T1 and I'm not convinced the stock answer to every blood sugar problem is always just 'cut your carbs'.

 

I've never given a type I diabetic a single piece of advice about how to handle their diabetes. Why? Because I don't know anything about managing type I.

 

 

 

Aha, yes, it'll all get me in the end and I expect then I'll have my prodigal son experience, right? This is hilarious. I make some appeal that people need to find the right route that works for them in the belief that we're interested in balanced discussion, and surprise surprise, it turns out that low-carbers aren't interested at all because hey, you're right, right?

 

No, it's because it is a fact. Low carbing doesn't have anything to do with it. Simple youthful physiology does. Most young people can withstand alot of punishment done to their bodies and recover quicker simply because of youth. Do you think someone in their 60's can really keep up with someone in their teens, twenties, or thirties? That they are in the same shape physically as when they were in their youth? Or how about reversing damage done to their bodies from some youthful "indiscretions" such as a late night out (or many nights out) drinking with friends and then being able to function the next morning. Oh, and yes. I am right. :)

 

 

 

Quod erat demonstratum. Here's a question - if someone can eat what you call a high-carb diet, get an A1C in the 5s and not put on weight or suffer any health issues (and it does happen, you're talking to one such person right now), are they still wrong to follow the diet they're on? And if so, why and how would changing their diet improve things?

 

I've been told over and over at this board that diabetes is a progressive disease. So if that is true, then only you will know when or if you need to change your diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notme
I'm putting this thread in this forum so as not to offend those that do something different to manage their diabetes. But when all told, are those that are not low carbing really low carbing? Even those that claim to be "moderate" carbers? What is the threshold of carbs one eats in a day that constitutes low carbing?

 

One of the first things when we are diagnosed with diabetes is that we are told to count our carbs. That's whether you take insulin or not. If you want to lose weight, lower your carbs. It's seems like it is always carbs implicated in every dietary angle for diabetics. When you lower the carbs and start losing weight the bgs also seem to fall in line. Along with lab tests. So I'm seriously perplexed why some people will be adamantly against low carbing when they probably are low carbing themselves in some ways. What possible reasons would people be against low carbing when it seems to work so well for diabetics and non diabetics as well? I've got my own personal ideas but isn't it counterproductive for CDEs, nutritionists and doctors to be telling us to count and limit the amounts of carbs we eat if they aren't the major culprit to our current health challenges with diabetes? That they more than anything else we eat drives our insulin responses to be abnormal?

 

Everything I've been reading seems to point to insulin being involved in so many major diseases and the aging process. If that is true, which it seems to be learning towards, then why wouldn't we try to control our carbs which helps to control the insulin response?

 

The first post on this thread begged for debate and opinion about ...... sigh..... carbs. Debate is what you will get and I know that eventually this debate will result in deleted posts or closed threads. Haven't we really discussed this over and over again with the same result? Polarized opinions about how to eat? Come on folks, we have to have something else to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.