Diabetes Treatments of Yesteryear
Sarah
So, low-carbing to treat T2 diabetes is 100 years old. For many it is still
the best treatment, for others it can cause problems.
Sarah T1
Julie Bove
"Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5o74uaF...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
For me, it pushes my BG up higher than it should be. That's extreme low
carb, that is. I need to eat *some* carbs. Not too many. And sometimes
that amount can be hard to figure out.
johnniemccoy@
"Julie Bove" <juli...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wjuTi.1357$f63.119@trndny03...
that ain't good:)
John
Freckles
"Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5o74uaF...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Sarah wrote:
>
There are a few on this news group who are having other health problems
which they have suggested a low carb diet may have either caused directly or
at least contributed to them.
My doctor admits watching how many carbs a diabetic eats is important, but
eating well balanced meals is just as important if not more so.
Don
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Freckles wrote:
>
>> There are a few on this news group who are having other health problems
>> which they have suggested a low carb diet may have either caused directly
>> or at least contributed to them.
>>
>> My doctor admits watching how many carbs a diabetic eats is important,
>> but eating well balanced meals is just as important if not more so.
>
> balance than eating high carb is. Including starches, with their high
> calorie density for a paucity of nutrients unbalances the macronutrient
> ratios something wicked.
>
> There is no one I know of who's diabetes has been/is caused or worsened by
> low carb. I know of one person with severe, advanced gastroparesis who
> has frustratingly unpredictable responses to foods.
>
> Susan
If you read my post you will have seen that I mentioned some were having
OTHER health problems which eating a low carb diet might have caused or
contributed to.
Diabetes is just one of many health issues people need to be aware of and
treat.
Don
Alan S
<juli...@verizon.net> wrote:
>For me, it pushes my BG up higher than it should be. That's extreme low
>carb, that is. I need to eat *some* carbs. Not too many. And sometimes
>that amount can be hard to figure out.
>
Define "extreme" and "*some*" please, in terms of grams per
meal allowances.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Psyllium, Fibre, Muesli and Nuts
Alan S
<puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>There are a few on this news group who are having other health problems
>which they have suggested a low carb diet may have either caused directly or
>at least contributed to them.
>
I still have reservations on that. I'd be interested in some
more specific details there, if Will is reading this.
>My doctor admits watching how many carbs a diabetic eats is important, but
>eating well balanced meals is just as important if not more so.
>
I have no difficulty doing both. Low-spike and
well-balanced.
Julie Bove
"Alan S" <loralgtwei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:287th3h8oi1ufua2j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:10:36 GMT, "Julie Bove"
> <juli...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>For me, it pushes my BG up higher than it should be. That's extreme low
>>carb, that is. I need to eat *some* carbs. Not too many. And sometimes
>>that amount can be hard to figure out.
>>
>
> Define "extreme" and "*some*" please, in terms of grams per
> meal allowances.
I didn't exactly count, but I would have a plain piece of meat and some
green beans and a green salad. So maybe 8 g of carb there. 1/2 a cup of
cottage cheese. Lowest carb I could find. Maybe 8 g at the most. Made my
BG go up too high.
Sarah
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Sarah wrote:
>
> Susan
Low-carb diets, below 60g/day, are either high fat, high protein, or both.
The risks of high fat/protein are well documented. If you choose to ignore
these risks, that is your business but such a position should not be pushed
on others who may be put at risk.
Sarah
dsolo
Jim Chinnis
>The risks of high fat/protein are well documented. If you choose to ignore
>these risks, that is your business
I follow a low carb and therefore high fat/protein diet (as compared to the
modern US diet). I'm not aware of the risks of my doing so.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Gantlet
"Sarah" <sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s4SdnWOzhNbjxIPa...@giganews.com...
this reply isn't really to you Sarah only because I don't want to involve
you with those that troll me.
Soo in other words when people here talk about leading health organizations
and the worlds best
doctors being behind the times if they don't look at low carb, high fat
diets as being some kind of magic pill that cures everything from smelly
urine to baldness ( takes breath ) - they actually want us to believe these
people are over 100 years behind the times lol. but but............ its
current research we swear and buy these books.
its not that I really have anything against someone choosing to eat low
carb, I just want them to make that
choice while knowing the truth. and truth is not much that is said here as
fact is anything more than just opinion.
--
Tom
Chat in peace with other diabetes at the American Diabetes Associations Web
Site.
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=index&webtag=amdiabetesz&redirCnt=1
Information You Can "Trust" From Your American Diabetes Association
www.diabetes.org
Information on Specific Types of Fat.
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/foodlabel/specific-fats.jsp
Julie Bove
> Low-carb diets, below 60g/day, are either high fat, high protein, or both.
> The risks of high fat/protein are well documented. If you choose to ignore
> these risks, that is your business but such a position should not be
> pushed on others who may be put at risk.
And those risks are? I have not seen them well documented. Not anywhere.
Ozgirl
? It is now well documented that a good supple of healthy fats is more
beneficial than low fat. People who eat low fat diets have way less cardio
protection than those who eat a goodly amount of good fats. Diabetics who
eat low fat and high carb often still have hypertriglyceridemia. I eat
around 60-70 gr protein per day, not high at all. My fat by ratio might be
"high" but I consume almost entirely "good" health-giving, cardio-protective
fats. There is no RDI for fat or carbs.That has to tell you something. What
pray tell is harmful in 60-70gr protein, walnuts, almonds, avocados, oily
fish, olive oil, rice bran oil...?
Jackie Patti
> If you read my post you will have seen that I mentioned some were having
> OTHER health problems which eating a low carb diet might have caused or
> contributed to.
Eh... I don't think so.
Eating a *bad* low carb diet might have contributed, but not low-carb,
per se. You don't live on bunless bacon cheeseburgers and Carbsmart ice
cream if you want to maintain health beyond bg control.
Anyone can do any diet in a good or bad way. I've seen people do the
low-fat thing eating primarily pasta, bagels and Snackwells cookies. My
daughter was vegetarian for a few years and pretty much lived on pasta,
potatoes and corn.
But there's nothing inherent in any specific diet that makes it
unhealthy, it's more the way people chosoe to implement them. Limiting
carbs isn't unhealthy, per se.
> Diabetes is just one of many health issues people need to be aware of and
> treat.
Absolutely. Still, I don't see what that has to do with low-carb.
Nearly everyone's diet would be improved by making the base of their
food pyramid fresh nonstarchy vegetables and low-sugar fruits; that can
easily be accomplished with low-carb or low-fat or vegetarian or nearly
any other diet.
Jackie Patti
> Low-carb diets, below 60g/day, are either high fat, high protein, or both.
> The risks of high fat/protein are well documented. If you choose to ignore
> these risks, that is your business but such a position should not be pushed
> on others who may be put at risk.
I'm aware of documentation of problems with a high-protein diet only if
it is *very* low in both carbs and fat.
I'm also aware of documentation that diets high in the bad fats are
unhealhty.
But I'm not aware of any documentation of problems with a high-fat or
high-protein diet, per se.
Frankly, I've never understood why the percentage of macronutrients in a
meal is considered indicative of health.
A pound of mixed salad vegetables with a couple tablespoons of olive oil
drizzled over it is a very high-fat meal, almost all the calories are
from fat. Depending on the veggies you choose, that could be 90% of the
calories from fat. Drinking a couple liters of Coca-cola with that
would make it a much lower-fat meal, but I can't see how anyone of any
dietary "religion" could think that was healthier.
W. Baker
: x-no-archive: yes
: Freckles wrote:
: > If you read my post you will have seen that I mentioned some were having
: > OTHER health problems which eating a low carb diet might have caused or
: > contributed to.
: >
: > Diabetes is just one of many health issues people need to be aware of and
: > treat.
: Perhaps you could name those conditions that were caused or made worse
: by low carb diet?
: Not suppositions, known causal links.
: Susan
The diet for gout is a hard one for low carbers. My son, who watches his
carbs called it the "diet from H-ll" as many low carb vegetables and many
meats an fish were excluded or severly limited on that diet.
Wendy
Ozgirl
"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ffngpu$f6l$2...@reader1.panix.com...
Yet diet made no difference whatsoever to my gout.
Susan
W. Baker wrote:
> The diet for gout is a hard one for low carbers. My son, who watches his
> carbs called it the "diet from H-ll" as many low carb vegetables and many
> meats an fish were excluded or severly limited on that diet.
>
That doesn't mean it's low carb that causes or contributes to the
condition, though.
Susan
DonnaB shallotpeel
Right. And, I think we're actively talking about two different things. One,
quite naturally, is balancing different dietary goals considering many
factors including money, but mostly where certain diet goals may seem to
fight against each other, where people have to walk a line. And, truly, that
is one of the most frustrating things. But, nobody ever said these were
uncomplicated issues where one size fits all.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel, T2 since June 06, USA, last HbA1c 5.3
"When you walk to the edge of all the light you have and take that first
step into the darkness of the unknown, you must believe that one of two
things will happen: There will be something solid for you to stand upon,
or, you will be taught how to fly." - Patrick Overton,
http://www.patrickoverton.com
Uncle Enrico
of Insulin" by Michael Bliss. It reads like a novel and was a
page-turner for me.
Also, http://www.joslin.org/About_Index_944.asp has an interesting
history on one of the great diabetes doctors.
W. Baker
: "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
Sorry to hear that. My son's turned out to be bursitis, which eventually
cleared up.
Wendy
Ozgirl
Mine was caused by a diuretic.
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Freckles wrote:
>
>> If you read my post you will have seen that I mentioned some were having
>> OTHER health problems which eating a low carb diet might have caused or
>> contributed to.
>>
>> Diabetes is just one of many health issues people need to be aware of and
>> treat.
>
> low carb diet?
>
> Not suppositions, known causal links.
>
> Susan
Studies have linked extreme low-carb/high-fat diets to an increased risk of
developing certain disease states, including:
Alzheimer disease
blindness and macular degeneration
some forms of cancer
cardiovascular and heart disease
osteoporosis
kidney stones
There are others, but I think you might like to get some of the others for
yourself.
Just do a Google search for low carb diets, and you will get many hits.
Don
Jim Chinnis
Exactly.
And I know that I have not been able to find any credible studies that show
that low-carbing is bad for my health. Quite the contrary.
Jim Chinnis
>
>"Sarah" <sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s4SdnWOzhNbjxIPa...@giganews.com...
>> http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/15076/diabetes?ic=6011
>>
>> So, low-carbing to treat T2 diabetes is 100 years old. For many it is
>> still the best treatment, for others it can cause problems.
>>
>> Sarah T1
>
>
>this reply isn't really to you Sarah only because I don't want to involve
>you with those that troll me.
>
>Soo in other words when people here talk about leading health organizations
>and the worlds best
>doctors being behind the times if they don't look at low carb, high fat
>diets as being some kind of magic pill that cures everything from smelly
>urine to baldness ( takes breath ) - they actually want us to believe these
>people are over 100 years behind the times lol. but but............ its
>current research we swear and buy these books.
>
>its not that I really have anything against someone choosing to eat low
>carb, I just want them to make that
>choice while knowing the truth. and truth is not much that is said here as
>fact is anything more than just opinion.
I didn't really follow what you wrote. But if you have some studies (in
PubMed) that show the "truth" and that that truth shows that I should not be
low-carbing...bring them on.
Alan S
yesteryear.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:53:59 -0400, "Freckles"
<puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Studies have linked extreme low-carb/high-fat diets to an increased risk of
>developing certain disease states, including:
>
>Alzheimer disease
>blindness and macular degeneration
>some forms of cancer
>cardiovascular and heart disease
>osteoporosis
>kidney stones
>
>There are others, but I think you might like to get some of the others for
>yourself.
>
>Just do a Google search for low carb diets, and you will get many hits.
>
>Don
Actually, I think you'll need to do a Google search
yourself.
I'll see how I go on each of those as separate answers.
Otheres may wish to join in.
Let's start with the eyes.
>blindness and macular degeneration
Google scholar "macular degeneration" "low carbohydrate"
gave: http://tinyurl.com/33q4lg
From that the majority were good news for low-carbers.
Browse through them at your leisure.
One example published this month:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/4/1210
You can skip to the conclusion to save time if you wish:
"Conclusion: Persons at risk of AMD progression, especially
those at high risk of advanced AMD, may benefit from
consuming a smaller amount of refined carbohydrates."
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 86, No. 4,
1210-1218, October 2007
© 2007 American Society for Nutrition
ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Dietary carbohydrate and the progression of age-related
macular degeneration: a prospective study from the
Age-Related Eye Disease Study1,2,3,4
Chung-Jung Chiu, Roy C Milton, Ronald Klein, Gary Gensler
and Allen Taylor
1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human
Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University,
Boston, MA (C-JC and AT); the AREDS Coordinating Center, The
EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD (RCM and GG); and the
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University
of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison,
WI (RK)
Background: Cross-sectional studies indicate that diets that
provide a higher dietary glycemic index (dGI) are associated
with a greater risk of age-related macular degeneration
(AMD). No prospective studies have addressed this issue.
Objective: The objective was to prospectively evaluate the
effect of baseline dGI on the progression of AMD.
Design: dGI was calculated as the weighted average of GIs
from foods and was evaluated as being above or below the sex
median (women: 77.9; men: 79.3) for 3977 participants aged
55–80 y (58% women) in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study.
The 7232 eligible eyes without advanced AMD were classified
into 1 of 3 AMD categories: group 1 (nonextensive small
drusen), group 2 (intermediate drusen, extensive small
drusen, or pigmentary abnormalities), or group 3 (large
drusen or extensive intermediate drusen). With the use of
multifailure Cox proportional-hazards regression, we modeled
the time to the maximal progression to evaluate the relation
between dGI and the risk of AMD.
Results: Overall, the multivariate-adjusted risk of
progression over 8 y of follow-up (x: 5.4 y) was
significantly higher (risk ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.20;
P = 0.047) in the high-dGI group than in the low-dGI group.
The risk of progression for groups 1, 2, and 3 eyes was 5%,
8%, and 17% greater, respectively (P for trend < 0.001). The
latter gives an estimate that 7.8% of new advanced AMD cases
would be prevented in 5 y if people consumed the low-dGI
diet.
Conclusion: Persons at risk of AMD progression, especially
those at high risk of advanced AMD, may benefit from
consuming a smaller amount of refined carbohydrates.
anothas...@aol.com
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Sarah wrote:
> >http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/15076/diabetes?ic=6011
>
> > So, low-carbing to treat T2 diabetes is 100 years old. For many it is still
> > the best treatment, for others it can cause problems.
>
> > Sarah T1
>
>
Happens all the time when you have a one-track mind.
Bob
Julie Bove
"Freckles" <puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:471fe92c$0$26338$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
What? That's a bunch of hooey.
Chris Malcolm
Including some which contradict the results you quote :-)
when contradictory studies exist, it's possible to "prove" anything
you fancy. The crucial question is what you do when you find
contradictory studies.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Freckles wrote:
>
>> Studies have linked extreme low-carb/high-fat diets to an increased risk of
>> developing certain disease states, including:
>>
>> Alzheimer disease
>> blindness and macular degeneration
>> some forms of cancer
>> cardiovascular and heart disease
>> osteoporosis
>> kidney stones
>>
>> There are others, but I think you might like to get some of the others for
>> yourself.
>>
>
>No, you made the inaccurate assertions, so you find the ones where the
>data, not the author's conclusions, support the link.
>
>Hint: they don't exist.
>
>Susan
Freckles has a good thing going. You can't prove the studies he says exist,
don't.
In the meantime, I'll continue my low-carbing.
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> Freckles has a good thing going. You can't prove the studies he says exist,
>> don't.
>>
>
>Only because he's lazy and undiscriminating in his "research."
>
>I've seen gazillion studies making the claims he cites, but not one in
>which the data support the conclusions, which invariably uses the word
>"may" due to the failure to support linkage.
>
>Susan
Just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with you.
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> exist,
>> don't.
>>
>
>
> I've seen gazillion studies making the claims he cites, but not one in
> which the data support the conclusions, which invariably uses the word
> "may" due to the failure to support linkage.
>
> Susan
Since you have seen a gazillion studies on low carbing, would you care to
give a link or two which support the conclusions you have made in this
thread? I've searched your posts in this thread, and I can't find any that
you have listed.
Don
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Freckles wrote:
>
>> Since you have seen a gazillion studies on low carbing, would you care to
>> give a link or two which support the conclusions you have made in this
>> thread? I've searched your posts in this thread, and I can't find any
>> that you have listed.
>
> carbing being linked to a list of diseases. The onus is on you to support
> your claims or to retract them.
>
> Susan
Who died and made you the boss of this newsgroup?
If you can't give links to the studies you have been praising, and it
appears you can't, then at least have the guts to admit you are a fraud and
keep your personal opinions to yourself.
Sarah
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> And those risks are? I have not seen them well documented. Not
>> anywhere.
>
> That's because they don't exist, outside of unfounded opinions.
>
> Once carbs are reduced in every study to examine fat and protein, the
> risks go down and body composition improves.
>
> You have to be stupid or lazy to do a study of fat, protein and carbs
> combined, and then ignore the role of one third of the equation in
> producing the results.
>
> In every study to examine the effects of protein in the absence of high
> carb, health, risk markers, and body composition improve.
>
> Susan
I wasn't going to get involved in this "argument" but I would like to
clarify my statement. There are no studies that directly attribute any
disease to a low-carb ketogenic diet (that I know of). There are
unsubstantiated suspicions that it could contribute to a variety of diseases
but studies have not been done.
The main long term concern is nutrition. A person eating 2000 calories per
day would have to consume over 1/3 pound of fat per day. If that person only
consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates and 90 grams of protein per day, he/she
would have to consume 156 grams of fat. Some people would have the
discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
In addition, it would be very difficult to get a nutritionally balanced diet
given these proportions. At the very least, this person should be
supplementing their diet with a high quality vitamin/mineral supplement.
Very active people on a low-carb diet may experience fatigue and lack of
stamina because there's not enough muscle glycogen to fuel sustained
physical exercise.
Sarah
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Sarah wrote:
>
>> I wasn't going to get involved in this "argument" but I would like to
>> clarify my statement. There are no studies that directly attribute any
>> disease to a low-carb ketogenic diet (that I know of). There are
>> unsubstantiated suspicions that it could contribute to a variety of diseases
>> but studies have not been done.
>
>Actually, quite a few have been done. And since none have ever proven a
>link between protein, fat and the diseases you allege, the point is moot.
>
>>
>> The main long term concern is nutrition. A person eating 2000 calories per
>> day would have to consume over 1/3 pound of fat per day. If that person only
>> consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates and 90 grams of protein per day, he/she
>> would have to consume 156 grams of fat. Some people would have the
>> discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
>> In addition, it would be very difficult to get a nutritionally balanced diet
>> given these proportions. At the very least, this person should be
>> supplementing their diet with a high quality vitamin/mineral supplement.
>> Very active people on a low-carb diet may experience fatigue and lack of
>> stamina because there's not enough muscle glycogen to fuel sustained
>> physical exercise.
>
>I guess folks shouldn't eat low fat then, because so many will eat
>starch carbs instead of the recommended veggies and fruits, using your
>logic?
>
>Susan
Even just 60 g of carb can provide a lot of plant-sourced nutrients. From
mid-April until a couple of weeks ago, I was less than 60 g/day, and I think
I got plenty of veggies. I'm just now letting the carb count rise a little,
and without adding starch, it's hard to see what I should add.
Maybe a mid-afternoon latte...
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Freckles wrote:
>
>> Who died and made you the boss of this newsgroup?
>>
>> If you can't give links to the studies you have been praising, and it
>> appears you can't, then at least have the guts to admit you are a fraud
>> and keep your personal opinions to yourself.
>
> and failed to support after multiple requests.
>
> It's not my job to let you waste my time countering an argument you've
> never supported.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> Susan
I think you need to very carefully read this thread from start to finish to
see who started what.
My "assertions" are based on what others on this newsgroup have written,
what friends and acquaintances have told me, and on my own research on the
web and in reading a number of publications about diabetes.
.
As far as wasting your time is concerned, if it wasn't for diabetes I doubt
if you would know how to spend your time.
If it were not for this newsgroup, where else could you play doctor?
Jackie Patti
> The main long term concern is nutrition. A person eating 2000 calories per
> day would have to consume over 1/3 pound of fat per day. If that person only
> consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates and 90 grams of protein per day, he/she
> would have to consume 156 grams of fat. Some people would have the
> discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
> In addition, it would be very difficult to get a nutritionally balanced diet
> given these proportions. At the very least, this person should be
> supplementing their diet with a high quality vitamin/mineral supplement.
There's a lot of misunderstandings in your thinking here.
For me, a low-carb diet means a second serving of veggies replaces the
serving of starch at dinner. So it winds up lower calorie as well as
low carb, with the extra fat just being whatever the veggies is cooked
in or dressed with (which is either olive oil, avocado oil or butter
from pasture-raised animals).
The percentage of calories from fats is high, but the absolute amount
doesn't go up much via a high-carb diet.
I eat 10-15 servings of veggies daily, plus 1-2 servings of fruit - way
higher than the USDA pyramid. The need for a high quality supplement is
somewhat *less* than on a "normal" diet since the fruit & veggie content
is doubled.
The protein content is virtually identical.
Julie Bove
> Who died and made you the boss of this newsgroup?
>
> If you can't give links to the studies you have been praising, and it
> appears you can't, then at least have the guts to admit you are a fraud
> and keep your personal opinions to yourself.
The same could be said for you. We're still waiting for your links! :)
Julie Bove
Hardly what you said in the first place. And there are plenty of us out
there with the discipline to eat only good fats. Also, there are plenty of
us here who do not eat as many as 2,000 calories a day.
Jim Chinnis
>Even just 60 g of carb can provide a lot of plant-sourced nutrients. From
>mid-April until a couple of weeks ago, I was less than 60 g/day, and I think
>I got plenty of veggies. I'm just now letting the carb count rise a little,
>and without adding starch, it's hard to see what I should add.
>
>Maybe a mid-afternoon latte...
I did just that. Actually, I had a super-size 20 oz latte (I made myself)
with a homemade biscotti that a friend (enemy?) gave me. I estimate total
carbs at about 42. MUCH higher than any snack I would sanely consider.
Result: bg 97 before the latte. 134 1 hr after. 95 2 hrs after.
Not sure what to make of it except that I'll have a small latte next time
and skip the biscotti.
Alan S
<puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Since you have seen a gazillion studies on low carbing, would you care to
>give a link or two which support the conclusions you have made in this
>thread?
Not Susan, but I'm still waiting for a response on the other
thread I started "Low Carb and Scare Stories". There is a
checkable link on that one. There will be more when I get
the time to follow up on some of your other unsupported
assertions.
Alan S
<sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some people would have the discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
Therein lies the paternalistic presumption that skews nearly
all advice on obesity, diabetes and nutrition.
It is a comment on psychology, not nutrition, and should not
be part of the advice on nutrition.
First get the nutrition facts right, then decide what
behavioural advice is needed to change the patient's habits.
Freckles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Freckles wrote:
>
>> I think you need to very carefully read this thread from start to finish
>> to see who started what.
>>
>> My "assertions" are based on what others on this newsgroup have written,
>> what friends and acquaintances have told me, and on my own research on
>> the web and in reading a number of publications about diabetes.
>
>
> role for low carbing in causing the health problems you listed.
>
> Susan
The following sites point out several factors. There is not enough long
term evidence to determine if low carb diets are truly safe, and low carb
diets should be followed for no more than one year.
Concerns about low carb diets causing other health problems are also pointed
out.
There are sites which give low carb diets a clean bill of health. Even the
ADA states low carb diets are good, but like all diets, most people,
according to the ADA, will not follow them for very long.
Freckles
>
> "Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ocinjF...@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Freckles wrote:
>>
>>> I think you need to very carefully read this thread from start to finish
>>> to see who started what.
>>>
>>> My "assertions" are based on what others on this newsgroup have written,
>>> what friends and acquaintances have told me, and on my own research on
>>> the web and in reading a number of publications about diabetes.
>>
>>
>> Please, by all means, feel free to share all your research that found a
>> role for low carbing in causing the health problems you listed.
>>
>> Susan
>
> The following sites point out several factors. There is not enough long
> term evidence to determine if low carb diets are truly safe, and low carb
> diets should be followed for no more than one year.
>
> Concerns about low carb diets causing other health problems are also
> pointed out.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55755
http://arthritis.about.com/cs/diet/a/lowcarbdiets.htm
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1837
http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesa/article205.html
Julie Bove
It's not a weight loss diet. People can stop following a weight loss diet
and the worst that's going to happen to them is they'll stop losing weight.
Now medical problems are different. When you're following a diet for a
medical problem, you don't have much choice but to follow it. If you don't
follow it, you'll get sicker.
Jim Chinnis
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:52:13 -0700, "Sarah"
><sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Some people would have the discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
>
>Therein lies the paternalistic presumption that skews nearly
>all advice on obesity, diabetes and nutrition.
>
>It is a comment on psychology, not nutrition, and should not
>be part of the advice on nutrition.
>
>First get the nutrition facts right, then decide what
>behavioural advice is needed to change the patient's habits.
Man, do I ever agree with that. And it's fundamental.
Julie Bove
You apparently didn't read your own links! The 1st and 2rd links say there
is insufficient evidence to say wither it's safe or unsafe.
The arthritis link says *some* low fat diets such as those with high
saturated fat are not healthy.
And the last link says, "Heimowitz says that the diet has no adverse effect
on the liver or kidney. And Westman found no bad side effects other than
some bad breath, headaches and constipation."
So now what do you have to say?
Freckles
"Julie Bove" <juli...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AKcUi.4367$Y23.2718@trndny04...
>
> "Freckles" <puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:47214c3d$0$20556$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Freckles" <puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:472149c9$0$32556$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5ocinjF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>
>>>> Freckles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you need to very carefully read this thread from start to
>>>>> finish to see who started what.
>>>>>
>>>>> My "assertions" are based on what others on this newsgroup have
>>>>> written, what friends and acquaintances have told me, and on my own
>>>>> research on the web and in reading a number of publications about
>>>>> diabetes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please, by all means, feel free to share all your research that found a
>>>> role for low carbing in causing the health problems you listed.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>
>>> long term evidence to determine if low carb diets are truly safe*, and
>>>
>>> Concerns about low carb diets causing other health problems are also
>>> pointed out.
>>
>> http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55755
>> http://arthritis.about.com/cs/diet/a/lowcarbdiets.htm
>> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1837
>> http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesa/article205.html
>>
>>
>>> There are sites which give low carb diets a clean bill of health. Even
>>> the ADA states low carb diets are good, but like all diets, most people,
>>> according to the ADA, will not follow them for very long.
>
> You apparently didn't read your own links! The 1st and 2rd links say
> there is insufficient evidence to say wither it's safe or unsafe.
>
> The arthritis link says *some* low fat diets such as those with high
> saturated fat are not healthy.
>
> And the last link says, "Heimowitz says that the diet has no adverse
> effect on the liver or kidney. And Westman found no bad side effects other
> than some bad breath, headaches and constipation."
>
> So now what do you have to say?
I say among other things you can't read very well.
The following sites point out several factors. *There is not enough long
term evidence to determine if low carb diets are truly safe.
>
>
Alan S
<puzzle...@tx.rr.com> wrote, in attempting to back up
claims that eating fewer carbohydrates is dangerous:
>http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55755
It is a news article, not a study, stating "Not enough
research to declare low-carb safe in the long term"
It is based on this article in The Lancet which stated:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604169869/abstract
"Long-term studies are needed to measure changes in
nutritional status and body composition during the
low-carbohydrate diet, and to assess fasting and
postprandial cardiovascular risk factors and adverse
effects. Without that information, low-carbohydrate diets
cannot be recommended."
All they are saying is that they are ignorant - they can
declare low-carbing as neither safe nor dangerous without,
in their opinion, further information.
>http://arthritis.about.com/cs/diet/a/lowcarbdiets.htm
That's mainly about gout. I'll leave Will to comment there
if he wishes to.
>http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1837
The conclusions:
"The results of our systematic review suggest that if
participants without diabetes tolerate a lower-carbohydrate
diet better than a higher-carbohydrate alternative, this
diet may be an effective means of achieving short-term
weight loss without significant adverse effects on serum
lipid levels, glycemic control, or blood pressure. However,
there is insufficient evidence to recommend or condemn the
use of these diets among participants with diabetes or for
long-term use. Because of the complex relationships between
serum lipid levels, plasma insulin levels, cortisol and
glucogon levels during dieting,88 and because of the claim
by some proponents of low-carbohydrate diets that these
diets work best when producing ketosis,6 future evaluations
of lower-carbohydrate diets should enroll participants with
and without diabetes and with and without abnormal lipid
levels to more fully describe the effects of
lower-carbohydrate (sometimes called "ketogenic") diets on
lipid and glycemic indices and ketogenesis."
In other words, it seems good for diabetics but they still
lack sufficient knowledge of the possible dangers. That was
in 2003. No new dangers have appeared yet despite dome
intensive attempts to find them.
>http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesa/article205.html
You seriously consider this negative? here is the opening
para of the news article (it's not a study):
"TUESDAY, Feb. 22 (HealthSCOUT) -- Results from a short-term
study partly sponsored by the Atkins Center for
Complementary Medicine, not surprisingly, show that the
low-carbohydrate diet, which hit the bestseller lists 20
years ago and has had a recent resurgence of popularity, is
safe and effective."
The rest is a re-statementy of vague fears and "we don't
know the dangers".
Do you have any references that provide more than statements
of ignorance of effects and vague concern?
Alan S
I think you're missing the other side of that statement:
*There is not enough long term evidence to determine if low
carb diets are dangerous.
Alan S
Thanks Jim. But sadly, it's the basis behind most of the
advice we see from our medical advisors, coming from the top
down. "The patients won't follow lifestyle advice, so
prescribe a pill or insulin".
Julie Bove
But there is NO evidence that says they are UNSAFE. YOU said the low carb
diet was unsafe and you said there were links to prove it. So far you've
proven nothing. And I can read very well! :)
Jim Chinnis
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:30:49 GMT, Jim Chinnis
><jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>Alan S <loralgtwei...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:52:13 -0700, "Sarah"
>>><sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Some people would have the discipline to include only "good" fats in such a diet, but most would not.
>>>
>>>Therein lies the paternalistic presumption that skews nearly
>>>all advice on obesity, diabetes and nutrition.
>>>
>>>It is a comment on psychology, not nutrition, and should not
>>>be part of the advice on nutrition.
>>>
>>>First get the nutrition facts right, then decide what
>>>behavioural advice is needed to change the patient's habits.
>>
>>Man, do I ever agree with that. And it's fundamental.
>
>Thanks Jim. But sadly, it's the basis behind most of the
>advice we see from our medical advisors, coming from the top
>down. "The patients won't follow lifestyle advice, so
>prescribe a pill or insulin".
And it's a major reason to educate yourself and work with your physicians.
You don't want to be presumed incompetent and unable to contribute to your
own treatment.
Jackie Patti
> There are sites which give low carb diets a clean bill of health. Even the
> ADA states low carb diets are good, but like all diets, most people,
> according to the ADA, will not follow them for very long.
Well, I "cheat" on my diet once a month, so mebbe they're right in a way.
But the other 29 days... it's lasted over a decade so far.
Ozgirl
Or conversely... if they are not safe.
So for all the bleating, no one can truly say that low carb diets are
unsafe. So the nay saying professionals have come up with a theory they
can't prove.
Gantlet
> The main long term concern is nutrition. A person eating 2000 calories per
> day would have to consume over 1/3 pound of fat per day. If that person
> only consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates and 90 grams of protein per day,
> he/she would have to consume 156 grams of fat.
I do believe that it was you that make a reply on a thread like this with a
post
I wished I had saved. :(. the post explained how and why the
recommendations are what they are.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with the diet for the obese.
If you compare the 2 diet types for slim people that eat a low amount of
calories
there really isnt much difference. A low carbers diet might have more fat
while the low
fat diet will have whole grains.
but when you take the obese people and that can go way over 2000 calories a
day
you are talking a totally different diet with a lot more fat.
>Some people would have the discipline to include only "good" fats in such a
>diet, but most would not.
the problem is some people thing bacon and eggs have healthy fat.
> In addition, it would be very difficult to get a nutritionally balanced
> diet given these proportions.
Fiber is also an issue. I doubt many eat as many low carb veggies to get
enough fiber.
but they can always get that at the drug store.
> At the very least, this person should be supplementing their diet with a
> high quality vitamin/mineral supplement. Very active people on a low-carb
> diet may experience fatigue and lack of stamina because there's not enough
> muscle glycogen to fuel sustained physical exercise.
>
> Sarah
that is another area where I would not choose low carb. when people only
talk about
exercise low carb wouldn't be that much of an issue but when people exercise
enough
to actually have a body that looks healthy requires energy.
I never read about a jogger fueling up with bacon and eggs before a race.
also there are tons of shows on tv that show people that lost a lot of
weight while on low fat.
at the same time I also feel that for the obese people getting down to a
healthy weight
is very important - no matter what type of diet does it. I don't trust the
opinions of those
that try to make low fat diets look like poison.
--
Tom
Chat in peace with other diabetes at the American Diabetes Associations Web
Site.
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=index&webtag=amdiabetesz&redirCnt=1
Information You Can "Trust" From Your American Diabetes Association
www.diabetes.org
Information on Specific Types of Fat.
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/foodlabel/specific-fats.jsp
Ozgirl
"Gantlet" <T...@TomsDiabeticDiary.com> wrote in message
news:DpnUi.93$sZ.75@trndny04...
>
> "Sarah" <sarah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fvGdnYykhcxknLza...@giganews.com...
>
>> The main long term concern is nutrition. A person eating 2000 calories
>> per day would have to consume over 1/3 pound of fat per day. If that
>> person only consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates and 90 grams of protein
>> per day, he/she would have to consume 156 grams of fat.
>
> I do believe that it was you that make a reply on a thread like this with
> a post
> I wished I had saved. :(. the post explained how and why the
> recommendations are what they are.
>
>
> This is one of the biggest problems I have with the diet for the obese.
> If you compare the 2 diet types for slim people that eat a low amount of
> calories
> there really isnt much difference.
Where did you come up with the idea that slim people eat low calories? You
might might want to check out real people sometime.
> while the low
> fat diet will have whole grains.
Let's talk diabetics here not obese people. High grains = bad bg control and
high triglycerides. Low fat= lack of cardio protective essential fats. I am
old enough to remember the introduction of the Pritikin diet. How the
cardiac patients got well with a change of diet which happened to be very
low in fat. I am also old enough to remember that over time patients got
worse. You won't find that tidbit in google searches. Low fat does not equal
good health, especially cardiac health.
> but when you take the obese people and that can go way over 2000 calories
> a day
> you are talking a totally different diet with a lot more fat.
Like you?
Kurt
> http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/15076/diabetes?ic=6011
>
> So, low-carbing to treat T2 diabetes is 100 years old. For many it is still
> the best treatment, for others it can cause problems.
>
> Sarah T1
Well Sarah, welcome to the firestorm. :) As you have witnessed, most
of this group, well at least the "regulars" faithfully believe that
low-carb is the only answer in regards to a diet for diabetics. There
are a few of us who live on the other side of the tracks and believe
that low-fat is the best. The truth probably lies somewhere on the
tracks and moves much like a train does. Okay, dumb analogy but about
as realistic as the YMMV mantra. Ironically, those who use the YMMV
the most are the ones who are usually the most adamant about pushing
"their" way of eating. I will include myself in that group, as well.
Tom posts a lot about the importance of exercise and I tend to think
that is the biggest X factor of them all when it comes to diet. The
more active one is, the more calories and energy they burn, the more
carbs can be consumed. I think having a diverse diet is important -
not just all grains, not just meat, not just all high fiber veggies,
etc. And I also believe the simple statement from the ADA is true:
"People with diabetes have the same nutritional needs as anyone
else."
Most of what I have read in this newsgroup has been selective cites
and studies that support the foodology of whoever posts it, be it low
carb or low fat. IMO, there is no definitive study that has proven
anything yet. I eat a diet that is a culmination of my research,
working with professionals, and mostly a result of trial and error
that I as a diabetic have found to be the best for me. I don't like
the "eat to your meter" cliche because it only tells you how the food
you just ate is affecting your blood sugar number, and not the
nutritional effect of that food. Bacon, butter, and eggs...oh my!
I think it's important for all points of view to be heard. Since none
of us should be telling others how they should treat their diabetes
there is no real need to continue to argue about my diet being better
than yours.
As far as your indoctrination to the newsgroup...consider the dog
piling that you've received in this thread part of the initiation! Now
you're ready to learn the secret handshake. :)
Best,
Kurt
P.S. It's been a "hell" of a week...and I mean that figuratively and
literally. Glad it's over.
Ozgirl
"Kurt" <kurtwhee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
And I also believe the simple statement from the ADA is true:
> "People with diabetes have the same nutritional needs as anyone
> else."
I believe it also but nutritional needs come from many different packages.
> Most of what I have read in this newsgroup has been selective cites
> and studies that support the foodology of whoever posts it, be it low
> carb or low fat. IMO, there is no definitive study that has proven
> anything yet. I eat a diet that is a culmination of my research,
> working with professionals, and mostly a result of trial and error
> that I as a diabetic have found to be the best for me.
I beleive it to a degree. There are more and more reasearch results showing
that low fat is not healthy. Certain fats are necessary, many low fat
advocates cut out as much total fat as possible, not good.
I don't like
> the "eat to your meter" cliche because it only tells you how the food
> you just ate is affecting your blood sugar number, and not the
> nutritional effect of that food.
Only if the messenger forgets to add in that eating to your meter must
include eating all the nutrients one needs for good health and beyond.
Nothing wrong with eat to your meter unless it is fully qulaified to the
recipient.
Bacon, butter, and eggs...oh my!
Yes, oh my. Bacon is a treat for me, and it has novisible fat and leaves
none inthe pan, butter is never in my house - just plant sterol margarine
and eggs are a wonderful food, very much maligned.
> I think it's important for all points of view to be heard. Since none
> of us should be telling others how they should treat their diabetes
> there is no real need to continue to argue about my diet being better
> than yours.
Bottom line is that one must eat first and foremost foods that contain all
the nutrients needed. Then some experimentation amongst different foods to
find those that not only control bg's but provide optimal nutrients. Low fat
doesn't fit the bill. High carb for diabetics doesn't either. Unless one
wants to take pooloads of meds and insulin. Meds have the potential to cause
more problems than a bit of carb lowering.
ek...and I mean that figuratively and
> literally. Glad it's over.
Were you evacuated? Many were concerned for your well being.
Alan S
Sarah has the good grace to include her type in her sig.
You might also have included a similar qualification in this
sentence:
"As you have witnessed, most of this group, well at least
the "regulars" faithfully believe that low-carb is the only
answer in regards to a diet for diabetics."
"Diabetics" is a very poor inclusive term; it needs
qualification, particularly when discussing low-carb diets.
As a type 2 I don't promote low carb - I promote low-spike.
For myself that is usually, but not always, lower in carbs
than most people eat and it is certainly lower in carbs than
the ADA and AHA promote.
For type 1's I make no dietary recommendations at all. We
would have a lot less arguments if you would consider taking
the same course when commenting on type 2 diet.
If there is one common theme among those who take the
contrary dietary position to you, Kurt, it is a lack of
blind faith in the guidelines issued on diet and nutrition
by the "Revered Authorities" on those subjects and a
questioning of the science behind those guidelines. In most
cases here those "Revered Authorities" are the ADA, the AHA
and the USDA. So please, if you must generalise into "them
and us" while looking for a new ally, get your facts right.
Instead of "low-carbers vs high-carbers" a more accurate
description of the adversaries would be "Believers" and
"Questioners".
Kurt
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I appreciate the concern. No, I was not specifically affected but I
have spent most of the week helping a friend - a former girlfriend -
who has lost just about everything, but thankfully not her life. As
corny as it sounds, material things really don't matter in the big
picture. Well, losing cherished artifacts do matter, but when one
survives things like this new memories are possible. She also had two
cats who made it through the ordeal. She'll be fine and life goes
on. Times like these makes me realize how truly lucky I am, diabetes
and all.
Kurt
Sarah
I didn't mean to start a firestorm, just made a comment about the article.
Those low-carb fanatics sure are sensitive, I wonder why, maybe their diet
has made them grumpy.
Sarah T1
Ozgirl
"Kurt" <kurtwhee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I appreciate the concern. No, I was not specifically affected but I
> have spent most of the week helping a friend - a former girlfriend -
> who has lost just about everything, but thankfully not her life. As
> corny as it sounds, material things really don't matter in the big
> picture. Well, losing cherished artifacts do matter, but when one
> survives things like this new memories are possible. She also had two
> cats who made it through the ordeal. She'll be fine and life goes
> on. Times like these makes me realize how truly lucky I am, diabetes
> and all.
Other than loss of life my next thing I would be devastated to lose would be
photos and other memorabilia of family members. But other material things
can be replaced and I do carry insurance.
Ozgirl
Not at all. I can only speak for myself here but I get annoyed at people who
debunk the dietary measures that a lot of type 2's take to gain control and
win back good health. I, and many like me, do not just systematically cut
out foods without compensations by means of a food with similar or in most
cases better, nutrition. This has been said so often in here that I wonder
if people actually read what people in here are saying or whether they are
so used to parroting things they hear. My diet is lower carb but rich in all
the nutrients a human body needs. I can't see why people feel it is
impossible to live better than "well" with fewer carbohydrates.
As a type 1 you don't have to live with the insulin resistance that type 2's
do. You do what you have to do to stay alive, so do type 2's. there are many
ways to skin a dead cat, never lose sight of that. If you are interested in
finding out how a type 2 can obtain essential nutrients without compromising
bg's and good health then read a bit more in this group.
Alan S
Glad I read this first. No need for me to say more. Well
said.
Chris Malcolm
> "Kurt" <kurtwhee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193454455.5...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 23, 1:28?pm, "Sarah" <sarahpa1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/15076/diabetes?ic=6011
>>> So, low-carbing to treat T2 diabetes is 100 years old. For many it is
>>> still
>>> the best treatment, for others it can cause problems.
>>>
>>> Sarah T1
>> Well Sarah, welcome to the firestorm. :) As you have witnessed, most
>> of this group, well at least the "regulars" faithfully believe that
>> low-carb is the only answer in regards to a diet for diabetics. There
>> are a few of us who live on the other side of the tracks and believe
>> that low-fat is the best. The truth probably lies somewhere on the
>> tracks and moves much like a train does. Okay, dumb analogy but about
>> as realistic as the YMMV mantra. Ironically, those who use the YMMV
>> the most are the ones who are usually the most adamant about pushing
>> "their" way of eating. I will include myself in that group, as well.
> I didn't mean to start a firestorm, just made a comment about the article.
> Those low-carb fanatics sure are sensitive, I wonder why, maybe their diet
> has made them grumpy.
Before I became diabetic a big plate of pasta was a reliable and
frequently employed way of improving my mood. It doesn't do that any
longer, however. Even in the late pre-diagnosis days when I was
diabetic but didn't know it I had discovered that a big plate of pasta
messed up my head for hours. First I got over-excited and then
confused and sleepy as the BG went up, and then later I'd become
irritable and grumpy in the later reactive hypoglycemic phase
(although at the time I didn't know the reasons for the mood swings).
It was that gradual but eventually very large change in my mood
responses to a big plate of pasta which first made me suspect that
something had gone seriously wrong with the way my body handled
food.
I'm not a low carb fanatic. Indeed, as Kurt has pointed out in earlier
discussions, I eat too many carbs to be considered low carb as he
understands the term. That's why I now prefer to call myself a
lowish-carber rather than a low carber, or more accurately a
low-spiker (low blood glucose spiker), since I don't care how many
carbs I eat, what I aim for is minimising BG spikes. So the most
important thing for me to control is glycemic load, which is only very
roughly related as a first approximation to the amount of carbs.
Unfortunately I don't think I qualify as a low-spike fanatic yet,
because although my aim is to keep all my spikes under 140, I still
cheat too often.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Jackie Patti
> the problem is some people thing bacon and eggs have healthy fat.
If they're pasture-raised, they do - chock full of CLA and bioactive
vitamins A and D and omega3s and who knows what else.
That being said, IMO the problem with bacon is it doesn't have much
protein. Even the unprocessed stuff without the chemicals is pretty
much just fat, not exactly the cornerstone of a meal. I think of bacon
more as a condiment than a meat. A slice crumbled over the top of a
sliced tomato is good, sort of the way salad dressing is used.
But eggs are just good - a great source of protein and lots of healthy fat.
> Fiber is also an issue. I doubt many eat as many low carb veggies to get
> enough fiber.
> but they can always get that at the drug store.
Yeah, but fiber supplements miss all the other good stuff in vegetables
- vitamins, minerals, flavonols, phytochemicals. You can't get that
stuff in supplements; we probably don't even know what all is in them yet.
One of the things I noticed about the really low-fat diets like Pritkins
and the low-carb diets like Atkins is they both improve heart health and
both included lots of vegetables as they were originally written. The
diets have been corrupted badly... low-fat now often means bagels and
pasta and Snackwell cookies and low-carb means bunless bacon
cheeseburgers with sugar-free cheesecake for dessert.
But as the diets were originally written, both included an awful lot of
vegetables and both showed improvement in heart health. To me, that
data makes me ask what did they have in common since it obviously isn't
the macronutrient breakdown... and it comes down to the micronutrient
content in the vegetables.
Jackie Patti
> Not at all. I can only speak for myself here but I get annoyed at people who
> debunk the dietary measures that a lot of type 2's take to gain control and
> win back good health. I, and many like me, do not just systematically cut
> out foods without compensations by means of a food with similar or in most
> cases better, nutrition. This has been said so often in here that I wonder
> if people actually read what people in here are saying or whether they are
> so used to parroting things they hear. My diet is lower carb but rich in all
> the nutrients a human body needs. I can't see why people feel it is
> impossible to live better than "well" with fewer carbohydrates.
I think that is a point that is often missed.
For me, less carbs on the plate means more room for veggies. It's quite
common for me to eat a half pound of vegetables with dinner.
Okra, and eggplant and green beans, oh my! What a dangerous diet I eat! ;)
No one has ever been able to explain why it'd be healthier for me to
replace half the veggies with some rice or a potato.
GysdeJongh
news:1193454455.5...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/15076/diabetes?ic=6011
>
> P.S. It's been a "hell" of a week...and I mean that figuratively and
> literally. Glad it's over.
>
Hi Kurt,
hope it was nor too bad for you
glad you survived and wellcome back
Have a nice weekend
Gys
Larry
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Sarah wrote:
>
> > I didn't mean to start a firestorm, just made a comment about the article.
>
>
>
>
> > Those low-carb fanatics sure are sensitive, I wonder why, maybe their diet
> > has made them grumpy.
>
>
> For some reason, 5% of DMs want to tell the other 95% of us to eat crap
> that raises bg. The motive behind this is mystifying, and can only be
> regarded as zealotry, fanatacism or just plain ill will.
>
> Susan
Low carbing to the "extreme" ie. losing too much weight as a result
and not properly following an adjusted food plan to off set low carbs
dieting can make a person sick. This can happen in non-diabetics and
probably more so in diabetics. I hear this alot in the medical
community particulary among nutritionists in the diabetes clinics.
Obvious but worth reiterating a possible confounding compulsive
condition. "All things in moderation" as Alan S says.
Larry
Larry
Jackie Patti
> Jackie Patti wrote:
>
>> That being said, IMO the problem with bacon is it doesn't have much
>> protein. Even the unprocessed stuff without the chemicals is pretty
>> much just fat, not exactly the cornerstone of a meal. I think of
>> bacon more as a condiment than a meat. A slice crumbled over the top
>> of a sliced tomato is good, sort of the way salad dressing is used.
>
> time it's crisp, it's mostly protein.
Personally, I don't like it crispy.
Jackie Patti
> Low carbing to the "extreme" ie. losing too much weight as a result
> and not properly following an adjusted food plan to off set low carbs
> dieting can make a person sick. This can happen in non-diabetics and
> probably more so in diabetics. I hear this alot in the medical
> community particulary among nutritionists in the diabetes clinics.
> Obvious but worth reiterating a possible confounding compulsive
> condition. "All things in moderation" as Alan S says.
I find it a bit peculiar that nutritionists in diabetes clinics are
having to deal with the problem of too-skinny diabetics. I don't think
we have this problem in central PA.
I don't eat extreme low-carb on a regular basis, but a few times a year,
I roast a turkey and pretty much just eat that for a few days. I
haven't yet gotten ill from doing so, in fact I generally feel a lot
better after a few days.
I wouldn't recommend that as a regular diet for anyone, but not because
of the lack of potatoes and pasta so much as the lack of tomatoes and
squash.
Sarah
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Sarah wrote:
>
>>
>> I didn't mean to start a firestorm, just made a comment about the
>> article.
>
>
>>
>> diet has made them grumpy.
>>
>
> truth.
>
> For some reason, 5% of DMs want to tell the other 95% of us to eat crap
> that raises bg. The motive behind this is mystifying, and can only be
> regarded as zealotry, fanatacism or just plain ill will.
>
> Susan
Don't you have that backwards? It is 5% of DMs (the low-carbers) that want
to tell the other 95% how to eat. Low-carbing obviously works for most of
the highly motivated and dedicated T2s in this group, but will not work for
the majority of T2s. They will not or can not continue it for the rest of
their lives, therefore a treatment that is maintainable must be used and
that is a lowER carb diet, exercise with meds or insulin if necessary.
Sarah
Andy
Kurt <kurtwhee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't like
> the "eat to your meter" cliche because it only tells you how the food
> you just ate is affecting your blood sugar number, and not the
> nutritional effect of that food. Bacon, butter, and eggs...oh my!
>
> I think it's important for all points of view to be heard. Since none
> of us should be telling others how they should treat their diabetes
> there is no real need to continue to argue about my diet being better
> than yours.
I have not yet read anything in this thread after this and I wanted to
respond before the next 58 or so messages changes the tone (I'm guessing
it went downhill fast after this is past experiences are a good
predictor).
Kurt's message was, I think, one of the best and most reasonable
argument on the "other side" that I have yet seen here. I have been very
turned off to the anti-low-carb faction since joining because it felt
like EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE from that side was more of the "everyone picks
on me" (or "those guys are assholes") variety. I started watching to see
if anyone could make a point without taking a dig at specific people on
the other side and no one did.
So, I am thrilled to see this and I am also glad that it gives me
something I can really think about. Kurt is ABSOLUTELY right in that you
have to have a nutritious diet. It is not enough to eat to the meter. I
can eat stuff horrible for my body and have BG under 90 forever and will
have horrible health as a result.
And each person is different. One point that Alan has made often too is
that T1s and T2s are different and that has to be taken into account. A
T2 has to be much more careful in some areas than a T1 does (and vice
versa) so we do need to be careful about speaking in absolutes there as
well.
My approach has been low carb but intelligently. I do not START from
low-carb but from good nutrition. And then I just keep the carbs low to
keep my meter happy but since I started at healthy, I am eating well.
The bottom-line is that certain carbs shoot my BG up so I have to avoid
them. My dietician (and certified diabetes educator) recommended keeping
each meal <20g carbs (5 times/day) and that has worked VERY well for me.
When I do eat carbs, I opt for whole grains or augment (I throw flax
seeds into my yogurt, for example). If something spikes me, I eat less
next time or just drop it and find something else.
I just wanted to publicly thank Kurt for his email and how he wrote it.
I would love to see more of that on both sides of this debate. We can
all learn from each other if we would just stop throwing back and forth
the same tiresome spears at each other.
And now I'll see where this thread went...
-A
--
Andy
T2 dx 7/2007; D&E, 500mg Metformin 1/day
DX A1C: 13.2%, no new A1C yet, BMI 32 (and dropping)
Argue for your limitations and you get to keep them.
Sarah
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Jackie Patti wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't like it crispy.
>>
>
>
> Susan
On this point we are in total agreement. ;-)
Sarah T1
Alan S
<jpa...@ccil.org> wrote:
>That being said, IMO the problem with bacon is it doesn't have much
>protein. Even the unprocessed stuff without the chemicals is pretty
>much just fat, not exactly the cornerstone of a meal. I think of bacon
>more as a condiment than a meat. A slice crumbled over the top of a
>sliced tomato is good, sort of the way salad dressing is used.
Another word with different meanings on different sides of
the oceans.
Our bacon is similar to "back bacon"; from what I saw in
your country your strips are just the fatty end and don't
include the meaty section.
See: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdonsi/gallery/bacon.jpg
Although I know his pic of your bacon isn't quite right, it
is a fair representation of ours.
Actually, for those interested in such differences that guy
has a fairly good page on our other food culture
differences: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdonsi/food.html
Alan S
<neve...@nomail.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jackie Patti wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't like it crispy.
>>
>
>And I don't like it flaccid. :-)
>
>Susan
Nicely said, and I agree:-)
Crisp, drained over kitchen paper, there isn't much fat.
Alan S
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
That describes me as well, although I may be slightly more
fanatical about spikes than you Chris, and less fanatical
about exercise:-)