fat and insulin resistance
Boomer
do not know if this is really true. My endo believes this. I wonder how long
it would take on a low fat diet to actually see results. I don't mean
replacing fat with carbs. I mean replacing fat with protein. Any thoughts on
this?
Michael
ra...@val.com
Michael,
Very low carb diets (<15% carbs) (like what your doing) will increase
insulin resistance. I've provided numerous references and I repeat
that this is not in dispute amoung scientiest that research in this
area (Reavens ect). In this case it's not established if the reason in
increased fat intake, greater lowered carb intake or both.
The issue of fat causing insulin resistance is separate from carb
intake. There is evidence that saturated fat intake does cause insulin
resistance at higher levels of carb. But this evidence is in dispute
in some quarters. The animal evidence is very convincing but some
question the level of proof in the human stuides.
In your case the issue is your very very low carb intake and fat
intake.
Please note that in your specific when folks are eating your type of
diet at such low carb levels you will spike very easily when
increasing carbs. Thus if you do increase your carbs do so slowly over
an extended period of time. Even normal folks on that have been on a
very low carb diet will test positive for diabetes on a GTT (glucose
tolerance test).
Randy
Ellen K.
<ra...@val.com> wrote in message
news:5f8ea9c6-ffc2-405a...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Michael,
Randy
=======================
FWIW, it sounds to me like Michael is proposing to possibly increase protein
and decrease fat, I didn't see anything about increasing carbs.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Wiser to lose the visceral adipose tissue (VAT).
The only known safe way to do this is by eating the right daily amount
(32 oz) of food.
Yes, right amount (omer) control as Chris Malcolm is doing is much
more sophisticated and smarter:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/8d2ef74488074acf?
Be hungrier, which really is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
We do this by weighing our meals per the http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER
Approach to get our...
and then...
so that there will be...
Being hungry is truly wonderful as proven by four lines of evidence:
Mathematical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113247&l=9583a55b45&id=1467768946
Historical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113078&l=0071d60632&id=1467768946
Medical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31107542&l=a51ee83a50&id=1467768946
Psychological:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31229810&l=0b3a2ad60b&id=1467768946
So that we really should http://WDJW.net/BeHungry and say we are
"wonderfully hungry" whenever we are greeted:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113612&l=cbe72c46ca&id=1467768946
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to convince others:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
"A 2005 visit to an Atlanta cardiologist by the name of Andrew Chung
put me on some serious reality
I wasnt just chubby or husky, I am what they often call morbidly
obese. He explained that morbid obesity simply means that if something
happened to me that could be attiributed to weight and I were to end
up in the not breathing state
ok some call it DEAD
that a doctor could simply dismiss it as natural causes related to
weight more or less.
Ive been told I was a chunky fella a couple times, maybe even fat...
but not quite that harshly. Definitely made me think about a few
things, as much as I dislike scare tactics when it comes to health.
Well in the midst of the shock treatment, he also had me come to a
heart wellness seminar that he does on some Saturdays in Mableton.
Nice little get together, he has folks from the community come in and
discuss Tai Chi, exercises, testimonials, all kinds of good stuff.
Then he shows the movie SUPERSIZE ME to set up the pitch for his 2PD
Omer approach that he has his patients use to lose weight.
In a nutshell, in his view, HOW MUCH you eat is more of the issue than
WHAT you eat and portion is more important than any fat content or
calories.
I agree with this. This is why I have always been more successful on
more liquid diets (cabbage soup, slimfast, herbalife (tho dangerous))
than anything else. I wasnt eating the portions I was before that..."
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e82824a99ba4f187?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ad0c19df5ffc2f7?
Boomer
I read the study done on dogs back in 30s. I studied it closely. I cannot
with certainty relate this study to humans. Partly because of being a
different species and partly because it was done by removing portions of the
dogs pancreas.
I do know for certain that an extremely low carb diet lowered my wife's
insulin resistance dramatically. Before she started the extreme low carb she
would spike terribly with a small amount of carbohydrates. This spiking was
reduced a bunch within weeks of low carbing. Actually to begin with she
went for several weeks on zero carbs. This treatment resolved a host of
complications.
So I can either go by what I have seen in a fellow human being or go by a
study on dogs missing parts of their pancreas done in the 30s. I have to go
with what I have actually seen. When it is my body or that of a loved one,
we all tend to be very cautious.
Michael
<ra...@val.com> wrote in message
news:5f8ea9c6-ffc2-405a...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Joseph H.
> Boomer wrote:
>>
>> I see that some here believe that high fat intake increases IR. Of course I
>> do not know if this is really true. My endo believes this. I wonder how long
>> it would take on a low fat diet to actually see results. I don't mean
>> replacing fat with carbs. I mean replacing fat with protein. Any thoughts on
>> this?
>
> Wiser to lose the visceral adipose tissue (VAT).
>
> The only known safe way to do this is by eating
... a balanced diet, and consulting a professional dietitian if need be.
Also, it is wiser to ignore the Chung diet, who's a sure way to health
deterioration, disease and maybe even death.
ra...@val.com
> I read the study done on dogs back in 30s. I studied it closely. I cannot
> with certainty relate this study to humans.
Reply:
With respect Michael the data I was refering to was on humans not
dogs. Please look at figures 1 & 2 on page 59 here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2444943/
I provide this reference cause the full paper is available on line.
You don't have to eat a high carb diet. According to Gerald Reveans
(the guy who verified type 2 diabetes and coined the term "metabolic
sysdrome" carbs at 40% will restore most of insulin sensitivity
Here's other studies reiterating the same finding on Humans:
Himsworth HP, Kerr RB (1939) Insulin-sensitive and insulininsensitive
types HimswoHimsworth HP, Kerr RB (1939) Insulin-sensitive and
insulininsensitive
types of diabetes mellitus. Clin Sci 4:119-152rth HP, Kerr RB (
Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D, Bierman EL:
Improved glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in
mild diabetes. N Engl J Med 1971;284:521-524
Chen M, Halter JB, Porte D: The role of dietary carbohydrate
in the decreased glucose tolerance of the elderly. JAm Geriatr
Soc 1987;35:417-424
Chen M, Bergman RN, Porte D: Insulin resistance and ,-cell
dysfunction in aging: The importance of dietary carbohydrate.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988;67:951-957
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/11/2312
High-carbohydrate, high-fiber diets for insulin-treated men with
diabetes mellitus
JW Anderson and K Ward
Beck-Nielsen H, Pedersen 0, S0rensen NS: Effects of diet on
the cellular insulin binding and the insulin sensitivity in young
healthy subjects. Diabetologia 1978;15:289-296
Kolterman OG, Greenfield M, Reaven GM, Saekow M,
Olefsky JM: Effect of a high carbohydrate diet on insulin
binding to adipocytes and on insulin action in vivo in man.
Diabetes 1979;28:731-736
The effect of high carbohydrate diet on glucose tolerance in patients
with type 2 diabetes mellitus☆
Nobuyuki Komiyamaa, Takashi Kanekob, Akio Satob, Wataru Satoc,
Kaoru Asamid, Toshimasa Onayaa, Masato Tawataa
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/848
Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight
hyperinsulinemic adults,2,3
Mark A Pereira, David R Jacobs, Jr, Joel J Pins, Susan K Raatz, Myron
D Gross, Joanne L Slavin and Elizabeth R Seaquist
Ford S Jr, Bozian RC, Knowles HC Jr. Interactions of obesity and
glucose and insulin levels in hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr
1968;21:904–10.
Anderson JW, Herman RH, Zakim D. Effect of high glucose and
high sucrose diets on glucose tolerance of normal men. Am J Clin
Nutr 1973;26:600–7.
Wigand JP, Anderson JH, Jennings SS, Blackard WG. Effect of
dietary composition on insulin receptors in normal subjects. Am J
Clin Nutr 1979;32:6–9.
Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D Jr, Bierman EL.
Improved glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in mild
diabetes. N Engl J Med 1971;284:521–4.
> > Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ellen K.
<ra...@val.com> wrote in message
news:037960b0-2cb5-4076...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Michale Wrote:
> I read the study done on dogs back in 30s. I studied it closely. I cannot
> with certainty relate this study to humans.
Reply:
With respect Michael the data I was refering to was on humans not
dogs. Please look at figures 1 & 2 on page 59 here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2444943/
I provide this reference cause the full paper is available on line.
You don't have to eat a high carb diet. According to Gerald Reveans
(the guy who verified type 2 diabetes and coined the term "metabolic
sysdrome" carbs at 40% will restore most of insulin sensitivity
+++++++++++++++++++++
Carbs at 40% will have my BG over 200 most of the day.
-------------------------------
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > a sockpuppet wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>> a sockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody will ever get your imaginary money, fraudulent twerp.
> >>>
> >>> Folks would not be upset here if the money were imaginary.
> >>
> >> Some authorities would be, fraud :
> >>
> >> http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Georgia
> >
> > And yet they're not therefore the money is real.
>
> No, liar ...
It remains this physician's personal choice to continue writing
truthfully.
> ... it's because they don't know about your little scam.
If that were true, then it would be the authorities that are imaginary
and not the money. Truth is simple :-)
Moreover, all, including the authorities, are starting to realize that
**possibly** in time as the 7-figure guarantee increases, doubling
every few years and possibly becoming even 8-figures, governments
struggling with increasing healthcare costs would take notice and make
the http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER Approach a matter of public health
policy:
This would not be possible without GOD's help (Matthew 19:26) and
providence of information that there is indeed one right daily amount
(omer) for all walks of life (Exodus 16:16). All glory to GOD the
Father and our risen LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth :-)
a sockpuppet wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > trigonometry wrote:
> >>
> >> Was it the sunflower seeds and the couple of pieces
> >> of fruit that raised the FBG? On the other hand,
> >> my blood pressure, seems to be ideal today at
> >> the last reading being 117/75 at pulse of 66.
> >> Anyway, the 128 FBG on Monday and
> >> 120 on Tueday did not make me happy.
> >> Today it was 108?
> >>
> >> I am going to clamp down on myself. And get back
> >> to actually measuring the weights of certain foods
> >> that I consume.
> >
> > Why not do as Chris Malcolm is doing and simply weigh the entire meal?
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/8d2ef74488074acf?
> Is that "Chris Malcolm" a candidate for your 2,000,000 $ giveaway?
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21f62cabae7e723e?
Perhaps Chris Malcolm would be eligible in a few months if he were to
eat more than 10 lbs of food daily possibly gaining 90 lbs to receive
the diagnosis of obesity especially if he starts needing insulin to
regulate his blood glucose.
However, we know that if he were to then go back to holding to the
right amount (32 oz) of daily food then he would be cured of his
obesity and the $2,000,000.00 guarantee would remain in force as it
has for years now :-) Truth is simple :-)
a sockpuppet wrote:
> So, Chung, what about telling us the name and address of the bank where
> the money ($2,000,000.00) is held on escrow, so that we could verify
> that it really exists ?
This information has been and continues to be disclosed by others to
those who truly have a need to know. If you were among those who truly
have a need to know, you would have already known this :-)
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cb63d8fe96d5da2c?
a sockpuppet wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> obie wrote:
>>> lil abner
>>>> pp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For most type 2's diabetes is a disease of gluttony.
>>>>> Too much fat, too little exercise, too much rich food and not
>>>>> the least eating too many animals thereby contributing to the
>>>>> suffering of billions. For T2s it's their payback, their bad
>>>>> karma. God has a way of paying people back and our species is
>>>>> in for a big fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuf said.
>>>>
>>>> You must be physic or loony one.
>>>> I am over weight now. That is one thing Insulin does for me.
>>>> The cause was Agent Orange. It was not something made up.
>>>> how dare you come on this ng and insult Diabetics.
>>>> I assure you they don't want to be that way.
>>>> Perhaps, some of us, if we lived frugaly and hard like our Grand Prents
>>>> and before we might not have Diabetes. But that is only conjecture.
>>>> people had Diabetes many ages before it was called Diabetes.
>>>> Some of my native American Ancestors had Diabetes. I assure you they
>>>> weren't "fat" and didn't sit in a recliner watching tv all day.
>>>> So blow it out your ---.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The truth hurts.
>>>
>>> How frequently do you see a thin, athletic type that has Type
>>> 2, almost never, especially if they are vegans or
>>> vegetarians.
>>>
>>> Well known fact that concentration camp prisoners never had
>>> diabetes, least not T2.
>>
>> They were kept from eating in excess.
>
> What an odious little "man" you are, Chung.
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ce840a1be3bea53e?
This physician is http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungry while being
villified for writing truthfully (Matthew 5:10).
prodigal Jimmy Alpha wrote:
"Doc, my right *ball* has swollen to about 8.25cm (3 1/4"), perhaps a
little more? It's about the size around as the top of a coffee mug.
Ok Doc, what do you think? Oh it grew from normal to this size in
about, maybe 3 days, perhaps less?
I told the ER Doc it was about the size of a Volley Ball during our
pre exam talk. When he pulled back the sheet to have a look the first
word out of his mouth wasn't Jesus, it was *WOW*! One other thing, his
name is Kim, and he is oriental." -- Prodigal Jimmy Alpha
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f8253d58852b1f4e?
For an ER Doc to be taken by surprise by a swollen testicle the size
of a "Volley Ball" under a bed sheet means that you are morbidly obese
so that the protuberance of your abdomen dwarfs everything else.
Your being morbidly obese would also be consistent with your history
of bilateral quadriceps rupture:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5b1b0839f48b487c?
"Bilateral quadriceps rupture is a rare injury that is often secondary
to predisposing medical conditions."
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767147/?tool=pubmed
Yes, morbid obesity would be that serious medical condition that would
predispose you to the bilateral quadriceps rupture that you have
suffered.
It is now no wonder why you are reacting so adversely to GOD's 2PD-
OMER Approach (Exodus 16:16)...
... the Holy Spirit convicts you about your overeating (John 5:14):
prodigal Jimmy Alpha wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> prodigal Jimmy Alpha wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>
>>>> GOD's 2PD-OMER Approach (Exodus 16:16) is the only way (Mt16:28,
>>>> Mk9:1, Lk9:27& Jn8:51) to immortality while here on Earth.
>>>
>>> sightwalker, nothing to do with diet or approach making you a lier.
>>
>> Not for the discerning who have read the Bible.
>>
>> Exodus 16:16 is GOD's 2PD-OMER Approach as prescribed in His written
>> word.
>
>This is not in the post I replied to, making you a liar.
Not for the discerning who have read your post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/84c2b918221d8cb5?
>> Mt16:28, Mk9:1, Lk9:27& Jn8:51 are about immortality for those who
>> keep His written word with the first command to Adam&Eve to not eat
>> more than they need.
>
> Not the subject of post I replied to, making you a liar.
Not for the discerning who have read the subject line of the post you
replied to:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43da3ce173361752?
prodigal Jimmy Alpha wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> a neighbor wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-14/obesity-link-to-diabetes-found-in-white-blood-cells-study-says.html
>>> Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Immune-system cells that cause inflammation in
>>> fat tissue may explain why Type 2 diabetes mostly occurs in people who
>>> are overweight, Australian researchers said.
>>
>> The only known safe cure for obesity is the miraculous $2,000,000.00
>> http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER Approach first prescribed by GOD (Exodus
>> 16:16).
>
> That's not been shown true as the *only* "known safe cure for obesity"!
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4a72ff8e2bd693d?
Actually, it is easily shown to be the only known safe cure for
obesity by the following proof...
Null hypothesis:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not the only known safe cure for obesity.
Prediction based on the null hypothesis:
Detractors such as prodigal Jimmy Alpha would have listed other known
safe cures for obesity.
Actual observation:
Detractors such as prodigal Jimmy Alpha have not been able to list
other known safe cures for obesity.
Conclusion:
Reject the null hypothesis and conclude that GOD's 2PD-OMER Approach
(Exodus 16:16) is the only known safe cure for obesity.
prodigal Jimmy Alpha wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
> > Carole wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >>> It remains smarter to eat the right amount (32 oz) of food per day:
> >>>
> >>> http://WDJW.net/BeSmart
> >>
> >> As I said before and never got any reply.
> >>
> >> If the lo-cal diet was so good, then the people in the third world would be
> >> really healthy.
> >
> > The http://WDJW.net/2PDOMER Approach is http://WDJW.net/NotDiet
> >
> >> If your theory is correct, how come they don't live longer and healthier
> >> lives?
> >
> > They are eating less than the right amount (32 oz) of food per day.
> >
> > Truth is simple.
>
> Charlie, how do we know this, because you say so?
We, who are smart, have learned the math that zero ounces is less than
thirty-two ounces.
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4c8e72eca845c102?
Again, would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying
before you possibly suffer a psychotic break from reality (i.e. lose
your mind):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/013d97011bed20f3?
Yes, you know you have been lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
Yes, you, Jimmy, are prodigal http://WDJW.net/LostSheep
May GOD renew and strengthen your mind about knowing what is
right(Je9:24), Jimmy, so that you would be able to guard your
deceitful heart(Je17:9) which is causing you to physically perish as
you continue to sin by lying.
Amen.
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
We do this by weighing our meals per the http://WDJW.net/2PDOMER
Approach to get our...
and then...
so that there will be...
Being hungry is truly wonderful as proven by four lines of evidence:
Mathematical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113247&l=9583a55b45&id=1467768946
Historical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113078&l=0071d60632&id=1467768946
Medical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31107542&l=a51ee83a50&id=1467768946
Psychological:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31229810&l=0b3a2ad60b&id=1467768946
So that we really should http://WDJW.net/BeHungry and say we are
"wonderfully hungry" ( http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungry ) whenever we
are greeted:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113612&l=cbe72c46ca&id=1467768946
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to convince others:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
"A 2005 visit to an Atlanta cardiologist by the name of Andrew Chung
put me on some serious reality
I wasnt just chubby or husky, I am what they often call morbidly
obese. He explained that morbid obesity simply means that if something
happened to me that could be attiributed to weight and I were to end
up in the not breathing state
ok some call it DEAD
that a doctor could simply dismiss it as natural causes related to
weight more or less.
Ive been told I was a chunky fella a couple times, maybe even fat….but
not quite that harshly. Definitely made me think about a few things,
as much as I dislike scare tactics when it comes to health.
Well in the midst of the shock treatment, he also had me come to a
heart wellness seminar that he does on some Saturdays in Mableton.
Nice little get together, he has folks from the community come in and
discuss Tai Chi, exercises, testimonials, all kinds of good stuff.
Then he shows the movie SUPERSIZE ME to set up the pitch for his 2PD
Omer approach that he has his patients use to lose weight.
In a nutshell, in his view, HOW MUCH you eat is more of the issue than
WHAT you eat and portion is more important than any fat content or
calories.
I agree with this. This is why I have always been more successful on
more liquid diets (cabbage soup, slimfast, herbalife (tho dangerous))
than anything else. I wasnt eating the portions I was before that..."
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e82824a99ba4f187?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the truth,
Janet
> You don't have to eat a high carb diet. According to Gerald Reveans
> (the guy who verified type 2 diabetes and coined the term "metabolic
> sysdrome" carbs at 40% will restore most of insulin sensitivity
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> Carbs at 40% will have my BG over 200 most of the day.
Me too, I would venture to guess.
Yesterday I woke up with an FBG of 99. Ate two pieces of low carb very high
fiber extreme; healthy whole wheat bread (6 gm carb each) toasted with
some--about 1 to 1 1/2 oz-- melted smoked swiss cheese. Two hours later my
BG was 170. I shudder to think what it was at one hour. I would venture to
guess that the carbs were approacching 40% of the calories in that
particular meal. (This was my final experiment with carbs at breakfast--back
to either microscopic amounts--no more than 4 or 5 gms total--or none.)
I realize that it is only one meal, at one particular time of day, but it is
illustrative. And I'm on metformin. If 40% carb eating is required to
"restore" insulin resistance, then I'm just going to have to live with
insulin resistance or start using insulin. I see no alternative.
How this all fits in with reducing insulin resistance by losing body fat and
gaining lean muscle mass is another question. It has been my hope that doing
so would eventually lead to lowered insulin resistance, enabling me to ease
up on the carb restriction while maintaining acceptable BG levels.
outsider
> Randy,
> I read the study done on dogs back in 30s. I studied it closely. I
> cannot with certainty relate this study to humans. Partly because of
> being a different species and partly because it was done by removing
> portions of the dogs pancreas.
>
> I do know for certain that an extremely low carb diet lowered my wife's
> insulin resistance dramatically. Before she started the extreme low carb
> she would spike terribly with a small amount of carbohydrates. This
> spiking was reduced a bunch within weeks of low carbing. Actually to
> begin with she went for several weeks on zero carbs. This treatment
> resolved a host of complications.
>
> So I can either go by what I have seen in a fellow human being or go by
> a study on dogs missing parts of their pancreas done in the 30s. I have
> to go with what I have actually seen. When it is my body or that of a
> loved one, we all tend to be very cautious.
>
> Michael
I agree, following in you wife's footsteps seems like the
right thing to do. The chances that you'll both have a
hypo at the same time is small, so you should be able to
save one another's lives whenever the clockwork eating fails
to do the trick.
Besides, you have the empty headed Helen Back, who you think
beautiful therefore qualified to provide support despite the
fact that she uses this group as a social club while never
having posted so much as a single diabetes related article so
long as I've been here, providing all the support you're ever
likely to need in this group. Empathy is ever so much more
important than good health, no?
I think ignoring any of the many studies posted here that you
disagree with on emotional grounds is the right thing to do
because it creates such a wonderful stir in the group and
several come rushing to your aid! It is impressive how well
this keeps working!
The few things you haven't mentioned you've checked have to
do with the emergency services available where you live. How
long from the time someone dials 911 till an ambulance arrives.
Are the EMT's in your area trained and equipped to handle
diabetes emergencies or will treatment only begin when the
ambulance arrives at the hospital? And how long is the trip
from your home to the hospital by ambulance? Given the time it
takes, should they waste your estate's money by going to the
hospital, or should they take you directly to a funeral home
of your choice?
And finally, do you and your wife wear diabetic identification
religiously to give the EMT's a leg up if they are called to
your aid by a stranger?
I'm sure that Trinkwasser, Mack, and Helen will mourn deeply
if the worse happens, maybe even for longer than 30 seconds.
You're leaving a wonderfully indelible mark here in a.s.d. I
salute you, sir, for the most excellent psychological games
you play here!
Boomer
I guess I was concentrating on the part of the study done on dogs. You have
to admit it certainly is counter intuitive to eat more carbs to treat T2
diabetes. The more carbs you eat, the higher your BG. If I ate more carbs,
but low enough to stay below the 140 mark, that would still be an extremely
low carb diet. I can only estimate, but I am guessing that I could only eat
twenty to thirty carbs in a day and stay below that number. That is nowhere
near the amount that is suggested in this study.
I don't think most of us here would be willing to experiment for an extended
period with high BG numbers to see if that would improve insulin
sensitivity.
Michael
<ra...@val.com> wrote in message
news:037960b0-2cb5-4076...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Trinkwasser
<firstiniti...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Carbs at 40% will have my BG over 200 most of the day.
Arguing with Randy is like this
Boomer
carb diet. Can you imagine how you would feel if after 6 months of that and
you had suffered complications and no improvement. It is more risk than I am
willing to take.
Michael
"Janet" <box...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8e9iko...@mid.individual.net...
Kurt
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 23:20:04 -0700, "Ellen K."
>
> >Carbs at 40% will have my BG over 200 most of the day.
>
> Arguing with Randy is like this
>
> http://folk-this.tripod.com/what_time_is_it_eccles.html
The problem here is that you argue with Randy instead of discuss the
relevant cites he posts. It is clear that instead of discussing, you
argue and attack him because you do not understand those cites.
Ignoring, insulting, or killfiling him does not make Randy's
information any less accurate, it just makes you and a couple of
others look desperate.
Kurt
Cheri
news:i5oisu$uih$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Besides, you have the empty headed Helen Back, who you think
> beautiful therefore qualified to provide support despite the
> fact that she uses this group as a social club while never
> having posted so much as a single diabetes related article so
> long as I've been here, providing all the support you're ever
> likely to need in this group. Empathy is ever so much more
> important than good health, no?
I disagree with the "empty headed" of course, and diabetics are much more
than just the disease, they're people with everyday challenges that have
nothing to do with diabetes at times. Sometimes people just want to connect
with others who know what they're talking about, or just to vent with people
they consider online friends. This is called a support group for a reason,
and if that offends your sensibilities...start posting diabetic information
only, and kwicherbeliaiken.
Cheri
outsider
When I was being criticized for not posting enough
about diabetes in this group, where were you then?
outsider
+1
W. Baker
: <ra...@val.com> wrote in message
: with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
: Nobuyuki Komiyamaa, Takashi Kanekob, Akio Satob, Wataru Satoc,
: Kaoru Asamid, Toshimasa Onayaa, Masato Tawataa
: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/848
: Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight
: hyperinsulinemic adults,2,3
: Mark A Pereira, David R Jacobs, Jr, Joel J Pins, Susan K Raatz, Myron
: D Gross, Joanne L Slavin and Elizabeth R Seaquist
: Ford S Jr, Bozian RC, Knowles HC Jr. Interactions of obesity and
: glucose and insulin levels in hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr
: 1968;21:904?10.
: Anderson JW, Herman RH, Zakim D. Effect of high glucose and
: high sucrose diets on glucose tolerance of normal men. Am J Clin
: Nutr 1973;26:600?7.
: Wigand JP, Anderson JH, Jennings SS, Blackard WG. Effect of
: dietary composition on insulin receptors in normal subjects. Am J
: Clin Nutr 1979;32:6?9.
: Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D Jr, Bierman EL.
: Improved glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in mild
: diabetes. N Engl J Med 1971;284:521?4.
There is no way I can read through all these articles, but i wonder to wht
extent these diets of "high carb" are actually high fiber. In the US we
do include the fiber in the carb amount, so what percent of these diets
would be wht we might claa "net carbs?" Excluding the fiber int he carb
count might not make them "low carb," but they might well not be a far off
rfrom many of us us et "moderate carb" say 60-100 grams a day actually
are eating. Perhaps someone with better eyes could help me out with this.
Wendy
: >
W. Baker
: Ellen K. wrote:
Try one piece of that 6 gram of net carb toast and see what happens.
also, wht was the entire carb count, including the fiber, for that toast?
Wouldn't all those grams, including the fiber, be counted as part of the
carb content of a "high carb" meal? I believe that by excluding th fiber
carbs inour counting we are not measuring the same carb amount that the
studies talk about.
Wendy
Cheri
> When I was being criticized for not posting enough
> about diabetes in this group, where were you then?
Waiting in the wings to give you a much needed
((((((((((((((((((((((hug))))))))))))))))))))))))) obviously.
Cheri
Janet
> There is no way I can read through all these articles, but i wonder
> to wht extent these diets of "high carb" are actually high fiber. In
> the US we do include the fiber in the carb amount, so what percent of
> these diets would be wht we might claa "net carbs?" Excluding the
> fiber int he carb count might not make them "low carb," but they
> might well not be a far off rfrom many of us us et "moderate carb"
> say 60-100 grams a day actually are eating. Perhaps someone with
> better eyes could help me out with this.
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/848
>> Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight
>> hyperinsulinemic adults,2,3
Regarding Wendy's question, the abstract of this study says: "Fasting
insulin was 10% lower during consumption of the whole-grain than during
consumption of the refined-grain diet " So this particular study only
suggests that --surprise, surprise--whole grains are better for you than
refined grains.
>
>
>> Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D Jr, Bierman EL.
>> Improved glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in mild
>> diabetes. N Engl J Med 1971;284:521?4.
This study says " Fourteen patients with established maturity-onset diabetes
were treated as outpatients with a high-carbohydrate-(about 60% of total
daily energy requirements)-modified fat diet (ratio of polyunsaturated fatty
acids to other fatty acids greater than or equal to 1:1) for six weeks.
Commercially available and acceptable cereal foods and tuberous vegetables
high in both digestible and non-digestible carbohydrates were used. Simple
sugars were restricted. Compared with their usual, low-carbohydrate diabetic
diet this diet resulted in a fall in basal plasma glucose concentration
(average of values measured at 0300, 0500, and 0700), mean preprandial
plasma glucose concentration."
Again note the emphasis on high fiber. Then go on to look at what they say
the subjects were eating! The so-called "low carb" group were eating white
bread and butter three or four times a day, as well as mashed potatoes,
rice, and tinned and real fruit. The so-called "high carb" group were eating
wholewheat bread, skim milk, a restricted amount or margarine, and real
fruit! AND the improvement noted was on FBG and pre-prandial BG. They
didn't test after meals. There is no mention made of post prandial spikes,
which we are told are damaging and to be avoided. Certainly it is good to
achieve lower FBG, but what about spikes? Don't they matter?
I fully expect that whole grain, high fiber carbs are good for us all, even
T2s. With the exception of the carbs in the yogurt and cottage cheese I
eat, all of my carbs are from whole wheat sources and loaded with flax seed
and the like.
But I cannot get around the fact that if I consume even such complex carbs
at the levels these people insist is necessary, my BGs will be consistently
over a safe level. I'm not talking about between 100 and 110, which I
consider to be acceptable, if not ideal. I'm talking over 160.
Janet
> Try one piece of that 6 gram of net carb toast and see what happens.
> also, wht was the entire carb count, including the fiber, for that
> toast? Wouldn't all those grams, including the fiber, be counted as
> part of the carb content of a "high carb" meal? I believe that by
> excluding th fiber carbs inour counting we are not measuring the same
> carb amount that the studies talk about.
>
> Wendy
One piece would be about 6 gms, net carbs--8 gms total, 2 gms fiber per
slice. However, it would be 70 calories and not be sufficiently filling and
I would have to eat eggs or something else with it. If I eat eggs--which I
am heartily sick of--or sausages or whatever, I don't need to eat the bread
at all at that point in the day and expend the calories. My desire to have a
breakfast of toast and cheese or toast and natural PB apparently must be
thwarted if I am to avoid spikes. <G>
Your point a bout the definition of "carb" according to these studies is, I
think, well taken. But while I personally might be able to get away with
eating 6 instead of 12 grams of carb at breakfast and not spike above 140,
the point is that according to these studies the 12 grams--or 16, if you
count the fiber back in-- is STILL very "low carb."
Boomer
eat more carbs and have high BG levels. These levels are now known to cause
damage. You have to ask yourself, are these proponents of high carb high BG
levels doing this themselves or just trying to use us as guinea pigs.
Michael
"Janet" <box...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8eadcs...@mid.individual.net...
outsider
<blush> thank you.
Doesn't solve the problem of the varying length yardsticks,
however. I think that's a problem that we need to work on
as a group. Does anyone besides me think we can achieve
something like that?
Cheri
No, seriously, I don't. there are just too many different personalities
here...and then there's Google to bring up old grievances when things get
too dull for some. :-)
Cheri
ra...@val.com
> For some reason Janet, there are some who think it is healthier for you to
> eat more carbs and have high BG levels. These levels are now known to cause
> damage. You have to ask yourself, are these proponents of high carb high BG
> levels doing this themselves or just trying to use us as guinea pigs.
If you are refering to me as one who thinks it's healthier to have
higher BG levels your wrong.
I have never said this. In fact, I recently said just the opposite
when Ellen querried me on this issue.
What I have done is present evidence that runs counter to some basic
axions that a certain segment on ASD has proclaimed as inviolate as
long as I have been here. I don't instruct others to eat as I say, nor
do I deny alot of folks have gotten much improved BG, HDL, TG and
weight loss on low carb diets. Also, I don't deny that for some a very
low carb diet might be the only dietary approach available.
What I do deny is that there is a lot of evidence that many might
benefit to a higher carb, higher fiber. lower calorie diet.
What I claim is the following:
1. There is good solid data that shows higher carb diets can not only
be tolereated by diabetics but can even beneficial. And by beneficial,
amoung other things means betters BGs, decreased meds (or no meds at
all) and overall health.
2. There is good solid evidence that very low carb diets (<15%) will
increase IR and will cause a exaggerated response to carbs in both
the healthy and diabetics. My purpose was a caution that eating carbs
when on a low carb diet may give a misleading indication that carbs
should be kept low when in fact it's the low carb diet thats amplifing
the carbohydrate intolerance.
Also, anyone who has followed by posts over the years knows that type
of diet I've discussed is very specific and includes:
1. Low GI, High Fiber. >40 grams/day with 1/2 soluble 1/2 insoluble
2. Lower calories and fasting if it suits ya. Weight kept <25 bmi
3. Exercise, but everybody knows that's good.
Randy
W. Baker
: Again note the emphasis on high fiber. Then go on to look at what they say
: the subjects were eating! The so-called "low carb" group were eating white
: bread and butter three or four times a day, as well as mashed potatoes,
: rice, and tinned and real fruit. The so-called "high carb" group were eating
: wholewheat bread, skim milk, a restricted amount or margarine, and real
: fruit! AND the improvement noted was on FBG and pre-prandial BG. They
: didn't test after meals. There is no mention made of post prandial spikes,
: which we are told are damaging and to be avoided. Certainly it is good to
: achieve lower FBG, but what about spikes? Don't they matter?
Again, high fiber seems to be the key.
: I fully expect that whole grain, high fiber carbs are good for us all, even
: T2s. With the exception of the carbs in the yogurt and cottage cheese I
: eat, all of my carbs are from whole wheat sources and loaded with flax seed
: and the like.
Don't you eat vegetalbes, prticularly leafy greens and stuff like
greenpeppers and stringbeans and broccolis , etc? they have carbs and
fiber, just not tons in each.
: But I cannot get around the fact that if I consume even such complex carbs
: at the levels these people insist is necessary, my BGs will be consistently
: over a safe level. I'm not talking about between 100 and 110, which I
: consider to be acceptable, if not ideal. I'm talking over 160.
I agree with you there for many cases, It is interetng, thugh, how much
fiber seems to be a part of this discussion. Perhs lotsof flax seed,
wheat bran, wheat gluten, etc. would do the trick without all the extra
starch.
Wendy
outsider
> "outsider" <outs...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:i5p3sn$co4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 9/2/2010 12:37 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "outsider" <outs...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i5olsu$4lt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> When I was being criticized for not posting enough
>>>> about diabetes in this group, where were you then?
>>>
>>> Waiting in the wings to give you a much needed
>>> ((((((((((((((((((((((hug))))))))))))))))))))))))) obviously.
>>>
>>
>> <blush> thank you.
>>
>> Doesn't solve the problem of the varying length yardsticks,
>> however. I think that's a problem that we need to work on
>> as a group. Does anyone besides me think we can achieve
>> something like that?
>
> No, seriously, I don't. there are just too many different personalities
> here...and then there's Google to bring up old grievances when things
> get too dull for some. :-)
Is "too many different personalities" a euphemism for
"personality disorders in people with no control?"
I think it could be done with a little effort, maybe a
lot of effort. If there's a problem it is probably one
related to incentive. So what we get down to in the end
is the question, "why is being bad so much more
gratifying than being good?"
This is also relevant to approaching the questions about
why so many diabetics are resistant to eating what is
least damaging to them.
Boomer
I cannot safely eat the level of carbohydrates that you recommend. I simply
cannot if I wish to keep my BG in a safe level. There are many more here in
the same situation.
I doubt there are many T2s out there who could eat those carbs without some
serious medication to enable this kind of diet, maybe even insulin.
Do you have T2? Are you eating a high carb diet? What meds are you taking?
Michael
<ra...@val.com> wrote in message
news:658b1ec3-c993-4140...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
ra...@val.com
> I cannot safely eat the level of carbohydrates that you recommend. I simply
> cannot if I wish to keep my BG in a safe level. There are many more here in
> the same situation.
For the upteenth time, I'm not recommending anything to anybody. I'm
presenting data, data that some here say doesn't exist.
In 2007 I discovered I was prediabetic with a fasting BG of about 115
with the highest postprandial reading of 160.
Currently, I don't use any meds and carbs vary from 40% to 70% of my
diet.
Fasting BG levels are around 90 - 105 and rarely over 120 after
meals.
My strategy is:
Lo GI, high fiber (aim for > 40 grams/day with as much soluble type as
possible.
Carbs consist of beans, oat bran, barely, high fiber tortillias and
high fiber bran cereal, berries, apples even raisons. No bread, its GI
is too high
Exercise (run/walk, weight lift)
Often take extended breaks between meals (fasting) but nothing a
heroic as Gys.
Eat meat most days, sometime twice a day. Mostly chicken and fish but
some beef, pork. Believe that saturated fat is not good. Some days no
meat.
Firm belief that consistent calorie restriction is the closest thing
we have to a miracle cure for most things physical/mental, including
and especially diabetes. This is hard and I'm not as
near as successful as I want, but still trying.
Some supplements.
Regards
Randy
.
Ellen K.
news:5e44c3d5-b81f-4227...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Wrote:
>> I cannot safely eat the level of carbohydrates that you recommend. I
>> simply
>> cannot if I wish to keep my BG in a safe level. There are many more here
>> in
>> the same situation.
>
> For the upteenth time, I'm not recommending anything to anybody. I'm
> presenting data, data that some here say doesn't exist.
>
Really to those of us who can't tolerate the food exchange diet, it seems
the other way around -- the studies you quote seem to say our *experience*
can't exist, because 40% carbs is a "low carbohydrate" diet that will have
good results for diabetics.
This has nothing to do with IR caused by low carbing as you have repeatedly
posted lately, the first week I tested intraday I was still eating the food
exchange diet to which I had conscientiously adhered for about seven months,
and somewhat less conscientiously for much longer. One hour after an
oatmeal breakfast I was at 291, two hours at 203. Two hours after a lunch
of two slices of wholegrain bread, ~3 oz of salmon, maybe a tablespoon of
mustard, half a roma tomato, a cup of steamed cauliflower and 1/4 of an
apple I was 212. I do not get those readings on the low-carb regimen I now
follow. Why would I want to go back to a regimen that was causing my BG to
be dangerously high? I should risk my eyesight because some study says my
body can't be doing what it in fact does?
> In 2007 I discovered I was prediabetic with a fasting BG of about 115
> with the highest postprandial reading of 160.
>
Clearly your disease had not progressed very far at that point. My doctor
told me if my fasting is under 120 and postprandial not over 160 that would
be very good.
Kurt
> > For the upteenth time, I'm not recommending anything to anybody. I'm
> > presenting data, data that some here say doesn't exist.
>
> Really to those of us who can't tolerate the food exchange diet, it seems
> the other way around -- the studies you quote seem to say our *experience*
> can't exist, because 40% carbs is a "low carbohydrate" diet that will have
> good results for diabetics.
You're taking Randy's objective, not subjective, information way too
personal. You're not alone in that regard. I have seen it in this
newsgroup time and time again. Someone posts a general opinion and
another poster is outraged because "that doesn't apply to me." In
Randy's case it wasn't an opinon, but cited studies. He even added
(which he shouldn't have had to) the umpteenth disclaimer above, yet
you seem to think he was saying "Ellen is wrong because she doesn't do
that." He didn't. The one thing I've learned about diabetes is we are
like snowflakes and no two of us are alike.
What Randy posted was interesting, objective, and informative. If it
does not fit in with your beliefs then fine. Do what you feel you need
to do. But please don't do what a few of the usual suspects in here do
which is to discredit anything that does not fit into their way of
thinking. There is room for all ideas and opinions in here.
Kurt
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
>
> Regards
> Randy
>
> .
What did your diet look like prior to the DX of
prediabetes? Was it a standard american diet?
Sorry if you've stated this before.
Ozgirl
"Kurt" <kurtwhee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:581cf1c2-e79c-4fe3...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
We also don't know just how much the individuals in here (and elsewhere
who "can't" tolerate x amount of carbs) actually move. I cited the
experience of my ex who did very well on a diet close to the ADA style
recommendations of the day because he was doing moderate manual labour.
Moving forward a considerable amount of years - during which time he has
been very slack diet-wise to say the least... This morning he popped in
for breakfast and to take our 16 yr old to school. I made him 1 sausage,
some bacon and an egg, coffee with sweetener. Nothing else as he had
left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I
had my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large
number) of insulin right now.
So I said ok, on your pony! Take a brisk walk around the block and don't
come back for 10 minutes ;) It dropped to 7.2, still too high in my but
a very significant drop - and without the insulin. It didn't take all
that much movement to show a vast improvement. He has a new lot of
scripts for 2 separate insulins which he won't be buying until next
week - due to a financial problem at the moment. Presumably Lantus and
Actrapid as he can't remember what and that's pretty much the norm here
now. Will be interesting to see what the numbers are like then. Also due
to the financial problem I will be making an extra evening meal when I
make my shift working son's meal so that will be interesting to observe
also.
Trinkwasser
His cites are no more relevent than you.
Trinkwasser
wrote:
>
>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/848
>>> Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight
>>> hyperinsulinemic adults,2,3
>
>Regarding Wendy's question, the abstract of this study says: "Fasting
>insulin was 10% lower during consumption of the whole-grain than during
>consumption of the refined-grain diet " So this particular study only
>suggests that --surprise, surprise--whole grains are better for you than
>refined grains.
You got it! The concept of comparing any type of grain with NO grains
hasn't been considered by most such researchers.
Nor has the obvious fact that even if you reduce IR by 10% but need
three times as much insulin to digest all the carbs, which you can't
produce, you are buggered (technical term)
You have to read between the lines with all such stuff which doesn't
achieve results in the Real World.
Trinkwasser
<firstiniti...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Why would I want to go back to a regimen that was causing my BG to
>be dangerously high? I should risk my eyesight because some study says my
>body can't be doing what it in fact does?
ZING!!!
Janet
> What I claim is the following:
> 1. There is good solid data that shows higher carb diets can not only
> be tolereated by diabetics but can even beneficial. And by beneficial,
> amoung other things means betters BGs, decreased meds (or no meds at
> all) and overall health.
>
> 2. There is good solid evidence that very low carb diets (<15%) will
> increase IR and will cause a exaggerated response to carbs in both
> the healthy and diabetics. My purpose was a caution that eating carbs
> when on a low carb diet may give a misleading indication that carbs
> should be kept low when in fact it's the low carb diet thats amplifing
> the carbohydrate intolerance.
That is an interesting point.
> Also, anyone who has followed by posts over the years knows that type
> of diet I've discussed is very specific and includes:
>
> 1. Low GI, High Fiber. >40 grams/day with 1/2 soluble 1/2 insoluble
> 2. Lower calories and fasting if it suits ya. Weight kept <25 bmi
> 3. Exercise, but everybody knows that's good.
>
> Randy
Randy, what you describe is what I've hoped I would eventually arrive at: a
bit more flexibility in diet as a result of achieving BMI under 25 combined
with exercise. So I certainly hope you are correct! <G>
Could you give an idea of what this might look like in terms of actual food
consumed:
W. Baker
: In 2007 I discovered I was prediabetic with a fasting BG of about 115
: with the highest postprandial reading of 160.
: Currently, I don't use any meds and carbs vary from 40% to 70% of my
: diet.
: Fasting BG levels are around 90 - 105 and rarely over 120 after
: meals.
: My strategy is:
: Lo GI, high fiber (aim for > 40 grams/day with as much soluble type as
: possible.
: Carbs consist of beans, oat bran, barely, high fiber tortillias and
: high fiber bran cereal, berries, apples even raisons. No bread, its GI
: is too high
Do you have any idea of 5 of you carb intake is fiber and about how many
carb grams you generally eat? Your carb choices are very high fiber, so I
wonder, for those of us who generally look at net carabs, where you
actualy stand on tht number. It would help some of us make comparisons.
I sometimes wonder if we are not in some sense all talking about the same
thing regarding carb numbers and fiber ones.
Wendy
Janet
I don't see any outrage in Ellen's response. She is simply calmly responding
with the fact that her personal experience seems to run counter to the
conclusions of these studies. Disagreement does not equal outrage and
character assasination.
My experience also runs counter to the implications of the *titles* of these
studies, but I've found that if one actually reads them, the results do not
support the titles in many if not most cases. (For example, the study cited
above in which people eating a diet higher in refined carbs and butter were
called "low carb" and people eating a diet that substituted whole wheat and
margarine were called "high carb." Almost an exact REVERSE of how most would
interpret those terms.)
Janet
> Don't you eat vegetalbes, prticularly leafy greens and stuff like
> greenpeppers and stringbeans and broccolis , etc? they have carbs and
> fiber, just not tons in each.
Yes, of course, sorry. I just wasn't counting them. I eat quite a lot of
them, but I tend to think of the carbs they contain as just background
noise, so to speak! <G> Now, if I eat fruit or something like corn, that I
count as a carb source.
Bjørn Steensrud
> Michale Wrote:
>> I read the study done on dogs back in 30s. I studied it closely. I
>> cannot with certainty relate this study to humans.
>
> Reply:
> With respect Michael the data I was refering to was on humans not dogs.
> Please look at figures 1 & 2 on page 59 here:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2444943/
>
> I provide this reference cause the full paper is available on line.
>
> You don't have to eat a high carb diet. According to Gerald Reveans (the
> guy who verified type 2 diabetes and coined the term "metabolic
> sysdrome" carbs at 40% will restore most of insulin sensitivity
>
> Here's other studies reiterating the same finding on Humans:
>
> Himsworth HP, Kerr RB (1939) Insulin-sensitive and insulininsensitive
> types HimswoHimsworth HP, Kerr RB (1939) Insulin-sensitive and
> insulininsensitive
> types of diabetes mellitus. Clin Sci 4:119-152rth HP, Kerr RB (
>
>
> Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D, Bierman EL: Improved
> glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in mild diabetes. N
> Engl J Med 1971;284:521-524
>
>
> Chen M, Halter JB, Porte D: The role of dietary carbohydrate in the
> decreased glucose tolerance of the elderly. JAm Geriatr Soc
> 1987;35:417-424
>
>
> Chen M, Bergman RN, Porte D: Insulin resistance and ,-cell dysfunction
> in aging: The importance of dietary carbohydrate. J Clin Endocrinol
> Metab 1988;67:951-957
>
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/11/2312 High-carbohydrate,
> high-fiber diets for insulin-treated men with diabetes mellitus
> JW Anderson and K Ward
>
>
> Beck-Nielsen H, Pedersen 0, S0rensen NS: Effects of diet on the cellular
> insulin binding and the insulin sensitivity in young healthy subjects.
> Diabetologia 1978;15:289-296
>
>
> Kolterman OG, Greenfield M, Reaven GM, Saekow M, Olefsky JM: Effect of a
> high carbohydrate diet on insulin binding to adipocytes and on insulin
> action in vivo in man. Diabetes 1979;28:731-736
>
>
> The effect of high carbohydrate diet on glucose tolerance in patients
> with type 2 diabetes mellitus☆
> Nobuyuki Komiyamaa, Takashi Kanekob, Akio Satob, Wataru Satoc, Kaoru
> Asamid, Toshimasa Onayaa, Masato Tawataa
>
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/848 Effect of whole grains
> on insulin sensitivity in overweight hyperinsulinemic adults,2,3
>
>
> Mark A Pereira, David R Jacobs, Jr, Joel J Pins, Susan K Raatz, Myron D
> Gross, Joanne L Slavin and Elizabeth R Seaquist Ford S Jr, Bozian RC,
> Knowles HC Jr. Interactions of obesity and glucose and insulin levels in
> hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr 1968;21:904–10.
>
>
> Anderson JW, Herman RH, Zakim D. Effect of high glucose and high sucrose
> diets on glucose tolerance of normal men. Am J Clin Nutr 1973;26:600–7.
>
>
> Wigand JP, Anderson JH, Jennings SS, Blackard WG. Effect of dietary
> composition on insulin receptors in normal subjects. Am J Clin Nutr
> 1979;32:6–9.
>
>
> Brunzell JD, Lerner RL, Hazzard WR, Porte D Jr, Bierman EL. Improved
> glucose tolerance with high carbohydrate feeding in mild diabetes. N
> Engl J Med 1971;284:521–4.
>> > on a very low carb diet will test positive for diabetes on a GTT
>> > (glucose tolerance test).
>>
>> > Randy-
Is there a corresponding study for us "slim" T2s? My BMI never said
"overweight", not to mention "obese". Still, I have lost 3 kg in the last
few months -mostly abdominal fat, could stand to lose one more.
cshenk
> Michael Wrote:
>> I cannot safely eat the level of carbohydrates that you recommend. I
>> simply
>> cannot if I wish to keep my BG in a safe level. There are many more here
>> in
>> the same situation.
>
> For the upteenth time, I'm not recommending anything to anybody. I'm
> presenting data, data that some here say doesn't exist.
Hehe I think you are just explaining what works for you. Oddly, I have a
friend in NZ who eats close to what you say and my own diet may not be far
off it.
> In 2007 I discovered I was prediabetic with a fasting BG of about 115
> with the highest postprandial reading of 160.
NZ friend was a little higher on the postprandial but not radically.
> Currently, I don't use any meds and carbs vary from 40% to 70% of my
> diet.
> Fasting BG levels are around 90 - 105 and rarely over 120 after
> meals.
Almost dead on for him. His problem is he started getting lows _sometimes_
postprandial so he shifted it a bit then that stopped.
> My strategy is:
> Lo GI, high fiber (aim for > 40 grams/day with as much soluble type as
> possible.
> Carbs consist of beans, oat bran, barely, high fiber tortillias and
> high fiber bran cereal, berries, apples even raisons. No bread, its GI
> is too high
He does bread but carefully controlled amounts and it's all high fiber stuff
with flaxseed and other things. We met up over how to best use a
breadmachine and what brands were available in his area that could reliably
work long term with the heavy dough load loaves he makes. (He now uses it
mostly to mix and rise, then bakes it in the oven after a 3rd rise and his
yeast is more of a sourdough or other starter liquid which makes for better
flavor. It's just easier to let the machine do the hard parts).
> Exercise (run/walk, weight lift)
Hard for him and me both but we work on what we can.
> Eat meat most days, sometime twice a day. Mostly chicken and fish but
> some beef, pork. Believe that saturated fat is not good. Some days no
> meat.
Thats definately me.
> Firm belief that consistent calorie restriction is the closest thing
> we have to a miracle cure for most things physical/mental, including
> and especially diabetes. This is hard and I'm not as
> near as successful as I want, but still trying.
I wouldn't put it that way, but I do definately go for a wide variety diet!
Family of 3 here. 2 need low-chol, 1 needs reduced-sodium, and I need a
diet similar in some ways to diabetic
Breakfast today was something probably none of you here should/could eat
safely (I'm not a diabetic as explained in other threads) but was just right
for me. Japanese 'Rice Porridge' (very like Congee/Juk but with about 30
ingredients mixed in so every bite is different). Also had grapefruit
slices just in their glory as they come fresh off the peel. A rather nice
ruby-red one.
Lunch will be a dashi-tofu-'mustard greens' dish with a side of home made
kimchee (mild sort, bok choy, carrot, daikon, gobo (umm, burdock root?),
pickled garlic and schimi (sp? a chile powder blend from the orient with
many names.). The lunch fits right in there with something any of you all
could eat I think (assuming no allergies).
Haven't decided on dinner details yet other than will be doing salmon or cod
and using some/all of the following fridge fodder: shemenji mushrooms,
cabbage (chinese/nappa type), eddo-potato soup (not for diabetics, a mix of
eddo-(type of taro) and potatoes pureed to a thick soup), fresh cucumbers,
rest of the gobo salad (waterfried with dashi, roasted sesame seed oil, and
white sesame seeds, mirin and vinegar and served chilled) and maybe a
steamed summer squash (yellow and green) with red onion slivers (dressed
with 1 tb olive oil, 1tb of the soup, and black pepper though you could sub
plain yogurt for the soup well enough).
Munchies are easy. I have a crockpot of reduced sodium 'salt boiled
peanuts' (worked out a recipe where chile blend powder subs most of the salt
and the salt comes from a soy sauce that is 370mg per TB). Made those up 2
days ago when Hurricane Earl looked to possibly be a problem here but he
passed by with minimal damage and is now a little north of me.
What you'll probably notice here is a bit of 'spiking foods' mixed in with
ones that don't. That's deliberate. Without a portion of the ones that
deal well for *me*, I actually go clinically postprandial low and if I abuse
it too much, gets very bad. I just have to eat them in combination. Too
much and I spiral down, too little and I spiral down, and wrong type is
never good except in careful moderation.
Now, Michael can't eat my diet, and you can't really either but it's
interesting how close they *can* come at times.
cshenk
> <randy wrote
>> Michael Wrote:
>>> I cannot safely eat the level of carbohydrates that you recommend. I
>> For the upteenth time, I'm not recommending anything to anybody. I'm
>> presenting data, data that some here say doesn't exist.
> Really to those of us who can't tolerate the food exchange diet, it seems
> the other way around -- the studies you quote seem to say our *experience*
> can't exist, because 40% carbs is a "low carbohydrate" diet that will have
> good results for diabetics.
I'm still tying bits of this thread together so forgive me if I missed bits.
40% carbs is never good.
> This has nothing to do with IR caused by low carbing as you have
> repeatedly posted lately, the first week I tested intraday I was still
> eating the food exchange diet to which I had conscientiously adhered for
> about seven months, and somewhat less conscientiously for much longer.
> One hour after an oatmeal breakfast I was at 291, two hours at 203. Two
> hours after a lunch
OUCH! That's terribly high isnt it?
> of two slices of wholegrain bread, ~3 oz of salmon, maybe a tablespoon of
> mustard, half a roma tomato, a cup of steamed cauliflower and 1/4 of an
> apple I was 212. I do not get those readings on the low-carb regimen I
> now follow. Why would I want to go back to a regimen that was causing my
> BG to be dangerously high? I should risk my eyesight because some study
> says my body can't be doing what it in fact does?
Nope. Best I can tell, we should all stick to what works for *us*. Just
like I just posted today's meals (dinner not decided, may go completely
different once we get to it), I marked 1 items as 'not for diabetics'. The
rice porridge and the eddo-potato soup. A diabetic could have a taste test
of them from curiosity, but I'd estimate 1/4 cup for that and a good meal
around it that didn't have anything spikey.
>> In 2007 I discovered I was prediabetic with a fasting BG of about 115
>> with the highest postprandial reading of 160.
> Clearly your disease had not progressed very far at that point. My doctor
> told me if my fasting is under 120 and postprandial not over 160 that
> would be very good.
>> Currently, I don't use any meds and carbs vary from 40% to 70% of my
>> diet.
I think I missed this.
>> My strategy is:
>> Lo GI, high fiber (aim for > 40 grams/day with as much soluble type as
>> possible.
>> Carbs consist of beans, oat bran, barely, high fiber tortillias and
>> high fiber bran cereal, berries, apples even raisons. No bread, its GI
>> is too high
I keyed on this. With portion control, it didn't seem bad. But 40% carbs?
Humm, look over my earlier message to him here and see if I come close to
40% carbs even for me. Nope. Total carb high breakfast with all that rice
but rice is one of the things that _my personal reactions_ handle very well.
I also handle potatoes and taro(eddo) well. One thing I know is I do need a
higher carb load than a diabetic, but I have to be very selective on where
they come from and have to mix them with what my mind calls 'balancers'.
cshenk
> left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I had
> my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large number)
> of insulin right now.
I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a kitten
about it as always (grin). I gathered a 4 was good and a 5 was ok. If
that's right then an 11 is 'not good'.
> So I said ok, on your pony! Take a brisk walk around the block and don't
> come back for 10 minutes ;) It dropped to 7.2, still too high in my but a
> very significant drop - and without the insulin. It didn't take all that
> much movement to show a vast improvement. He has a new lot of scripts for
> 2 separate insulins which he won't be buying until next week - due to a
> financial problem at the moment. Presumably Lantus and Actrapid as he
> can't remember what and that's pretty much the norm here now. Will be
> interesting to see what the numbers are like then. Also due to the
> financial problem I will be making an extra evening meal when I make my
> shift working son's meal so that will be interesting to observe also.
Thats really sweet of you!
Alice Faber
"cshenk" <csh...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Ozgirl" wrote
>
>
> > left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I had
> > my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large number)
> > of insulin right now.
>
> I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a kitten
> about it as always (grin). I gathered a 4 was good and a 5 was ok. If
> that's right then an 11 is 'not good'.
There are two types of blood glucose measurements that, unfortunately,
have very comparable scales. In the US, our spot measurements, either at
home or in a lab, use the units mg/dl, and ranges, in actual use, from
50-500 (ish); in many other countries, they use mmol/dl, and the ranges
in actual use are from, say 3-15 (ish). The conversion factor is is
18.2, so Ozgirl's ex's 11.4 mmol/dl equates to 207 mg/dl, so it's high
but not scary-high.
Now A1c measures not circulating glucose but glucose bound to hemoglobin
molecules. And it's a percentage. Depending on lab, the normal range
given will be something like 4-6%, but it's not unusual to have a level
>10% on diagnosis. Obviously, it's affected by blood sugar, but on a
more macro level, but it's also affected by other factors; depending on
who you read, it gives you a single snapshot of blood glucose levels
over a period of 1-3 months. It's often described as an "average", but
that's misleading, as it won't equal the average of home tests, since
most folks have a fasting test and maybe one or two other spot tests
during the day.
--
"Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read and then attack
what it didn't say?"--WG, where else but Usenet
cshenk
> "cshenk" wrote:
>> I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a kitten
>> about it as always (grin). I gathered a 4 was good and a 5 was ok. If
>> that's right then an 11 is 'not good'.
> There are two types of blood glucose measurements that, unfortunately,
> have very comparable scales. In the US, our spot measurements, either at
> home or in a lab, use the units mg/dl, and ranges, in actual use, from
> 50-500 (ish); in many other countries, they use mmol/dl, and the ranges
> in actual use are from, say 3-15 (ish). The conversion factor is is
> 18.2, so Ozgirl's ex's 11.4 mmol/dl equates to 207 mg/dl, so it's high
> but not scary-high.
(snip)
Bless you Alice for the most readable translation of it! A1Cx18.2= roughly
my BG system. I guess I run 4-5 A1C as my norm and try to keep it to about
5.
Kurt
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, I've always said that exercise is as important as diet and
medication when it comes to controlling diabetes. Ironically, it's the
same usual suspects who a) refute my opinion about exercise and b)
don't exercise much. :)
Kurt
"Move more, eat less." - Gys
"Up, up, and away from my computer." - Tom
lil abner
> On Sep 1, 3:42 pm, "Boomer"<Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I see that some here believe that high fat intake increases IR. Of course I
>> do not know if this is really true. My endo believes this. I wonder how long
>> it would take on a low fat diet to actually see results. I don't mean
>> replacing fat with carbs. I mean replacing fat with protein. Any thoughts on
>> this?
>>
>> Michael
>
> Michael,
>
> Very low carb diets (<15% carbs) (like what your doing) will increase
> insulin resistance. I've provided numerous references and I repeat
> that this is not in dispute amoung scientiest that research in this
> area (Reavens ect). In this case it's not established if the reason in
> increased fat intake, greater lowered carb intake or both.
>
> The issue of fat causing insulin resistance is separate from carb
> intake. There is evidence that saturated fat intake does cause insulin
> resistance at higher levels of carb. But this evidence is in dispute
> in some quarters. The animal evidence is very convincing but some
> question the level of proof in the human stuides.
>
> In your case the issue is your very very low carb intake and fat
> intake.
>
> Please note that in your specific when folks are eating your type of
> increasing carbs. Thus if you do increase your carbs do so slowly over
> an extended period of time. Even normal folks on that have been on a
> very low carb diet will test positive for diabetes on a GTT (glucose
> tolerance test).
>
> Randy
weight real fast. Ice Cream too me goes almost immediately to weight gain.
I avoided bread, potatoes and fat and lost a lot of weight and the
glucose levels came down and ere way more stable. I succumbed to eating
too much again. now I face trying to get back and keep on track. Eating
is just a habit. Our bodies/ our mind tells us to eat and that it taste
good and keep eating. It is a self induced addiction. It is recreational
eating. M ost of us don't require the huge intake our minds wants us to
eat since we aren't mining of plowing fields 14 hours a day. It is good
if your Spouse or other can fix meals of the right foods and amount for
you. Avoid grazing and snacking just because umh it would taste good
right now. Snack only enough to keep your Diabetes under control. The
harder you try to adhere to eating in self defense the easier it will
become but there will come the inevitable falling off the wagon. Self
control can pull you back.
Stay away from chemical laced foods even if is says they are natural
flavorings etc. Arsenic is natural but I don't want any of it in my foods.
Kurt
You sound jealous, bitter, and desperate all at the same time. And you
have never refuted any of the real science that Randy has posted.
Ever.
Kurt
Kurt
> "Ozgirl" wrote
>
> > left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I had
> > my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large number)
> > of insulin right now.
>
> I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a kitten
> about it as always (grin). I gathered a 4 was good and a 5 was ok. If
> that's right then an 11 is 'not good'.
http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/blood-glucose-control/a1c/
http://www.joslin.org/info/all_about_a1c.html
Kurt
cshenk
>> Regards
>> Randy
> What did your diet look like prior to the DX of
> prediabetes? Was it a standard american diet?
> Sorry if you've stated this before.
You may want to define what 'you' think is a standard American diet. I'd be
interested too as there really is no such thing.
outsider
Visit a truck stop and watch what the drivers order. :-)
Janet
> Yes, I've always said that exercise is as important as diet and
> medication when it comes to controlling diabetes. Ironically, it's the
> same usual suspects who a) refute my opinion about exercise and b)
> don't exercise much. :)
>
> Kurt
> "Move more, eat less." - Gys
> "Up, up, and away from my computer." - Tom
Who are those usual suspects, exactly?
cshenk
> cshenk wrote:
>> <trigonometry1972 wrote
>>> Was it a standard american diet?
>>> Sorry if you've stated this before.
>> You may want to define what 'you' think is a standard American diet. I'd
>> be interested too as there really is no such thing.
> Visit a truck stop and watch what the drivers order. :-)
Although a cute reply, I was being serious. It's not even in it's
traditional rendition particularily high fat although some portions may be.
Those portions were eaten in moderation.
Bjørn Steensrud
Uh - not quite, see above, Carol. A1c is a percentage, in fact, the
percentage of your hemoglobin that is bound to glucose. So your A1c is
4-5% - no units.
The measurements given above refers to the amount of glucose in your blood
- strictly speaking, in plasma, but most meters are calibrated so that
blood from a finger prick will show plasma values. In here we usually
call it bg or BG, fbg/FBG is fasting blood glucose, PP is post-prandial,
i.e. after a meal. The jargon is flying thick and fast in this group :-)
Cheri
Yes, I've always said that exercise is as important as diet and
medication when it comes to controlling diabetes. Ironically, it's the
same usual suspects who a) refute my opinion about exercise and b)
don't exercise much. :)
Kurt
"Move more, eat less." - Gys
"Up, up, and away from my computer." - Tom
============
That is really not true Kurt. Nobody refutes your opinion about excercise.
I've never seen anyone say excercise isn't good for those that are able to
excercise, recommending it a whole lot more than you in fact, and you have
no way of knowing how much somebody else excercises. Guessing what people do
doesn't count either, or are you writing one of those Genoa City diaries?
Cheri
Cheri
news:8ecqsn...@mid.individual.net...
LOL, good question.
Cheri
Cheri
news:8ed0jf...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 9/3/2010 3:21 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> That is really not true Kurt. Nobody refutes your opinion about
>> excercise.
>
> helpful or important as diet.
>
>
>
> Susan
OK, some do.
Cheri
Ellen K.
What Randy posted was interesting, objective, and informative. If it
does not fit in with your beliefs then fine. Do what you feel you need
to do.
=========================================================
Would you be willing to substitute "experience" for "beliefs" in your above
statement?
Ellen K.
"Ozgirl" <are_we_t...@maccas.com> wrote in message
news:8ebob2...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> We also don't know just how much the individuals in here (and elsewhere
> who "can't" tolerate x amount of carbs) actually move. I cited the
> experience of my ex who did very well on a diet close to the ADA style
> recommendations of the day because he was doing moderate manual labour.
1. Why the quote marks around "can't"?
2. Not everybody has the option of earning their living at a job requiring
physical exertion. People who make their living at work which is sedentary
can incorporate some exercise into their lives, but not as much as people
whose work requires physical exertion. Despite this, millions of people
work at sedentary jobs and maybe hit the gym twice a week but do not have
diabetes.
3. All that aside, I did not see anything in Randy's posts to the effect
that "A 40% carbohydrate diet is good for diabetics whose work requires
physical exertion" or "A 40% carbohydrate diet is good for diabetics who
exercise at least x hours per day", rather the study results are stated as
blanket recommendations. If the study results are valid for "diabetics" in
general, then how much people "actually move" is irrelevant.
> Moving forward a considerable amount of years - during which time he has
> been very slack diet-wise to say the least... This morning he popped in
> for breakfast and to take our 16 yr old to school. I made him 1 sausage,
> some bacon and an egg, coffee with sweetener. Nothing else as he had left
> his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I had my
> insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large number) of
> insulin right now.
>
> So I said ok, on your pony! Take a brisk walk around the block and don't
> come back for 10 minutes ;) It dropped to 7.2, still too high in my but a
> very significant drop - and without the insulin. It didn't take all that
> much movement to show a vast improvement.
That's nice for him. For me, 15 minutes of vigorous exercise drops me maybe
10 points (the way we measure in the US, i.e. from 130 to 120), a 25-minute
walk is good for about 2 points -- far less than the drop of about a third
after a 10 minute walk that your ex experienced.
Ellen K.
Yes, I've always said that exercise is as important as diet and
medication when it comes to controlling diabetes. Ironically, it's the
same usual suspects who a) refute my opinion about exercise and b)
don't exercise much. :)
================================
I haven't seen any posts stating that exercise is not beneficial. I don't
think there is any disagreement on that point.
Ellen K.
"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:i5qsoo$nu$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I do make a point of eating as much fiber as possible, but I'm sure even
counting the fiber carbs as carbs would not get me anywhere *NEAR* 40%
carbs.
Ellen K.
> Janet <box...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : Again note the emphasis on high fiber. Then go on to look at what they
> say
> : the subjects were eating! The so-called "low carb" group were eating
> white
> : bread and butter three or four times a day, as well as mashed potatoes,
> : rice, and tinned and real fruit. The so-called "high carb" group were
> eating
> : wholewheat bread, skim milk, a restricted amount or margarine, and real
> : fruit! AND the improvement noted was on FBG and pre-prandial BG. They
> : didn't test after meals. There is no mention made of post prandial
> spikes,
> : which we are told are damaging and to be avoided. Certainly it is good
> to
> : achieve lower FBG, but what about spikes? Don't they matter?
>
> Again, high fiber seems to be the key.
High fiber does not stop me from spiking.
> : I fully expect that whole grain, high fiber carbs are good for us all,
> even
> : T2s. With the exception of the carbs in the yogurt and cottage cheese I
> : eat, all of my carbs are from whole wheat sources and loaded with flax
> seed
> : and the like.
>
> Don't you eat vegetalbes, prticularly leafy greens and stuff like
> greenpeppers and stringbeans and broccolis , etc? they have carbs and
> fiber, just not tons in each.
>
>
> : But I cannot get around the fact that if I consume even such complex
> carbs
> : at the levels these people insist is necessary, my BGs will be
> consistently
> : over a safe level. I'm not talking about between 100 and 110, which I
> : consider to be acceptable, if not ideal. I'm talking over 160.
>
> I agree with you there for many cases, It is interetng, thugh, how much
> fiber seems to be a part of this discussion. Perhs lotsof flax seed,
> wheat bran, wheat gluten, etc. would do the trick without all the extra
> starch.
>
> Wendy
>
>
Ellen K.
"Boomer" <Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rbQfo.100675$Is6....@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
> Sorry Randy,
>
> I guess I was concentrating on the part of the study done on dogs. You
> have to admit it certainly is counter intuitive to eat more carbs to treat
> T2 diabetes. The more carbs you eat, the higher your BG. If I ate more
> carbs, but low enough to stay below the 140 mark, that would still be an
> extremely low carb diet. I can only estimate, but I am guessing that I
> could only eat twenty to thirty carbs in a day and stay below that number.
> That is nowhere near the amount that is suggested in this study.
>
I'm eating about 40-45 gm carbs per day and sometimes the after-breakfast
peak is more than 140. Since this less than half the time and by the 2-hour
mark it's always below, right now rather than reducing carbs further I'm
trying to fit more walks into my week, on the theory that even though
walking doesn't seem to have much of an immediate effect it might help the
FBG which would in turn give me a lower pre-breakfast value so that the peak
would also be lower.
> I don't think most of us here would be willing to experiment for an
> extended period with high BG numbers to see if that would improve insulin
> sensitivity.
>
My point exactly.
> Michael
>
> <ra...@val.com> wrote in message
> news:037960b0-2cb5-4076...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> > increasing carbs. Thus if you do increase your carbs do so slowly over
>>> > an extended period of time. Even normal folks on that have been on a
>>> > very low carb diet will test positive for diabetes on a GTT (glucose
>>> > tolerance test).
>>>
>>> > Randy- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
Ellen K.
ones showing a date range from 1939 to 1988.
Ellen K.
"outsider" <outs...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:i5p3sn$co4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 9/2/2010 12:37 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "outsider" <outs...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:i5olsu$4lt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> When I was being criticized for not posting enough
>>> about diabetes in this group, where were you then?
>>
>> Waiting in the wings to give you a much needed
>> ((((((((((((((((((((((hug))))))))))))))))))))))))) obviously.
>>
>
> <blush> thank you.
>
> Doesn't solve the problem of the varying length yardsticks,
> however. I think that's a problem that we need to work on
> as a group. Does anyone besides me think we can achieve
> something like that?
>
I like Alice's suggestion: Write the kind of posts you would like to read.
W. Baker
: "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
My post was not addressed to you, but to Randy, sho was telingus of his
diet ingredients and I wonder at jsut whtat percentge of his carbs are
fibe, since he says he eats 40 grams of fiber a day. It might be a very
large percentage, meaning that his, what most of us call net carbs, would
be considerably lower than tht 40% of his diet. If he eats beans and high
fiber low net carb tortillas and vegetables with high percentages of
fiber, accountint for most of their already low carb counts he may wellbe
eating quite low carb. He states that, aside ofomr barley, often a
friendly grain for diabetics, he eats no whole grains or whole grain
breads, etc.
Shabbat Shalom
Wendy
Ellen K.
>
> Shabbat Shalom
>
> Wendy
Gam lakh. :)
Kurt
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It's absolutely true, Cheri. Read my statement again. I've always
contended that exercise is "as important" as meds and diet. There are
several who have refuted that and usually do every time I write it.
And no one in Genoa City guesses, they are all so clueless they just
chase the wrong facts.
Kurt
Kurt
The vocal loudmouths. The self proclaimed know it alls. The haters.
You know, those people. A couple of them even made it on my list! What
the hell was I thinking????????
Kurt
Kurt
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 9/3/2010 3:21 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > excercise.
>
> helpful or important as diet.
>
> Susan
See!!!!!
And Susan, you are violating the new amendment to the charter that
forbids anyone from commenting on anything by a poster they have
bragged about having in their killfile. Go sit in the naughty chair.
Kurt
Kurt
lol
Kurt
Kurt
wrote:
> "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sure.
Kurt
Julie Bove
See!!!!!
---
I don't know that anyone agreed to that.
cshenk
> cshenk wrote:
>> "Alice Faber" wrote,
>>>> I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a
>>> There are two types of blood glucose measurements that, unfortunately,
>>> have very comparable scales. In the US, our spot measurements, either
>>> at home or in a lab, use the units mg/dl, and ranges, in actual use,
>>> from 50-500 (ish); in many other countries, they use mmol/dl, and the
>>> ranges in actual use are from, say 3-15 (ish). The conversion factor is
>>> is 18.2, so Ozgirl's ex's 11.4 mmol/dl equates to 207 mg/dl, so it's
>>> high but not scary-high.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Bless you Alice for the most readable translation of it! A1Cx18.2=
>> roughly my BG system. I guess I run 4-5 A1C as my norm and try to keep
>> it to about 5.
>
> Uh - not quite, see above, Carol. A1c is a percentage, in fact, the
> percentage of your hemoglobin that is bound to glucose. So your A1c is
> 4-5% - no units.
But close enough for general use when someone says what their A1c is? I'm
not afterall taking meds based on it, just gathering information on how it
works.
> The measurements given above refers to the amount of glucose in your blood
> - strictly speaking, in plasma, but most meters are calibrated so that
> blood from a finger prick will show plasma values. In here we usually
> call it bg or BG, fbg/FBG is fasting blood glucose, PP is post-prandial,
> i.e. after a meal. The jargon is flying thick and fast in this group :-)
Ah, thought postprandial was all one word. Ok, PP or post-prandial. Got it
on the fbg easy as that one never threw me. Lord knows I get tested for
that enough! I'd be your resident wierd person with diet controlled
hypoglycemia completely not related to pre-diabetic or diabetic. (a rare
genetic issue impacting 57 family members with dominant gene expression).
It seems logical to me that some of what works for testing for diabetics may
be applicable to me as well. I fail to see where it could be harmful and my
husband wouldn't be harmed by being checked a bit more regular.
Ellen K.
Sure.
Kurt
=========================
Thank you.
Chris Malcolm
> On Sep 3, 1:02 am, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:
>> We also don't know just how much the individuals in here (and elsewhere
>> who "can't" tolerate x amount of carbs) actually move. I cited the
>> experience of my ex who did very well on a diet close to the ADA style
>> recommendations of the day because he was doing moderate manual labour.
>> Moving forward a considerable amount of years - during which time he has
>> been very slack diet-wise to say the least... This morning he popped in
>> for breakfast and to take our 16 yr old to school. I made him 1 sausage,
>> some bacon and an egg, coffee with sweetener. Nothing else as he had
>> left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4! He said oh, if I
>> had my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be shooting x (large
>> number) of insulin right now.
>>
>> So I said ok, on your pony! Take a brisk walk around the block and don't
>> come back for 10 minutes ;) It dropped to 7.2, still too high in my but
>> a very significant drop - and without the insulin. It didn't take all
>> that much movement to show a vast improvement. He has a new lot of
>> scripts for 2 separate insulins which he won't be buying until next
>> week - due to a financial problem at the moment. Presumably Lantus and
>> Actrapid as he can't remember what and that's pretty much the norm here
>> now. Will be interesting to see what the numbers are like then. Also due
>> to the financial problem I will be making an extra evening meal when I
>> make my shift working son's meal so that will be interesting to observe
>> also.
> Yes, I've always said that exercise is as important as diet and
> medication when it comes to controlling diabetes. Ironically, it's the
> same usual suspects who a) refute my opinion about exercise and b)
> don't exercise much. :)
I agree that exercise is very important. I disagree with your claim
that it is as important as diet in BG control of d&e controlling
T2s. I do exercise a lot, just not regularly. My exercise is very
important for my general health and fitness. I do a lot when
opportunity offers, but it's too irregular to be part of my BG
control. I can also control my BGs with no exercise. But to eat my old
pre-diabetic healthy whole grain diet and keep my BGs in control with
exercise would need more exercise every day than I could possible fit
in. Hence for me diet is a more important means of BG control than
exercise.
Here for example is what I did for exercise in the last two days.
Yesterday: In the morning strolled around hilly streets for three
hours carrying about 12kgs. In afternoon cycled slowly around for
three hours, sometimes carrying bike (with about 12kgs luggage on
carrier) up and down staircases (outdoor stairs which occur when hills
are too steep for an unstepped path). Both excursions were shopping
trips, but because it was a sunny day I took the opportunity to add a
long exploratory walk and a long exploratory cycle to the shopping
trips. If it had been raining I would have taken the bus.
Today: Spent six hours starting to demolish a large tree in too
sensitive a place to be felled. That involved repeatedly climbing up
and down the tree, setting up haulage and lowering ropes on branches
so they can could be sawn off and manouevred gently to specific safe
landing places. No power tools used in the interests of safety and
healthy arm exercise :-) Probably three more days will see the tree
gone. If it had been raining I'd have spent the day doing paperwork.
(Probably three young men with two chainsaws would demolish that tree
in one day. But they'd make a lot of noise and a lot of mess. We're
two old men working quietly with hand tools and leaving no mess at
all. :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Ozgirl
"Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:8ed0jf...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 9/3/2010 3:21 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> That is really not true Kurt. Nobody refutes your opinion about
>> excercise.
>
> No on refutes that it's useful, but many of us refute that it's *as*
> helpful or important as diet.
I disagree strongly. For some people, using "just exercise alone" can
bring or keep bg's in range. One can't really know unless one tries it.
What burns off calories can keep raised bg's at bay. Take someone in a
high manual labour job. They burn huge amounts of calories and diabetic
or not they are going to "burn" off high carb foods.
Ozgirl
"lil abner" <@daisy.mae> wrote in message
news:im9go.8848$rC7....@newsfe10.iad...
> All I can cite is personal experience. Fats and carbs make you gain
> weight real fast. Ice Cream too me goes almost immediately to weight
> gain.
> I avoided bread, potatoes and fat and lost a lot of weight and the
> glucose levels came down and ere way more stable.
Too many calories (from any source) and no corresponding expenditure
(burning off calories) will cause weight gain. People can gain weight on
low carb diets.
Boomer
high BG numbers on the basis of these studies. I will go with what I have
seen and what people here report.
Eating a high carb diet (simple or complex) produces high BG numbers. I
suppose you could force it down with insulin or some other drug, but I am
unwilling to try.
Michael
"Ellen K." <firstiniti...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:PPcgo.63159$wJ1....@newsfe08.iad...
Boomer
a day at hard labour, you would probably be able to get away with eating a
fair amount of carbs and still not spike.
Michael
"Ozgirl" <are_we_t...@maccas.com> wrote in message
news:8edkun...@mid.individual.net...
Ozgirl
"Ellen K." <firstiniti...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:Uucgo.63152$wJ1....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> "Ozgirl" <are_we_t...@maccas.com> wrote in message
> news:8ebob2...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> We also don't know just how much the individuals in here (and
>> elsewhere who "can't" tolerate x amount of carbs) actually move. I
>> cited the experience of my ex who did very well on a diet close to
>> the ADA style recommendations of the day because he was doing
>> moderate manual labour.
>
> 1. Why the quote marks around "can't"?
Because I am quoting what people actually say about their ability to
tolerate whatever amount of carbs.
> 2. Not everybody has the option of earning their living at a job
> requiring physical exertion. People who make their living at work
> which is sedentary can incorporate some exercise into their lives, but
> not as much as people whose work requires physical exertion.
That is true but despite what you say it is still an example of how a
type 2 "could" eat the "exchange-style diet" and maintain good bg's. My
basic low carb diet (that I devised for myself to gain and maintain
excellent bg control) was based around a sedentary lifestyle. I could
raise and lower carbs when needed for exercise because I had found the
baseline for me personally. That has nothing to do with what type of job
I have. Its everything to do with me considering variables.
> 3. All that aside, I did not see anything in Randy's posts to the
> effect that "A 40% carbohydrate diet is good for diabetics whose work
> requires physical exertion" or "A 40% carbohydrate diet is good for
> diabetics who exercise at least x hours per day", rather the study
> results are stated as blanket recommendations. If the study results
> are valid for "diabetics" in general, then how much people "actually
> move" is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean anyone should dismiss out of hand any studies such as
he provided. I say there are a lot of variables to consider, lots of
exercise or a high manual labour type job are just two things to
consider. Basically, if one doesn't consider the variables then one
can't logically say the diet is no good for diabetics. So if two people
follow the same diet but one moves a lot more then you are highly likely
to get two different bg reactions to the diet. So that alone validates
my comment.
>> Moving forward a considerable amount of years - during which time he
>> has been very slack diet-wise to say the least... This morning he
>> popped in for breakfast and to take our 16 yr old to school. I made
>> him 1 sausage, some bacon and an egg, coffee with sweetener. Nothing
>> else as he had left his insulin at home, duh! Post meal test - 11.4!
>> He said oh, if I had my insulin here (a mix of all things) I would be
>> shooting x (large number) of insulin right now.
>>
>> So I said ok, on your pony! Take a brisk walk around the block and
>> don't come back for 10 minutes ;) It dropped to 7.2, still too high
>> in my but a very significant drop - and without the insulin. It
>> didn't take all that much movement to show a vast improvement.
>
> That's nice for him. For me, 15 minutes of vigorous exercise drops me
> maybe 10 points (the way we measure in the US, i.e. from 130 to 120),
> a 25-minute walk is good for about 2 points -- far less than the drop
> of about a third after a 10 minute walk that your ex experienced.
Which shows again, how different people are and how blanket statements
are useless. And I still stand by the statement that because we don't
really know how much people in here move, comments about not being able
to eat x amount of carbs have no real meaning. It could mean "I can't
eat a slice of bread with my lunch because I eat at my desk and don't
move for 3 hours after lunch". Or it could mean "I can't eat a slice of
bread for lunch despite taking a brisk walk around the block".
ra...@val.com
> Is there a corresponding study for us "slim" T2s? My BMI never said
> "overweight", not to mention "obese". Still, I have lost 3 kg in the last
> few months -mostly abdominal fat, could stand to lose one more.- Hide quoted text -
Yes there is a very convincing study showing that a high carb/ high
fiber diet is effective in slim diabetic males.
Twenty lean insulin dependent men were put on a High Carb/High Fiber
diet for 16 days These were diabetics that had been on insulin for
over 5 years.
The diet was calorie controlled so there was no weight loss.
After 16 days the average insulin was reduced from 26 units to 11
units.
Nine men receiving 15 - 20 units a day were able to be taken off
insulin completely. One subject on 32 units/day was able to quite
entirely.
You can find the full study here:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/11/2312
High-carbohydrate, high-fiber diets for insulin-treated men with
diabetes mellitus
JW Anderson and K Ward
Regards
Randy
Martin Crossley
> "Alice Faber" wrote,
>
>>> I'm still not familiar with this A1C type of thing. Curious as a
>>> was ok. If that's right then an 11 is 'not good'.
>
>> There are two types of blood glucose measurements that,
>> unfortunately, have very comparable scales. In the US, our spot
>> measurements, either at home or in a lab, use the units mg/dl, and
>> ranges, in actual use, from 50-500 (ish); in many other countries,
>> they use mmol/dl, and the ranges in actual use are from, say 3-15
>> (ish). The conversion factor is is 18.2, so Ozgirl's ex's 11.4 mmol/dl
>> equates to 207 mg/dl, so it's
>> high but not scary-high.
>
> (snip)
>
> Bless you Alice for the most readable translation of it! A1Cx18.2=
> roughly my BG system. I guess I run 4-5 A1C as my norm and try to
> keep it to about 5.
Hmm,
Alice's explanation was readable, but slightly incorrect in that in other
countries,
our meters read in mmol/l (millimoles per litre) (not per decilitre) rather
than mg/dl..
Since the molecular weight of glucose is 180.16 g/mole
(not 182, though the difference is so much less than the typical 10%
tolerance in readings that it's insignificant and I'm just being
pedantic...Sorry!),
you need to multiply a mmol/l figure by 18 (or divide by 0.055) to get
mg/dl.
As Alice said, this is for spot glucose (or blood sugar) readings, that you
would read on your meter.
And you seem to have confused it to some extent with A1c results (typically
obtained by your doctor or nurse sending a sample to the lab. periodically
to check overall (relatively long-term) control), which is traditionally in
percent, but changing to mmol/mol (millimoles per mole) in the UK
(Supposedly a worldwide change, though I'd bet it isn't...), just to keep us
on our toes...
Further details here:
http://www.acb.org.uk/docs/HbA1cPatientsWithDiabetes.pdf
There is some correlation between average spot glucose readings and A1C, but
it's nowhere near as simple as a fixed conversion factor...
Best regards,
Martin.
Ozgirl
of Susan's. Chris Malcolm shot me down about the validity of old studies
so it seems they are acceptable here.
"Boomer" <Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:kehgo.91656$Yn5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
Ozgirl
"Boomer" <Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wghgo.91710$Yn5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
> I suspect there is a lot of truth there. If you are willing to spend 8
> hours a day at hard labour, you would probably be able to get away
> with eating a fair amount of carbs and still not spike.
Willing is a strange word. A lot of people have to take whatever work
they can get, willingly or not. And its not a case of getting away with
eating but rather what one must eat to keep going at that activity
level.
Boomer
My world is a place where every one I know works at a sedentary job. My
assumption was incorrect. I assumed that you would have to be willing to do
a manual labour job. I realize there may be some who have no choice.
Michael
"Ozgirl" <are_we_t...@maccas.com> wrote in message
news:8edpr4...@mid.individual.net...
ra...@val.com
> My experience also runs counter to the implications of the *titles* of these
> studies, but I've found that if one actually reads them, the results do not
> support the titles in many if not most cases.
I disagree with you here Janet. I don't believe, on balance, that the
references were misleading in their implications. I don't know what
study you are refering too but I'd bet that the "lower carb" diet has
less carbs than the "higher carb" diet irregardless of which was
refined. Granted your point is taken, comparing a refined carb diet to
a unrefined carb diet has to be noted and accounted for. But in this
case the study was intentionally making this comparison. They were not
trying to confound the results
In any case the following references include comparision between high
carb and low carb diets at the same level of GI as far as I know.
In reference [1] mild diabetics were fed 45% and 80% carb diets for a
couple of weeks. Fasting BG and insulin fell in the diabetics in the
high carb group. The same effect was seen in reference. Also the
results of Himsworth[3] definitely showed increased IR when carbs are
cut below 15%.
I'm not saying for anyone to change their diet, but:
a. These results seem established
b. They are counter to what's been a widely held belief on ADS.
1.
Improved Glucose Tolerance with High Carbohydrate Feeding in Mild
Diabetes
http://prod.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197103112841004
45% -85% increase
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of increased dietary carbohydrate in diabetes
mellitus, glucose and immunoreactive insulin levels were measured in
normal persons and subjects with mild diabetes maintained on basal (45
per cent carbohydrate) and high carbohydrate (85 per cent
carbohydrate) diets. Fasting plasma glucose levels fell in all
subjects and oral glucose tolerance (0 to 120-minute area)
significantly improved after 10 days of high carbohydrate feeding.
Fasting insulin levels also were lower on the high carbohydrate diet;
however, insulin responses to oral glucose did not significantly
change. These data suggest that the high carbohydrate diet increased
the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin.
2.
The effect of high carbohydrate diet on glucose tolerance in patients
with type 2 diabetes mellitus☆
http://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(02)00053-0/abstract
55-80
Abstract
The effect of high carbohydrate (hc) diet on glucose tolerance and on
lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is
contradicted. Japanese patients with mild type 2 diabetes mellitus
were allocated either 55% standard carbohydrate (sc) or 80% high
carbohydrate diets for 1 week, and OGTT and lipid profiles were
examined. Then the diet was crossed over for another week, and OGTT
and other identical parameters were re-evaluated. High carbohydrate
diet improved the area under the glucose concentration–time curve
(AUG) in 16/24 patients, and significantly increased and decreased 1,5-
anhydroglucitol and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance
(HOMA-R) as a whole, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) hc/sc
ratio was inversely correlated with HOMA-R on a standard carbohydrate
diet. High carbohydrate diet significantly decreased LDL- and HDL-
cholesterol, whereas it significantly increased triglyceride.
Furthermore, hc/sc ratios of the lipid parameters were inversely
correlated with the respective parameters on standard carbohydrate
diet. The present study indicates that high carbohydrate diet improved
glucose tolerance depending on patients and the improvement in FPG was
predicted by HOMA-R on a standard carbohydrate diet. The effect of
high carbohydrate diet on glucose tolerance and lipid profiles should
be investigated through a long-term study in the future.
3.
Himsworth HP: High Carbohydrate Diets and Insulin Efficiency
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2444943/
Himsworth HP: The dietetic factor determining the glucose
tolerance and sensitivity to insulin of healthy men. Clin Sci
1935-36;2:67-94
ra...@val.com
> Randy, what you describe is what I've hoped I would eventually arrive at: a
> bit more flexibility in diet as a result of achieving BMI under 25 combined
> with exercise. So I certainly hope you are correct! <G>
>
> Could you give an idea of what this might look like in terms of actual food
> consumed:
Keep in mind Janet that my case is/was very mild. Three year ago I
discovered my fastin bg were in the range of 115. The largest post
prandial move I ever saw 160 and that was rare.
Now fasting is mid 90s (sometime lower) to 105. Post prandials rarely
over 120 -125.
This would be a higher carb food day for me (not always this much):
1. 62 grams of raw oat bran (microwaved) + teaspoon of good fat. Maybe
some high protein no fat greek yogurt.
2. Big, big salid (spinach, onions, lots of tomatoes, cranberries,
almonds walnuts cabbage/broccolli). Table spoon of olive oil +
balsamic. Small amount of cheese.
3. One Chicken thigh or breast. Or beans, rice/barley high fiber
tortillias. Maybe some popcorn. Berries
4. Some dark choclate, more almonds and raisons.
My main ideal is to consistenly eat less, skip more meals, don't
snack. I exercise a fair amount. Also I "believe" that exercising with
long lapses of food can "stress" the body in a good way. "That that
does not kill me, makes me stronger" - See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15834665
Regards
Randy
Ozgirl
"Boomer" <Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8Bigo.91975$Yn5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
> Sorry,
>
> My world is a place where every one I know works at a sedentary job.
> My assumption was incorrect. I assumed that you would have to be
> willing to do a manual labour job. I realize there may be some who
> have no choice.
>
> Michael
I wasn't having a shot at you, we all have different life experiences ;)
I grew up in a blue collar family in a blue collar neighbourhood :)
Janet
I'm sorry, Kurt, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but I really
don't know who you mean in this instance. I can't recall anyone railing
against exercise, and I would not describe most of them as "haters."
Janet
That sounds like a "low carb" diet to me, Randy, once you subtract the
dietary fiber. The only exception would probably be the raisins and
cranberries, and that would depend on how much of each you consumed.
ra...@val.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
If so it's not like any low carb diet I've seen here.
After you take out the fiber it's between 45% -50% according to CRON-O-
METER.
Regards
Randy
Chris Malcolm
> What I claim is the following:
> 1. There is good solid data that shows higher carb diets can not only
> be tolereated by diabetics but can even beneficial. And by beneficial,
> amoung other things means betters BGs, decreased meds (or no meds at
> all) and overall health.
Fair enough, but given what you know of the posters to asd, do you
think there are any here who would benefit by eating more carbs than
they currently do?
From the replies your posts get there do seem to quite a number,
myself included, whose personal experience suggests they'd benefit
from lowering their carb intake further, and would suffer more if they
raised their carb intake. I haven't seen anyone yet reporting that
they've increased their carb intake and benefited from it.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Kurt often tells me (and anyone else still listening) that I'm a
hater. Yet I'm pretty sure I take a *lot* more exercise than most
here.
For example, I do enough legwork that I can do a one-legged stand
up. That's standing balanced on one leg, raising the other leg out in
front horizontally, and by bending the eight bearing knee slowly
getting right down to a completely folded leg with calf resting
against thigh, all the while remaining balanced on that one foot, no
hands or other foot touching anything. Then without using hands or
anything else but that one leg, and without any "bouncing" or a sudden
heave, slowly stand up again. Serious test of leg strength.
Anyone else here able to do a one legged stand up? If you can't, then
you certainly don't use your legs as much as I do. Yet according to
Kurt I'm one of the big "haters" and "vocal loudmouths" round
here. Who according to Kurt "don't exercise much".
Can you do a one legged stand up, Kurt?
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> "Boomer" <Boo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:kehgo.91656$Yn5....@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
>> He posted some even older studies to 1927. I am not willing to gamble
>> with high BG numbers on the basis of these studies. I will go with
>> what I have seen and what people here report.
>>
>> Eating a high carb diet (simple or complex) produces high BG numbers.
>> I suppose you could force it down with insulin or some other drug, but
>> I am unwilling to try.
> I recently commented on the same sort of thing after a few old studies
> of Susan's. Chris Malcolm shot me down about the validity of old studies
> so it seems they are acceptable here.
"Shot you down"? I thought all I did was to point out that in science
being old doesn't mean a study is wrong.
What matters is whether later work has shown a study to be wrong. The
older a study is the more likely it is to be found wrong. But there's
no inevitablility about that. Galileo's original medieval experiments
with weights rolling and sliding down inclined planes are still valid
today. What's more, thanks to a recent (a decade ago?) ruling by the
Roman Catholic Church, Catholics are now able to read about those
experiments without endangering their immortal souls :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Bjørn Steensrud
OK, but I am not taking insulin.
My medication for now is 3 mg glimepiride daily. Just had blood samples
taken and will see my doc next week to get the results.