• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Why Eat Carbs As A Type 2 Diabetic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mbaker said:
These threads are always interesting. What I am saying I pre-fix with the 80 / 20 rule as there are always outlayers, such as those that get Type 2 due to steroids etc.

It is as if history counts for little. In the 70's the obesity rate in the UK was around 2% only, do we believe it was butter, lard, meat and fish which changed this stat (in other country's as well). I am 50 and only 1 or 2 kids were fat at my school, and grand parents tended to be the ones carrying extra weight only, now look around you. In the last 30 to 40 years Type 2 diabetes has almost quadrupled. The macros are carbs, protein and fats, I would say all on this thread know about the bliss point. How much bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, milk chocolate, sweets or cakes have a favourable sugar content? In societies that have been studied how much of this stuff was ever there, honey perhaps and seasonal fruit? I could go on and on with fact after fact. For me this is more about the deliciousness of modern carbs.

We know that diabetes used to be called sugar diabetes. Maybe it is because I am technical so look at things in black and white - sometimes there can be nuances, but surely we cannot be debating the role of carbs (sugar) in diabetes (and obesity).

On the truth about carbs they showed a baked potato which equated to 19 sugar cubes, how can this be squared with giving this to a child who is meant to have single digit amounts. Now we are telling people to double cook this ....., the same with pasta made of super concentrated flour with one of the highest GI's - everyone has the choice which is great.
Click to expand...
I was one of those 1 or 2 kids and had weight issues from a v early age that only went in my early 20s when food intolerances were diagnosed and treated leading to a weight loss of 6.5 stone in 6 months ( carb and cal restriction was not included and both were higher when I lost the weight than when I was dieting)
This was all 15+ years prior to my diagnosis with diabetes and now at 61 I remain 10 stone lighter than at my heaviest. Not sure that remotely fits your analysis
 
Last edited:
JohnEGreen said:
Some one should of told Francis Crick that. A fact is only a fact till it's proved not to be. And I'm not sure that that is factual either in an absolute sense.

Just for fun here are ten erstwhile facts proved wrong.

Cold Fusion
The Static Universe
Phrenology
The Blank Slate
Ether
Martian Canals
The Theory Of Phlogiston
Earth Expanding
Spontaneous Life
Discovery of Planet Vulcan
Click to expand...
Oh this is fun!
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/10-false-facts2.htm
http://uk.businessinsider.com/scien...cholocation-to-navigate-all-of-them-can-see-2
Not to mention
“facts” that race and gender determine intellectual ability
“ facts” about male superioity
Hitlers “facts” about race and eugenics
 
rab5 said:
No zero carbs means Zero.
Click to expand...

From my reading of these forums there are many who would disagree.

N.B. Not me by the way, I always have a grin when I read the stuff people eat who think they are eating no carbs :banghead:....................or even those who claim they are only eating 20g or some other random number, when they conveniently "forget" how to count
 
There's 'facts' in the ideal sense of the word, and then there's scientific facts.

All science can do for us is help us to understand the world as best we can at any given point in time. If we at any stage think "right, now we know" then we haven't learned the lessons from scientific history.

Newton's laws were very useful, and still are, but it took Einstein to come along to suggest that they aren't quite right. Which was quite handy when, later, we started launching things into space.

At what point should we shut our minds down and say that we know why something occurs and there's no need for further enquiry? Hopefully long, long after we start to think "hmmm, maybe diabetes can be induced by eating carbohydrates". That seems like just one of the first baby-steps in understanding to me, and is likely to be just one interesting piece in a jigsaw. To leave it at that would require a complete absence of curiosity.
 
Mbaker said:
These threads are always interesting. What I am saying I pre-fix with the 80 / 20 rule as there are always outlayers, such as those that get Type 2 due to steroids etc.

It is as if history counts for little. In the 70's the obesity rate in the UK was around 2% only, do we believe it was butter, lard, meat and fish which changed this stat (in other country's as well). I am 50 and only 1 or 2 kids were fat at my school, and grand parents tended to be the ones carrying extra weight only, now look around you. In the last 30 to 40 years Type 2 diabetes has almost quadrupled. The macros are carbs, protein and fats, I would say all on this thread know about the bliss point. How much bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, milk chocolate, sweets or cakes have a favourable sugar content? In societies that have been studied how much of this stuff was ever there, honey perhaps and seasonal fruit? I could go on and on with fact after fact. For me this is more about the deliciousness of modern carbs.

We know that diabetes used to be called sugar diabetes. Maybe it is because I am technical so look at things in black and white - sometimes there can be nuances, but surely we cannot be debating the role of carbs (sugar) in diabetes (and obesity).

On the truth about carbs they showed a baked potato which equated to 19 sugar cubes, how can this be squared with giving this to a child who is meant to have single digit amounts. Now we are telling people to double cook this ....., the same with pasta made of super concentrated flour with one of the highest GI's - everyone has the choice which is great.
Click to expand...
we are debating cause, not triggers.

My stance is that there are many latent diabetics (type 2) who may not have ever had their diabetic predisposition triggered if the modern high carb diet hadnt come along. But that the carbs are a trigger of pre-existing underlying problem.

eta: and we do not, as yet, know what causes the underlying problem of faulty insulin regulation.
 
rab5 said:
Potatoes are one of the worst foods we can eat. They are full of starch.
Click to expand...
For me, potatoes are ok to eat. They do not put up my BG and they make me feel good because I enjoy them. I was in a pub on Saturday night, and I had a modified menu item. The menu said steak burger with bacon and cheese, salad and chips - I had the burger (no bun) and a small portion of new boiled potatoes instead of chips. I thoroughly enjoyed it, didn't feel awkward when asking for it, and was able to join in with a group of 14 others in having a good night out. Why not eat carbs or potatoes?
 
lucylocket61 said:
we are debating cause, not triggers.

My stance is that there are many latent diabetics (type 2) who may not have ever had their diabetic predisposition triggered if the modern high carb diet hadnt come along. But that the carbs are a trigger of pre-existing underlying problem.

eta: and we do not, as yet, know what causes the underlying problem of faulty insulin regulation.
Click to expand...
I do think carbs (direct sugars and vegetable oils) are the cause, remove the carbs and applying the 80 / 20 rule the majority of this wretched scenario goes - proven by those who reverse. If I were to line up all the hi GI carbs, natural and man made the nutritional value is minimal, the taste value however hits the same spot in the brain as cocaine.
 
Boo1979 said:
I was one of those 1 or 2 kids and had weight issues from a v early age that only went in my early 20s when food intolerances were diagnosed and treated leading to a weight loss of 6.5 stone in 6 months ( carb and cal restriction was not included and both were higher when I lost the weight than when I was dieting)
This was all 15+ years prior to my diagnosis with diabetes and now at 61 I remain 10 stone lighter than at my heaviest. Not sure that remotely fits your analysis
Click to expand...
Yes it does, I have been very clear that the 80 / 20 rule applies and cited those for example that contract Type 2 due to steroids like one of my friends; if you take your example as in the "20" I will take a lot of convincing that the other 80% are not western diet related, as this correlates with all of the major stats / graphs and available foods people are eating i.e. breakfast carbs (usually over daily limit in that siting), lunch something with bread or other carbs usually, dinner another carb fest, and don't forget the snacks - usually carbs.
 
Mbaker said:
I do think carbs (direct sugars and vegetable oils) are the cause, remove the carbs and applying the 80 / 20 rule the majority of this wretched scenario goes - proven by those who reverse. If I were to line up all the hi GI carbs, natural and man made the nutritional value is minimal, the taste value however hits the same spot in the brain as cocaine.
Click to expand...

we will have to disagree, pending further research. The majority of people can eat carbs with impunity and not become type 2 diabetics.

I consider that your position is similar to blaming milk for lactose intolerance, or nuts for a nut allergy.

I look forward to more research being done on this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top