I think the most confusing aspect of all this is how contradictory it all seems to be on the web. Some sources say carbs are fine and everything in moderation. Some say don't eat these fruits as they are high in sugar yet others say eat more of these.
At times I don't know what to think and what's a myth and what's true etc.
Some carbs are fine. A recent study showed that 80% of participants in a continuous glucose monitor test had diabetic numbers eating Corn Flakes - this was really no surprise to me, just look at the back of all cereals they are all around 60 -70 grams of carbs per 100, so mainly sugar. 200 hundred years ago Americans consumed 2 pounds of sugar a year, now this is 152 pounds a year i.e. 6 cups of sugar a week; this is consumed in the form of high gi carbs and sugary drinks - it is the major biggest macro change of the lot, alongside fake fats. Whether you believe sugar / carbs cause diabetes is another discussion (I do, others don't), what we do know is that removing hi GI carbs / sugars from the diet of a diabetic makes a dramatic effect. Many on this site, I would say the majority who reverse or get remission in their diabetes do so via eating what would be classed as a regular meal and replacing the rice, pasta, chips, potatoes etc - this is fact, call it anecdotal or whatever it is the case (again 80 / 20 rule applies).
Vegans, vegetarians and WFPB advocates can achieve similar results and have proven this. I think by "cleaning" up the diet and removing processed carbs and sugar it is possible, but I would like to see proof that this can be done with rice, potatoes, pasta, bananas etc in the portion and calorie sizes I eat, of course if you are eating say 1200 calories you may get results, but for me I do over 3000 calories a day. Those who are advocating high carb also say saturated fat is bad due to it raising LDL, yet when put to the test the evidence Ancel Keys and his followers extol melts away. The ones who attack LCHF / Keto / Paleo are now admitting you can get "short" term results on these protocols (excellent tactic, embrace a little and stick the knife in with fear), but they say there is a sting in the tail long term, ignoring populations who have eaten low carb higher fat for centuries with great health and the fact that in modern times diabetics get their bloods drawn more than the average person so those of us doing this protocol can see the actual multi-faceted scientific results at intervals, as well if we wish, daily on our monitors. So I have been "reversed" since December 2015, have a clear head blood sugars well over 98% of the time under 5.6 mmol (after eating) and should abandon what is working.
Be careful about the "proof" out there, a lot is self referencing from areas you would not believe, if you see a study that says for example Beef raises your risk of a stroke by say 15% try to find the original data and you will always be shocked by the real results - seriously. The more you research the murkier it gets, what would you call destroying data, leaving out data that does not suit, pay offs or just publishing data that doesn't suit in journals you know will not be read (several years late, as you didn't like the results). Some things that you think are stone in the wall facts are a shambles. A root one insight is "The Big Fat Surprise" - I downloaded the audio book, and have listened to it 3 times so far, on a scale of 1 to 10 my anger pointer is a 10 - the "facts" in this book took 9 years to compile and has been critically assessed by third parties having no axe to grind in any of the camps, if you read or listen to this everything falls into place, the author has interviews even from those who perpetuated scenarios that have in my view led us to the crisis we are now in. Although this looks at Fat mainly, it also points to how we have got into the mess with carbs.