reversal or remission? 800 calories a day

[Pinkorchid]

Reversal to me would mean being cured and able to eat anything again If we still have to go low carb to keep BG levels down then that is remission not reversal

 

[ringi]

Reversal to me would mean being cured and able to eat anything again If we still have to go low carb to keep BG levels down then that is remission not reversal

But what is "low carb", is it eating under 150g a day like most people did I the 1950? Being able to eat/drink an unlimited amount of anything all the time is not going to happen, as the body fat increase will bring back the diabetes.

 

[Member496333]

But what is "low carb", is it eating under 150g a day like most people did I the 1950? Being able to eat/drink an unlimited amount of anything all the time is not going to happen, as the body fat increase will bring back the diabetes.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Being “able to eat anything again” is what is giving half the planet metabolic syndrome. In my view, and it is only my view, if a clinical diagnosis of diabetes cannot be made (no hyperglycaemia or hyperinsulinemia), then you do not have diabetes. The diet that the subject chooses to consume is irrelevant. Life isn’t a competition to see who can ingest the most glucose

 

[Pinkorchid]

But what is "low carb", is it eating under 150g a day like most people did I the 1950? Being able to eat/drink an unlimited amount of anything all the time is not going to happen, as the body fat increase will bring back the diabetes.

I was a teenager in the 50's and married in 1958 and I would say most people probably ate more than 150g of carbs a day Food was still on ration for a few years after the war ended so we still filled up on bread and potatoes which were served with most meals. Food was seasonal so we had to have whatever was in season here nothing came from abroad then and in the winter that was root vegetables onions and cabbage of various sorts we had a lot of stews with plenty of root veg and just a little meat. Most people took a packed lunch usually sandwiches to work every day...my husband did for over 50 years... and people ate a lot of sugar stuff like puddings,biscuits and cakes so probably did eat more than 150g of food a day

 

[Spl@]

I was a teenager in the 50's and married in 1958 and I would say most people probably ate more than 150g of carbs a day Food was still on ration for a few years after the war ended so we still filled up on bread and potatoes which were served with most meals. Food was seasonal so we had to have whatever was in season here nothing came from abroad then and in the winter that was root vegetables onions and cabbage of various sorts we had a lot of stews with plenty of root veg and just a little meat. Most people took a packed lunch usually sandwiches to work every day...my husband did for over 50 years... and people ate a lot of sugar stuff like puddings,biscuits and cakes so probably did eat more than 150g of food a day

But it was 3 meals a day. No choccie bars or burgers. Except for a rare treat. Even a chip supper came as a replacement for a meal

Folk these days eay all day. Add the 'go large' policy! Quite apt.

That is what is causing it. Not the food.

 

[Bluetit1802]

But it was 3 meals a day. No choccie bars or burgers. Except for a rare treat. Even a chip supper came as a replacement for a meal

Folk these days eay all day. Add the 'go large' policy! Quite apt.

That is what is causing it. Not the food.

I was also brought up in the 50's. It was basically 3 square meals a day plus a bedtime supper. The bedtime supper was normally digestive biscuits with a drink, although in my house we sometimes had Golden Syrup butties. We did have plenty of sweets, small chocolate bars and bubble gum (from machines outside the sweet shop). There was no grazing as we know it today. All meals were family affairs, sitting round a nicely laid table. No TV suppers in those days, no diving into the fridge at any old time of day (there were very few folk with fridges, and no freezers). This is probably why I don't snack between meals, and because since I married we have always eaten later in the evenings (7pm rather than 5pm) I don't have bedtime supper and don't feel the need to munch.

One thing I do remember once I started Grammar school was we had a morning break when we were given a third of a pint of milk (usually warm!) and could purchase iced buns from the trolley. This was in the early 60's.

To me what has changed most is the size of the meals. They are huge compared with what we ate before. You only have to look at the servings in pub restaurants. I don't know where people put it all!

 

[Member496333]

To me what has changed most is the size of the meals. They are huge compared with what we ate before. You only have to look at the servings in pub restaurants. I don't know where people put it all!

I think many people these days have been in the carbohydrate/insulin yo-yo cycle for so long that they’re leptin resistant. Fructose in particular is know to be a leptin inhibitor, even. Whereas you or I may feel saitiated on a small amount of energy dense food, the majority tend to eat until their stomach is full and still find room for a desert. In essence, natural appetite seems a bit of a rarity now. And I snipped it from the quote but yes, grazing is deleterious to metabolic health.

So yeah, if all that is normal then personally I prefer weird

 

[Listlad]

I was a teenager in the 50's and married in 1958 and I would say most people probably ate more than 150g of carbs a day Food was still on ration for a few years after the war ended so we still filled up on bread and potatoes which were served with most meals. Food was seasonal so we had to have whatever was in season here nothing came from abroad then and in the winter that was root vegetables onions and cabbage of various sorts we had a lot of stews with plenty of root veg and just a little meat. Most people took a packed lunch usually sandwiches to work every day...my husband did for over 50 years... and people ate a lot of sugar stuff like puddings,biscuits and cakes so probably did eat more than 150g of food a day

I agree. I recall that diet going into the 60s. But I think people in general have supplemented that diet or replaced it with other forms of carbs - plus added sugar in copious quantities.

 

[Listlad]

But it was 3 meals a day. No choccie bars or burgers. Except for a rare treat. Even a chip supper came as a replacement for a meal

Folk these days eay all day. Add the 'go large' policy! Quite apt.

That is what is causing it. Not the food.

Exactly. Coupled with a more sedentary lifestyle for many of us, in the modern day and less in the way of home cooking from scratch.

 

[AloeSvea]

Just to add, there have been huge recent almost unfathomable changes in what we ingest, and 'from scratch', as in our lives! I don't think in the history of humanity feeding babies high sugary fructose drinks instead of human milk was the norm, but that is what I was fed for instance, from babyhood. And I am not alone, I take it. Yes, and here I am today with insulin resistance to die for.

Feeding babies cow's milk instead of human milk too, and soy, and... well the list goes on. This idea we have that we can genuinely improve on Nature (whatever that means to you) and not stuff it all up, by sticking on a lab coat, and calling it 'a formula', for instance, and then, for good business - convince as many in the world that it is an improvement and that your babies will be better off for it.

 

[askdr]

hi, I think it is more of a remission. Looking at it in another way, If your readings are all OK, then you are a non-diabetic. Actually, the data available is very less to coin a new word or term for this.. till then, remission/reversal, both are correct