• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

How many carbs should I be eating??

Eddmar said:
Absolutely agree, you can’t really base any solid facts on our predecessors from hundreds of years ago as their lifespan was a fraction of ours in a lot of cases. The diet we have today (if you live a fairly healthy lifestyle) is much more balanced and varied and we are very lucky to have these choices. I just get concerned that as a diabetic I seem to be having to cut an awful lot of varieties of food out that I’m used to (healthy ones included) and that does worry me
Click to expand...

@Eddmar these two studies might be helpful to you as you find your way with the right balance for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6695889/
https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/bmjnph/3/2/285.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
 
KennyA said:
One of the issues with Type 2 and LCHF is that LCHF is thought to be something new - it's not. It's the way T2 diabetics managed their condition in the past. What's new is the current official insistence that a traditional diet is somehow bad for you, although I suspect that too is changing. A lot of what you say is "proven" is only what the media say. Worth thinking about how much you normally trust what the media claim. Why don't you have a look at (eg) Dr Verner Wheelock's book "Healthy Eating - the Big Mistake"? It covers many things - including the Ancel Keyes scandal - and if you haven't heard of that you should. You do know you make your own cholesterol, don't you? And that cholesterol is essential?

I do stick to this as my aim of ~20g carbs/day, but it's not "religiously" - I am not forced to do it and there is nothing other than my health riding on it. It's been a while since I've been able to have a pint down the pub but that is one of the things I do - alcohol lowers my blood sugar quite markedly. Doesn't happen for everyone. I do have meals with carbs in, very occasionally - maybe 4 or 5 times a year, and I notice the BG rise afterwards (unless alcohol) . Birthday cakes etc are right out for me - I experimented with an xmas pudding in 2019 and the sugar was just too much - I felt ill for about 36hrs. that's my experience, which will differ to other people's.

I used to eat the diet you describe - high carb, meat restriction, lots of fruit, all that. Plenty of exercise. I had increasingly severe and unpleasant diabetic symptoms from about 2010 on, with rising BG levels. In the fifteen months since diagnosis, my BG has returned to normal levels (took 3-4 months) and my symptoms have either gone or decreased considerably. Some I'm probably stuck with thanks to the damage done already. I should be officially "in remission" this month. I can't explain that other than as a direct result of commencing and staying on a low carb lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Well done you sound like you’ve had massive success and that’s great. I guess I’m just a bit mind blown by what I can’t have after nearly 50 years on this planet! I’m quite fussy too which rules out a whole load more things which most other people would eat I guess. Can you answer one other question please. If I had oats for breakfast which obviously contain carbs do I count the number of carbs on packaging or does the fact that they are high in fibre mean some of the carbs get ‘cancelled’ out?? Some of the info I’ve read on websites are so contradictory. If you google good breakfasts for type 2 then invariably oats and toast with nut butter comes up (which was what I thought I need to avoid). So confusing. I’ve orders test strips so can test after each meal (or is that too excessive??).
 
Eddmar said:
I count the number of carbs on packaging or does the fact that they are high in fibre mean some of the carbs get ‘cancelled’ out
Click to expand...

In the UK you count the total carbs as fibre is already excluded from that figure.
In the USA fibre is included in the carb count so many subtract it.

However you work it out oats are a no-no for most of us,
 
bulkbiker said:
But that is mainly down to high infant mortality and infections killing many.

Those who lived longer probably lived healthier because they ate a species appropriate diet as all other healthy animals do.

Just because we now how more varieties of food doesn't make them healthier.

Our European based ancestors would not have eaten fruit year round for example as it was a seasonal crop designed to fatten us up for the winter.
Click to expand...
True on the fruit, we are spoilt for choice these days and that’s a good example of that but like I said it’s down to our individual choices to stay healthy - just cos it’s there it doesn’t have to mean we have to eat it. I’m just a bit overwhelmed with it all to be honest and feel I’ve wasted 3 years changing for the better but it was all the wrong advice anyway so I’m starting from scratch. I’ll get there though I’m sure
 
bulkbiker said:
In the UK you count the total carbs as fibre is already excluded from that figure.
In the USA fibre is included in the carb count so many subtract it.

However you work it out oats are a no-no for most of us,
Click to expand...
Ahh that makes sense now.. thank you! I’ve obviously been looking on US websites and they were saying to subtract it. Thank you this has saved lots more confusion!
 
Eddmar said:
and feel I’ve wasted 3 years changing for the better but it was all the wrong advice anyway so I’m starting from scratch.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that many of us have been there and feel your frustration.

I was a gym member for about 25 years and got fatter all the time. Going to the gym equated with putting in effort so "justified" a reward. That the reward was exactly what I shouldn't have been eating was unfortunately unknown to me at the time.

Once you realise that
1. you can't outrun a bad diet
2. the low cal low fat advice is severely flawed and based on not a lot
3. you need to harness the support of your hunger and satiety hormones rather than fight against them.
4. it's almost all about what we eat.

Life becomes a lot easier and for many weight loss just "happens" and can be maintained.
T2 goes into remission and we get well again.
It really can be that simple but we have to be informed.
Few HCP's seem to be aware of these simple truths.
 
Hi again. There continues to be a lot of good advice on these posts. When you Google T2 diet or read diabetes cook books you will find many (most?) can be traced back either to bad advice from PHE or other similar sources mainly based on food industry funded research and they love profitable carbs. This overwhelming advice can make you feel it must be right when it isn't. Have a read if you have time of the two books by Malcolm Kendrick, a UK GP, about cholesterol and the health industry. Blood cholesterol comes from what the liver decides based to some extent on your genes and doesn't come directly from the fat you eat. So, have as much protein and fat as you want. Don't worry about weight loss whilst low-carbing as long as you have enough fat and protein as the body is normally quite good at balancing weight when it has a range of foods provided. You can always increase the carbs a bit if the weight goes too far down but watch the BS of course. BTW ignore calories and base your target weight on what you feel comfortable with and within a sensible BMI range
 
Brunneria said:
please can you provide references as evidence for that statement, so that members can examine your source and make up their own minds.
Click to expand...

I am not assuming a definite position, here. I don't really have horse in this race, either (I don't assume the normal vegan position that any amount of meat is unhealthy). So if the claims I've linked to can be easily debunked then I'm just as interested in finding out. Furthermore, even as a fellow vegan, I find a lot about PlantPositive (the videos I've linked to) to be annoying. I think he can often come off as condescending (Not helped by his tone of voice) and i also believe he gets certain things wrong. Moreover, he seems to fall, in certain cases, for the same failings as much of the plant-based community's anti-meat proponents fall for.

That said, I don't believe him to be dishonest. And he does back up all his claims with references (Within the videos), so at least they can be checked. But I find his work most important, not in the demonising of animal products, but in the defence against the demonisation of carbs, within the wider lower-carb community. If anyone is interested, the links to all his videos (split into four themed series-) are down the right-hand side of the screen:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12535749/ (I'll try to find the full paper, later)

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/25/tpns-29-30-the-masai-model.html

On the incidence of stroke: http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/25/tpns-27-28-the-eskimo-model.html
 
Resurgam said:
Actually - the reverse is true - such issues were not seen until 'trading posts' were established and loads of high carb foods were introduced into the diet.
Click to expand...

Actually, in many long-lived native populations carbs have traditionally been high. The diet of the Okinawans was based predominantly on sweet-potatoes and to a lesser extent, rice. These people did still eat meat and fish (I'm not making the claim these were vegan communities), but that it was a lesser part of their diet. Much like the Chinese and Japanese, the bulk of whose diet was from rice, animal products were used (proportionally so) much like a condiment.

And as with native societies all over the world, when carbs became more refined and were mixed with seed oils (Coca-Cola, potato chips, chicken nuggets and pizza) is when their health took a turn for the worse. Ironically, in most cases, carb consumption is reduced in these situations.

Metabolic dysfunction seems more often than not to appear when diets are both carb and fat-heavy, and those who chose to greatly reduce either seem to improve their health outcomes, immeasurably.
 
bulkbiker said:
Hasn't that one been debunked.. as the Okinawans were famous for their pork consumption.
Click to expand...

They ate/eat pork. They also ate/eat a ton of carbs. That's as far as my knowledge goes. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.
 
Eddmar said:
Well done you sound like you’ve had massive success and that’s great. I guess I’m just a bit mind blown by what I can’t have after nearly 50 years on this planet! I’m quite fussy too which rules out a whole load more things which most other people would eat I guess. Can you answer one other question please. If I had oats for breakfast which obviously contain carbs do I count the number of carbs on packaging or does the fact that they are high in fibre mean some of the carbs get ‘cancelled’ out?? Some of the info I’ve read on websites are so contradictory. If you google good breakfasts for type 2 then invariably oats and toast with nut butter comes up (which was what I thought I need to avoid). So confusing. I’ve orders test strips so can test after each meal (or is that too excessive??).
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't get to cancel carbs like that. Carbs in is carbs in. Some US manufacturing approaches do have a "net carb" count but this isn't the case for UK products. Basically the US figures add a number for fibre content and then you have to subtract it, winding up in roughly the same place as far as carbs are concerned. The problem with googling is that so many of the results tend to be associated with having something to sell, and that (to my mind) is never a good sign. Oats and toast (for example) would see my BG spike to unacceptable levels, and I have verified this from testing. Butter wouldn't affect BG at all. Don't know about nut butter, real butter is fine. I generally don't have breakfast - maybe once a week, if that - because I'm not usually hungry. When I do it's eggs and bacon or 99% meat sausage.

On testing - the usually recommended regime is to test immediately before eating and then 2 hrs later. You can add in tests at 30 mins, 1 hr etc as well - sometimes you can get both rapid rises and falls and also your levels staying high for a few days after particular things. I would strongly advise recording the readings you get and also exactly what you ate. I use a notebook, but I understand there are apps. Memory is difficult. Once you know reliably what certain foods do to your BG you don't really need to test as often - I am mainly monitoring now rather than "finding out". After a year or so of testing I'm fairly confident I know what most foods do - I would still test before and after for something new etc.

Far as I'm concerned you can reduce your BG, but there is a price to be paid and the price is not eating carbohydrates like you used to. I do miss them, but I don't miss the pretty awful symptoms I was getting from high levels of sugar in my body.
 
Hi @Eddmar ,

Before this topic turns into a debate on anthropology. ;)

You gotta do what works for you.
I feel @KennyA has hit the nail on the head. Testing, testing, testing.. Find your tolerance & manage your BG & wellbeing.

As a regular (self funding) CGM set up user myself.
You may find the trends from using something like a Freestyle Libre system a bit of an eye opener too? :)
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
I am not assuming a definite position, here. I don't really have horse in this race, either (I don't assume the normal vegan position that any amount of meat is unhealthy). So if the claims I've linked to can be easily debunked then I'm just as interested in finding out. Furthermore, even as a fellow vegan, I find a lot about PlantPositive (the videos I've linked to) to be annoying. I think he can often come off as condescending (Not helped by his tone of voice) and i also believe he gets certain things wrong. Moreover, he seems to fall, in certain cases, for the same failings as much of the plant-based community's anti-meat proponents fall for.

That said, I don't believe him to be dishonest. And he does back up all his claims with references (Within the videos), so at least they can be checked. But I find his work most important, not in the demonising of animal products, but in the defence against the demonisation of carbs, within the wider lower-carb community. If anyone is interested, the links to all his videos (split into four themed series-) are down the right-hand side of the screen:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12535749/ (I'll try to find the full paper, later)

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/25/tpns-29-30-the-masai-model.html

On the incidence of stroke: http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/25/tpns-27-28-the-eskimo-model.html
Click to expand...

thank you, but I don’t think those references say what you think they do.

your original statement was:

Beating-My-Betes said:
And while cancer might not be a biggie amongst these native high-meat populations, stroke and cardiovascular issues do seem to be.
Click to expand...

using the 3 references you gave above to support high stroke and cardiovascular events is inappropriate.

Your first two references emphasise the lack of conclusive evidence and records (hardly a surprise when discussing societies without modern record keeping and computer stats).

Then your third reference uses two individual mummified remains as its evidence. Far too small a study size to draw any conclusion about the rest of the culture and population, living across a large area.

clearly some disease was present in the population, but that doesn’t allow a conclusion that the stated diseases were ‘a biggie’.

We would need actual evidence to claim that.
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
Actually, in many long-lived native populations carbs have traditionally been high. The diet of the Okinawans was based predominantly on sweet-potatoes and to a lesser extent, rice. These people did still eat meat and fish (I'm not making the claim these were vegan communities), but that it was a lesser part of their diet. Much like the Chinese and Japanese, the bulk of whose diet was from rice, animal products were used (proportionally so) much like a condiment.

And as with native societies all over the world, when carbs became more refined and were mixed with seed oils (Coca-Cola, potato chips, chicken nuggets and pizza) is when their health took a turn for the worse. Ironically, in most cases, carb consumption is reduced in these situations.

Metabolic dysfunction seems more often than not to appear when diets are both carb and fat-heavy, and those who chose to greatly reduce either seem to improve their health outcomes, immeasurably.
Click to expand...
Actually - that is not how things were interpreted 50 years ago when I was a student. Modern beliefs seem able to reset opinions in the face of facts.
 
Back
Top