Scardoc said:
I don't agree that this proves James was carb intolerant. Removing carbs was the means to improve his weight and, in turn, quality of life. But who's to say that an exercise regime wouldn't have achieved the same results? Or a reduction in carbs coupled with more activities?
It is very well documented that ingesting carbohydrates puts up blood sugars in diabetics. There must be hundreds of statements on this forum along the lines of, "I ate a jam doughnut and my sugars went through the roof", "porridge always spikes me" etc. Therefore, it would seem logical to me, if you don't eat jam doughnuts, porridge etc, sugar levels will not go high, therefore HbA1c will not be high and the debilitating effects of diabetes, from just feeling down and exhausted to blindness, will not occur. It's ingesting excess (for them) carbs, which makes T2's ill. It's sugars, which the damaged, diabetic body cannot tolerate, not spending too long on the sofa.
In James' case, the first thing he did on diagnosis was give up most carbs. Within two weeks all blood sugar tests were within the normal range and he immediately felt better. It took longer than that for any weight loss to show and he didn't get into serious exercise for about 3 months. Now he has lost weight and does more exercise, he is probably more carb tolerant than he was a year ago.
But, I think, what we are arguing about her is words and definitions and that the important thing is sending out a clear message. A very clear message is,
a T2 cannot tolerate much/some/any sugars.
The body cannot process them and the person will become ill if they have more than they can cope with. The situation can be improved (some say to the point of cure) through weight loss and exercise, but this is irrelevant to the basic, clear message, which can be given out, without misunderstanding, to T2's and those who feed them.
Sally