LCHF diet to help you lose weight, not diabetes

[Ian DP]

In my opinion, THE most important advice to be given to any newcomer with high blood sugars is to get a meter and then eat to your Meter.

I am now on a LcHf diet (probably better defined as very low carb very high fat). I have not got to the LcHf intentionally, or because many forum members have told me to, I am LcHf because I eat to my Meter.

My meter tells me to low carb, the less carbs I eat, the lower my blood sugar level. This is how I started. Just low carb, no increase in fat. I Soon realised I was loosing too much weight. Never been a lover of fat, never really liked cream or fatty meats, so I started eating more, much more, meat. My weight increase, I achieved my goal of putting back on a stone, but my BS levels were higher..... I was eating too much protein!. Reduced my protein, but started loosing weight again. To stabilise my weight (and bs levels) I find I have to eat more fat. I now find I love cream and fatty meats, and these have no effect at all on my bs levels, I simply need them to maintain my weight.

From my experience. If you want to loose weight, do not go high fat. As said, from experience, high protein and fat (lots of meat, cream, fatty meats etc) will make you put on weight. But once you have reached your ideal weight, you will probably find you will need to go high fat, to maintain weight and energy.

I have also found I don't get hungry when eating fat, no need to snack between meals.

But importantly, eat to your meter. We are all different. Your meter will tell you what food your body can take. If you eat a bag of chips, and your meter says your bs levels have not increased, then you know you can eat chips.... But if you are diabetic your meter will clearly show a very large increase in your bs levels, and you will quickly realise that chips are a no no.

Eating to your meter means; test before eating. Test 1hr after eating. Test 2 hrs after eating. I did this a lot at first, but now I know what food do not increase my BS levels I don't test much at all, just randomly to make sure all is ok.

Eat to your meter..... When you reach your desired weight, chances are you will be on a long term sustainable LcHf diet!!!!

That's my experience.

 

[donnellysdogs]

Still doesn't explain to a newbie though.. Eat to your meter? If I was a newbie a few things on that statement would confuse me... Especially a type 2.

A) many type 2's aren't given a meter or strips, so they would be thinking "what is a meter?"

B) eating to your meter.. If the NHS aren't giving meters or people are jyst being told over the phone that they are diabetic-well they are hardly getting any advice in the first place.

C) when the NHS tell people to cut out sugar..reduce portion size, cut out cakes and sweets.. Well, how on earth would they know what to do if they ate a roast pork dinner with roasties, yorkie pud and apple sauce with bisto gravy and carrots and swede and roast parsnips and their levels went to 15. How on earth would they think to "eat to their meter"?

Sorry, having spoken to a lot of type 2's in my GP whilst handing out information to Patients... Sorry.. "Eat to your meter" Is like telling them to fly to the moon. I would say from my speaking to people that 80% of these T2's didn't even know what a meter is.....they solely rely upon the blood results and NHS advice.

Sorry to stray a little, but "eating to meter" isn't actually dietary advice.

 

[douglas99]

..............What infuriates me is that scientists/the medical profession have failed to come up with a conclusive answer to the question of what diet diabetics should follow...........................

Pavlos

Douglas

I am referring to diet in the wider sense of what one eats in general, not in the narrower sense of what one eats to lose weight, or even deal with diabetes......................................

Pavlos

Hence my response.

 

[pavlosn]

Hence my response.

I'm sorry I do not follow.

Your response talks about the Newcastle diet and getting patients on diets, extreme or otherwise.

What I am asking is what does science tell us an average healthy person of "normal' weight should be eating in order to remain healthy. If you like what percentage of calories should come from each macronutrient source and what foods should one avoid.

I do not think that this very elementary question has been answered yet, at least not to my satisfaction. I am familiar with both the healthy plate and food pyramid propositions, which represent the currently accepted view of the majority of nutritionists and the medical profession, but these views are not without challengers who give contrasting advise based on a different set of studies.

A second issue is whether a diet that is appropriate for a healthy person, is also the best diet for a diabetic person to follow given the obvious link between carbs and glucose levels.

Pavlos

 

[douglas99]

I'm sorry I do not follow.

Your response talks about the Newcastle diet and getting patients on diets, extreme or otherwise.

What I am asking is what does science tell us an average healthy person of "normal' weight should be eating in order to remain healthy. If you like what percentage of calories should come from each macronutrient source and what foods should one avoid.

I do not think that this very elementary question has been answered yet, at least not to my satisfaction. I am familiar with both the healthy plate and food pyramid propositions, which represent the currently accepted view of the majority of nutritionists and the medical profession, but these views are not without challengers who give contrasting advise based on a different set of studies.

A second issue is whether a diet that is appropriate for a healthy person, is also the best diet for a diabetic person to follow given the obvious link between carbs and glucose levels.

Pavlos

Your first post, as quoted, was what diet should diabetics follow?
Hence the question on why you are now changing the question to 'normal' people?

 

[Brunneria]

Still doesn't explain to a newbie though.. Eat to your meter? If I was a newbie a few things on that statement would confuse me... Especially a type 2.

A) many type 2's aren't given a meter or strips, so they would be thinking "what is a meter?"

B) eating to your meter.. If the NHS aren't giving meters or people are jyst being told over the phone that they are diabetic-well they are hardly getting any advice in the first place.

C) when the NHS tell people to cut out sugar..reduce portion size, cut out cakes and sweets.. Well, how on earth would they know what to do if they ate a roast pork dinner with roasties, yorkie pud and apple sauce with bisto gravy and carrots and swede and roast parsnips and their levels went to 15. How on earth would they think to "eat to their meter"?

Sorry, having spoken to a lot of type 2's in my GP whilst handing out information to Patients... Sorry.. "Eat to your meter" Is like telling them to fly to the moon. I would say from my speaking to people that 80% of these T2's didn't even know what a meter is.....they solely rely upon the blood results and NHS advice.

Sorry to stray a little, but "eating to meter" isn't actually dietary advice.

I agree with the eating to your meter suggestion by @Ian DP and I have seen it used repeatedly in newbie threads to good effect. Several such threads have started with the poster asking what meter to buy, or asking how to use them. Many, many people have read a lot of the forum before they first post.

Those that haven't usually make that clear in their first post. So they get different responses. But I certainly don't think the concept of a BG meter is beyond the scope of a newbie thread - and it's a bit insulting to new posters to suggest that.

Really, this thread is a nonsense.

We've had some fabulous answers, some not very constructive discussions, and everyone is going to keep making their own contributions to newbie threads - as they see fit.

Business as normal then.

 

[Paul59]

Yes,.RCIF sounds good. Think the increase fats is what it says but keeping saturated fats to a minimum.

 

[pavlosn]

All I am doing is clarifying what frustrates me.

Yes I started talking about diet in my original post from the standpoint of my diabetic status but, as I thought I clarified in my second post, the same issues apply to dietary recommendations for the wider population as well.

After all according to current recommendations there should be no difference between what a diabetic and a healthy person should be eating. (Should this be so?)

So I did not suddenly change my position or question.

At any rate, I am not sure that my posts were doing anything more than expressing frustration at the uncertainty that still seems to surround such an elementary question.

I feel that I am put in a position that I am experimenting with my health and to be honest I wish that was not so.

I wish that there was a universally accepted recommendation on what an appropriate diet should be and I have expressed my belief that more resources should be allocated to the effort to arrive at one.

In my opinion at the moment there is still too much uncertainty and contrasting information on this subject.

Pavlos

 

[douglas99]

All I am doing is clarifying what frustrates me.

Yes I started talking about diet in my original post from the standpoint of my diabetic status but, as I thought I clarified in my second post, the same issues apply to dietary recommendations for the wider population as well.

After all according to current recommendations there should be no difference between what a diabetic and a healthy person should be eating. (Should this be so?)

So I did not suddenly change my position or question.

At any rate, I am not sure that my posts were doing anything more than expressing frustration at the uncertainty that still seems to surround such an elementary question.

I feel that I am put in a position that I am experimenting with my health and to be honest I wish that was not so.

I wish that there was a universally accepted recommendation on what an appropriate diet should be and I have expressed my belief that more resources should be allocated to the effort to arrive at one.

In my opinion at the moment there is still too much uncertainty and contrasting information on this subject.

Pavlos

If there was a universal answer, no one would believe it.
There is one published universally by the HCP at the moment, and many sells books proving it wrong.
I doubt I agree with it as well, but I'm not a universal person.
I have a diet that suits me.

I may have a different goal to others, I am not focused on BG as my sole target.
I have other interests.
I could drive the numbers down further, by not eating any carbs, I survived on a 'starvation' diet, I did the LCHF diet, in spite on not liking fat, and needing proton pump inhibitors for the acid reflux.
But my BG numbers in the normal range, so I'm fine where they are. I don't need to be lower than normal.
And I've tested enough others to be happy with 'normal'

Importantly, pushing low isn't a regime that fits into my lifestyle.
As I posted a day ago asking if anyone could suggest three days meals, from the lack of response, not many can.

Hence I really want to keep my options open, and eat enough carbs to enable me to keep eating them, and not lose my ability to process them.
And so long as my BG stays good, my weight stays good, my drugs reduce to zero, I really can't see why it's so disliked by others.

 

[Kat100]

If there was a universal answer, no one would believe it.
There is one published universally by the HCP at the moment, and many sells books proving it wrong.
I doubt I agree with it as well, but I'm not a universal person.
I have a diet that suits me.

I may have a different goal to others, I am not focused on BG as my sole target.
I have other interests.
I could drive the numbers down further, by not eating any carbs, I survived on a 'starvation' diet, I did the LCHF diet, in spite on not liking fat, and needing proton pump inhibitors for the acid reflux.
But my BG numbers in the normal range, so I'm fine where they are. I don't need to be lower than normal.
And I've tested enough others to be happy with 'normal'

Importantly, pushing low isn't a regime that fits into my lifestyle.
As I posted a day ago asking if anyone could suggest three days meals, from the lack of response, not many can.

Hence I really want to keep my options open, and eat enough carbs to enable me to keep eaing them, and not lose my ability to process them.
And so long as my BG stays good, my weight stays good, my drugs reduce to zero, I really can't see why it's so disliked by others.

One magic pill to suit all ...So we could all lead the lives we want to ....just a wish ....or a wish for a cure , for all types ...hate that types word ..sorry if it labels anyone ..not intended

 

[pavlosn]

If there was a universal answer, no one would believe it.
There is one published universally by the HCP at the moment, and many sells books proving it wrong.
I doubt I agree with it as well, but I'm not a universal person.
I have a diet that suits me.

I may have a different goal to others, I am not focused on BG as my sole target.
I have other interests.
I could drive the numbers down further, by not eating any carbs, I survived on a 'starvation' diet, I did the LCHF diet, in spite on not liking fat, and needing proton pump inhibitors for the acid reflux.
But my BG numbers in the normal range, so I'm fine where they are. I don't need to be lower than normal.
And I've tested enough others to be happy with 'normal'

Importantly, pushing low isn't a regime that fits into my lifestyle.
As I posted a day ago asking if anyone could suggest three days meals, from the lack of response, not many can.

Hence I really want to keep my options open, and eat enough carbs to enable me to keep eaing them, and not lose my ability to process them.
And so long as my BG stays good, my weight stays good, my drugs reduce to zero, I really can't see why it's so disliked by others.

Personally, I respect the fact that you have found a diet that works for you and you are sticking with it.

I also share the view that if you are able to get your levels within the normal range then there is no need to keep cutting carbs in an effort to get ever lower glucose readings. I am not sure that there is scientific support for instance to the idea that a 4,x% HbA1c is any healthier than a 5,x%.

The key issue is what do we have to do to get our levels within the normal range and in my case at the moment that involves restricting my carbohydrate intake. If I do so I am able to stay within the range I personally want to be in( below 6 pre prandial and below 7,5 post prandial). I can not manage such levels if I do not restrict my carb intake.

As I am also trying to lose weight and built some more muscle mass, I am hoping that in the future my reduced fat percentage will allow me to increase my carb intake, I would love some more fruit, without affecting my ability to maintain normal glucose levels.

I do not believe that by restricting carbs you lose your ability to process carbs permanently. My understanding is that yes the body needs a short adjustment period when carbs are reintroduced but it does adjust within about a week.

I do not honestly think anyone dislikes your diet. After all it is your diet and it works for you. It is just that others may have found other diets that perhaps suit them better.

As for the question you set, I suspect that, as in all probability not too many people on this site are divers, most of us felt ill equipped to advise you on a suitable diet for your purpose, rather than our failure to reply being any kind of sign of not liking you or your diet.

Personally I am just as happy to see you post advocating you particular low calorie low GI approach to glycemic control as I am to see someone like Toto advocate LCHF. The more approaches that work the better as far as I am concerned.

The constant arguing does get a bit tiring though.

 

[douglas99]

I don't think there is any suggestion that LCHF loses the ability to process carbs permanently, it's only temporary, but it's a side effect of LCHF that does happen to everyone.
But that's my problem in this instance, it's not a problem to others.
That's why calorie restriction works for me, as opposed to LC.
For me, any food, any mix, as it happens, so long as I balance it over time.

I have found an answer to my food intake for the three days, it'll keep my BG where I like it, it involves carbs, and I have posted it in my blog.

 

[Indy51]

The constant arguing does get a bit tiring though.

Amen to that.

More than tiring. Mind-numbingly boring in fact. The only consolation is that any self-respecting newcomer would probably not have bothered reading past the first page of posts.

 

[jack412]

time to inject what seems a few facts, a lose weight LCHF diet can have less fat that a mediterainian diet

the generally accepted mediterranean diet 2200 cal
10-20% 55-110g protein 30-40% 165-220g carb... 60-40% 97-146g fat

lets go to the extream LCHF diet, ketogenic in lose weight mode 1400 cal, something few low carb high fatters do

20% 70g protein 5% 35g carb 75% 116g fat

 

[graj0]

time to inject what seems a few facts, a lose weight LCHF diet can have less fat that a Mediterranean diet

the generally accepted Mediterranean diet 2200 cal
10-20% 55-110g protein 30-40% 165-220g carb... 60-40% 97-146g fat

lets go to the extreme LCHF diet, ketogenic in lose weight mode 1400 cal, something few low carb high fatters do

20% 70g protein 5% 35g carb 75% 116g fat




View attachment 7509 View attachment 7510

I wish losing weight could be analysed so accurately. We will all be different so what might be a fact for one set of people will not be a fact for another. My facts are that I have a BMR of 1900 calories, not allowing for exercise (obvious really, that's why it's called Basal or Basic Metabolic Rate) and I consume about 1,000 calories, maybe 1200 at the weekend, that includes about 80gms of carb (I weigh everything and bung it into my piece of software, so I know). So I should lose weight, but I haven't for the last 6 months. Plateau did I hear? Some bloody plateau.
Suggestions on a postcard please, even my GP doesn't have a clue, poor woman. At least the NHS have said that I don't have an eating problem, just a weight problem. LOL

 

[AndBreathe]

I wish losing weight could be analysed so accurately. We will all be different so what might be a fact for one set of people will not be a fact for another. My facts are that I have a BMR of 1900 calories, not allowing for exercise (obvious really, that's why it's called Basal or Basic Metabolic Rate) and I consume about 1,000 calories, maybe 1200 at the weekend, that includes about 80gms of carb (I weigh everything and bung it into my piece of software, so I know). So I should lose weight, but I haven't for the last 6 months. Plateau did I hear? Some bloody plateau.
Suggestions on a postcard please, even my GP doesn't have a clue, poor woman. At least the NHS have said that I don't have an eating problem, just a weight problem. LOL

Graj0 - I can feel your pain in your post.

My only response would be the same as I always respond in these situation; do something different. Maybe your body has got into a bit of a rut. In those circumstances, I'd increase or decrease my calories for a week or so, to give my body something to think about, and knock it out of it's rut. In your case, I would be disinclined to reduce below 1000 calories. That's surely, at best, skirting with starvation mode after all this time?

So, I'd take in maybe an extra 400-500 calories a day - probably a mixture of foods, rather than a great dollop of cheese, and ideally enjoy them. I'd also up my water intake, as that can also impact on weight loss in a bizarre and counter-intuitive way. If that 500 calories a day exceeds your actual requirement (as opposed to an average, calculated requirement), you'd probably only gain c1lb of fat. The scales might read a bit higher if you also retain a bit of extra water along the way, so don't panic. You could also have lost weight, which is also feasible.

With that information, I'd re-group my thoughts and decide a way forward. If you have lost weight, then continue at the higher level. If you gain weight, depending on the amount, I'd either continue for a few days longer or revert to initial eating patters.

Taking the same action usually returns the same result.

 

[jack412]

I wish losing weight could be analysed so accurately. We will all be different so what might be a fact for one set of people will not be a fact for another. My facts are that I have a BMR of 1900 calories, not allowing for exercise (obvious really, that's why it's called Basal or Basic Metabolic Rate) and I consume about 1,000 calories, maybe 1200 at the weekend, that includes about 80gms of carb (I weigh everything and bung it into my piece of software, so I know). So I should lose weight, but I haven't for the last 6 months. Plateau did I hear? Some bloody plateau.
Suggestions on a postcard please, even my GP doesn't have a clue, poor woman. At least the NHS have said that I don't have an eating problem, just a weight problem. LOL

no I didn't make the claim of accurate weight loss, it was the fat intake being similar and that the LCHF is bagged and the Mediterranean diet is great

 

[pavlosn]

no I didn't make the claim of accurate weight loss, it was the fat intake being similar and that the LCHF is bagged and the Mediterranean diet is great

Maybe the difference is in the quality rather than in the quantity of fats. The Mediterranean diet is characterized by the abundant use of monounsaturated olive oil, particularly in its raw form. Some of our dishes are literally swimming in it.

In contrast LCHF seems to, in addition to small amounts of olive oil, concentrate primarily of saturated fats often on animal origin. It is these saturated fats that, rightly or wrongly, are vilified by nutritionists as being bad for our heart.

 

[pavlosn]

Also it is worth noting that although the Mediterranean diet is by no means low carb , the carbs in it such as bulgur wheat, pulses or fruit are not empty carbs but come in a package with vitamins and fibre.

 

[AnnieC]

If there was a universal answer, no one would believe it.
There is one published universally by the HCP at the moment, and many sells books proving it wrong.
I doubt I agree with it as well, but I'm not a universal person.
I have a diet that suits me.

I may have a different goal to others, I am not focused on BG as my sole target.
I have other interests.
I could drive the numbers down further, by not eating any carbs, I survived on a 'starvation' diet, I did the LCHF diet, in spite on not liking fat, and needing proton pump inhibitors for the acid reflux.
But my BG numbers in the normal range, so I'm fine where they are. I don't need to be lower than normal.
And I've tested enough others to be happy with 'normal'

Importantly, pushing low isn't a regime that fits into my lifestyle.
As I posted a day ago asking if anyone could suggest three days meals, from the lack of response, not many can.

Hence I really want to keep my options open, and eat enough carbs to enable me to keep eating them, and not lose my ability to process them.
And so long as my BG stays good, my weight stays good, my drugs reduce to zero, I really can't see why it's so disliked by others.

Douglas you say you don't want to loose the ability to process carbs so do you think that going very low carb for some length of time can make the body resistant to them so much so that if at some point we wanted to increase them would the body reject them in some way This is a question that I have thought about a lot and one reason I will not go very low in carbs because like you.I do not want to loose that ability either. I eat a wide variety of fruit and vegetables grains and pulses but lower on the starchy carbs and I do fats in oils nuts and some full fat dairy but no red meats which I am not keen on this I think is the healthier way for my 75 year old body and cutting down very low on carbs and having much higher fats would not suit it .Could we loose the ability to process carbs by only eating a very low amount over a long time I wonder