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

Cut out carbs for good?

Re the original question about what level of carb intake is best for 'a recovering type 2' (yes, I'm using that phrase frivolously), then I would like to compare it to dogfood.

Seriously.

We have 2 dogs. Both are very healthy. Very bright, twinkly, clean and perky. No bad breath. Clean teeth. Perfect poos (firm, un-smelly).

I put it ALL down to their food.
We give them their ancestral diet of a whole raw prey animal (muscle and organ meat, bones, marrow, fat), including the types of veg and even fruit that may have been in the prey's stomach when hunted. No grains.

Sounds lovely, doesn't it? The best bit is that it comes in icecream-like tubs, and lives in the freezer ;)

So how is that relevant to carbs? And humans?
Well, what's the human ancestral diet?

I don't think humans evolved to eat donuts. Or refined sugar. Or hydrogenated veg oil. Or preservatives, colours and artificial sweeteners. Or wheat, rice and starchy stuff.

They might well have varied their hunter gathering diet with handfuls of wild rice, or a wild carrot, or raided a bees' nest. But it wasn't 7 portions of complex carbs a day. Or sugar. And it certainly wasn't a third of the diet.

I expect there were lots of leafy veg, in season. Some fruit, in season. And as much meat, eggs and fish as could be sourced, with all the accompanying fats and oils, with organ meat, brain and marrow being highly prized. Nuts, depending on the climate.

Basically, what we now call Paleo. Although I recognise there is a fair amount of debate about this. And different climates play a part.

Exercise is also a big factor, because it affects carb tolerance.

I don't pretend to do true Paleo, but my goodness do I feel good when I do. Plus eating carbs to my meter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brunneria said:
Do you have a series of scans that show that your fatty liver was developing?

If you only have one scan then you have no evidence to show whether your fatty liver is increasing or decreasing in its fattiness on your current diet.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't saying it in relationship to my diet, but to the triglycerides point above where it basicslly said low trigs, no fatty liver. Now they have it on record I have to have an annual scan.
 
donnellysdogs said:
No, I wasn't saying it in relationship to my diet, but to the triglycerides point above where it basicslly said low trigs, no fatty liver. Now they have it on record I have to have an annual scan.
Click to expand...
I suppose there are more reasons for fatty liver than the triglyceride - insulin resistance feedback loop. Which anyway is mainly for T2s not T1s.
 
donnellysdogs said:
No, I wasn't saying it in relationship to my diet, but to the triglycerides point above where it basicslly said low trigs, no fatty liver. Now they have it on record I have to have an annual scan.
Click to expand...
I think it's rather simplistic take all statements literally; especially when referring to the human body. Some bets will be somewhat safe, for example a catastrophically damaged brains stem will almost certainly lead to death, but where on the spectrum (rhetorical question) is fatty liver that was not diagnosed via blood tests, but only picked up on a scan looking for something else.

I also think there are probably metabolic differences between T1s and T2s - obviously apart from the absence of naturally occurring insulin for T1s! And it's probably likely that some people will be genetically more inclined to a fatty liver, just as some people appear, irrespective of diet, to be more inclined to have high lipid levels. So, maybe I'm suggesting your fatty liver could be endogenous, rather that dietary. If you have any siblings, have they been tested and scanned?

The thing about conditions, like diabetes, is that by the mechanism of the monitoring we "enjoy", we quite possibly have more interactions with HCPs that someone without a chronic condition. For diabetes (and several other conditions, no doubt), our monitoring almost always included regular and quite wide ranging blood panels, which allow us an insight to our personal levels and tolerances that Joe Public just wouldn't have a clue about. Clearly that can be an excellent thing, but from time to time, I'm certain it can throw up worrying names, or research on Dr Google, which can return alarming findings, for no apparent good reason.

Erm,..... That was quite a ramble!

But, going back to the original question; I still eat a carb controlled diet, despite my excellent HbA1cs and removal from the diabetic register. I find it easy, miss little and it feels like I am providing myself with a bit of a safety net in doing so. On days I have eaten quite a lot of carbs, I don't feel unwell or anything else, but I can feel somewhat bloated.

For now, I'll stick with my carb controlled diet, on the basis that if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it!
 
Thanks @AndBreathe...

None of the rest of my family, 2 brothers or mum (no children for me) have ever had any tests or scans for anything.. As they all supposedly fit and healthy. I have great aunties almost 100 years old so guess they have the better genes! They too are low carbders though- way we brought up. They eat small meals, with cheese n glass of wine nightly and retired now..!

In life we are al different. Low trigs for some will signify no fatty liver I gues but for me as always I seem to be odd!!
 
Spiker wrote 'Fat only starts building up in the liver when it can no longer easily get into the adipose cells in the rest of the body because they are full.
This process of filling the cells up by stuffing them full of triglycerides (made in the liver from excess glucose) is what drives up insulin resistance.'

Perfectly worded, I appreciate this particular post. Cannot be written better. IMHO, I wou uld not recommend High Fat diet; no matter whatever purpose it is. For weight loss, moderate exercise and 70% of normal diet (avoid High fat, all carb foods) is enough to get rid of the weight. Just that it takes long to lose weight once you are on moderation.

Fat in the body is essential, but should be under prescribed limits. So, I urge all of you guys battling T2D is read about the ranges of body fat percentages first. Then I strongly recommend that you all should measure Body Fat percentage first (not just BMI). Slowly work towards reducing it. Essentially, BMI should be the first target and then Body Fat should be the second target.

I did LC, LF diet over the years, I am very pleased with the results. My body fat is now at 18%. For me it took more than 2 years to achieve a BMI under 24. And about an year for Body Fat from 26 to 18.

Coming back to subject of the thread: Yes - Go for lesser carbs !
 
vit90 said:
Prof Taylor (Newcastle Diet) doesn't appear to make much reference to Pancreas beta cell condition. I get the impression that his research assumes subjects have undamaged pancreases that actually create much more insulin than normal in reaction to insulin resistance and that the reduction or elimination of visceral fat in the liver and pancreas somehow improves insulin sensitivity - this is the bit I don't fully understand.
Click to expand...




I have to confess I'm not a fan of the ND or dieting in general.

The ND lacks long term data although it cannot be denied it has had some success. In contrast I see long term benefit and tightly controlled blood sugars with people who adopt a low carb high fat approach for life.

Beta cell damage in the pancreas is currently a hot topic for research into diabetes and The University of Liverpool has created a new department to investigate this.
 
VinnyJames said:
I have to confess I'm not a fan of the ND or dieting in general.

The ND lacks long term data although it cannot be denied it has had some success. In contrast I see long term benefit and tightly controlled blood sugars with people who adopt a low carb high fat approach for life.

Beta cell damage in the pancreas is currently a hot topic for research into diabetes and The University of Liverpool has created a new department to investigate this.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to define 'diet' - LCHF is a 'diet'. Many of us refer to 'diet' as a reduction in calories. The Newcastle Diet experiment used meal replacements that were not particularly low-carb although as the calories were low I guess the carb content was not that high. I am pursuing the same goal of losing fat by limiting calories to around 800 a day but by calorie counting real food and sticking to low carb in order to maintain ketosis, the theory being that this will aid the fat burning.

At some point I will simply have no more weight to lose (I have no intention of becoming anorexic!) or, more hopefully, I will see a definitive improvement in my BG figures and dynamics. If it's the former I will continue a fairly strict LCHF diet to manage BG and maintain weight but if I get into remission I am not sure that I would want do that. I would like to have a low-ish carb diet that enabled me to have modest quantities of things like bread, pasta, rice, etc. - not forgetting fruit. But sweet and sugary things would remain basically forbidden apart from a very occasional treat. On top of that I will be maintaining my much more active lifestyle, currently aiming for 15 miles of walking per week plus sessions on weights and weekly HIT. Aiming to dust-off the bike this weekend too (it was serviced last year but wasn't actively ridden and the last time I did ride it properly was when I was teaching the kids to ride - they are in their late teens now!).
 
mekalu2k4 said:
Spiker wrote 'Fat only starts building up in the liver when it can no longer easily get into the adipose cells in the rest of the body because they are full.
This process of filling the cells up by stuffing them full of triglycerides (made in the liver from excess glucose) is what drives up insulin resistance.'

Perfectly worded, I appreciate this particular post. Cannot be written better. IMHO, I wou uld not recommend High Fat diet; no matter whatever purpose it is. For weight loss, moderate exercise and 70% of normal diet (avoid High fat, all carb foods) is enough to get rid of the weight. Just that it takes long to lose weight once you are on moderation.

Fat in the body is essential, but should be under prescribed limits. So, I urge all of you guys battling T2D is read about the ranges of body fat percentages first. Then I strongly recommend that you all should measure Body Fat percentage first (not just BMI). Slowly work towards reducing it. Essentially, BMI should be the first target and then Body Fat should be the second target.

I did LC, LF diet over the years, I am very pleased with the results. My body fat is now at 18%. For me it took more than 2 years to achieve a BMI under 24. And about an year for Body Fat from 26 to 18.

Coming back to subject of the thread: Yes - Go for lesser carbs !
Click to expand...

I was 100kg 10 years ago and reduced that to 88kg gradually over 3-4 years through a low fat diet and reasonably low sugar good carbs. I wasn't T2 at 100kg but I was at 88kg. So, sorry, I reject the low fat route and there is now so much biomedical evidence that points to carbs being not only an irrelevance but a danger in all sorts of ways while the villification of fat for decades is now shown to be largely mistaken. People on LCHF show radical improvements in lipid profiles as well as losing weight and there is much less of the diet/weight-gain/diet cycle clearly demonstrated by low fat diets.

And let's be clear about body fat - absolutely you don't want to be abnormally low in body fat as in anorexics. But the aim of losing fat for many (most?) T2s is to eliminate visceral fat in and around organs in the belly. This does mean you will lose subcutaneous fat as well. I personally feel I have lost as much subcutaneous fat as I need to, perhaps more than I need to but I am also convinced there is still problematic visceral fat to deal with, so I am expecting to have to lose another 3-6kg. Fingers crossed I will earn a remission. Anyway the weight loss will have to stop at some point and then I hope I can healthily restore some subcutaneous fat and muscle mass without reintroducing the dangerous visceral fat. Continuing to be much more active than I was, combined with diet, I suspect will be key to all this.
 
vit90 said:
I would like to have a low-ish carb diet that enabled me to have modest quantities of things like bread, pasta, rice, etc. - not forgetting fruit. But sweet and sugary things would remain basically forbidden apart from a very occasional treat.
Click to expand...

That's the core of your question and I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to distinguish the bread and pasta from the sugary treats. Bread and pasta have the same glycemic index (GI), glycemic load, insulin load, however you want to measure it, as sugary treats.
 
Spiker said:
That's the core of your question and I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to distinguish the bread and pasta from the sugary treats. Bread and pasta have the same glycemic index (GI), glycemic load, insulin load, however you want to measure it, as sugary treats.
Click to expand...

I do understand your point but portion sizes and quantities and frequency are important factors too. A slice of bread has about 11g of carbs while a Mars bar has 37g. At the moment I simply don't eat bread. In the future I would, with improved insulin sensitivity, like to have the option of eating a sandwich (filled with something sensible). I would still most likely avoid a Mars bar unless I was doing some serious physical activity at the time and there was nothing else. Even the sandwich wouldn't be a regular choice but I would like to be able to eat one if I needed to.
 
Right but normally a sandwich is two slices of bread and depending on the bread that's 28g carbs or more. That's the same as a full size Crunchie.

I am wary that by setting your goal as somehow getting back to having refined processed carbs in your diet (bread and pasta), you may set yourself on a slippery slope
 
Spiker said:
Right but normally a sandwich is two slices of bread and depending on the bread that's 28g carbs or more. That's the same as a full size Crunchie.

I am wary that by setting your goal as somehow getting back to having refined processed carbs in your diet (bread and pasta), you may set yourself on a slippery slope
Click to expand...

I'd like to like that post several times, on several levels.

Obviously, I am very fortunate, in that I appear to be able to tolerate carbs fairly well these days, but during my acceptance stage, post diagnosis, I decided that working hard to be able to go backwards (to eating my pre-diagnosis diet) would likely be a foolhardy idea for me. Whatever it was in my diet that led to my insulin resistance, liver enzymes at the higher end of normal, carrying a bit of excess poundage etc., etc., it clearly hadn't done me any good, if the outcome was a definitive T2 diagnosis. Whatever I did, I felt I had to accept my way of eating had to be different forever.

Clearly that "different" isn't a binary thing, but for me, the consumption of the "baddies" is usually when they're the least worst option, or just a handful of chunky chips, once in a while. Given an option to have me-friendly food, I will. For a time, I almost fantasised about a choux bun, from a particular bakery on an island we visit, but when it came to it, and I discovered I really wasn't that bothered any more.

@vit90 - I hope you find the balance you seek, after pushing yourself through the ND. Anyone doing that deserves some decent pay back.
 
Spiker said:
Right but normally a sandwich is two slices of bread and depending on the bread that's 28g carbs or more. That's the same as a full size Crunchie.

I am wary that by setting your goal as somehow getting back to having refined processed carbs in your diet (bread and pasta), you may set yourself on a slippery slope
Click to expand...

I am a realist and of course I will be monitoring my glucose levels - if it works, hurrah, if not, so be it - I want to continue to be well.
 
Good discussion here.

There is no standard formula that fits everyone. Different age groups, different T2D stages, different diet regimes, races, gender, impact of existing/ other physical/mental problems with bodies etc. Not to mention about hormones, and then strong personal views etc. So I personally read and then try what I believe suits me; see the results. At the end of the day, it is my body, my health and my money - which is same for all of us.

Strangely - I find one aspect very interesting. Let us examine two well agreed points.

1. It is recommended that T2D folks follow a strict diet regime and exercise to maintain their health, besides prescribed medication if any.

2. It is absolutely essential to follow a combination of well-planned and strict regime of diet and exercise programs to achieve 6-pack abs.

First one is for fighting T2D which is a life style disease and the second is one of the marks of physical achievement / or fitness. But both have more or less same recommendations - that is what I find very strange.

Why I put these two aspects here? it is because I am in between. I am fighting with my body to avoid onset of T2D, and at the same time see prospects of moving towards 6-pack. From my experience, what all I can say, the diet is very strict (when compared to standard diet for T2D folks) to get 6-pack - it is very harsh - believe me, I am now in that path; not sure if I can withstand the rigor of workouts and the harsh diet. Whatever it takes, I do not want to be on a slippery slope - as stated by Spiker.

The objective is to get knowledge and stay hale and healthy.
 
I believe that recent dietary advice for professional sportsmen, to avoid dietary complications later such as T2 and RH, they are getting advised not to bulk up on refined carbs. Sports drinks are not helping them either. It has been found that water and a low carb intake are sufficient for any activity including long distance, weightlifting and team games.

Depending on which dietician you talk of course!

I discovered most of this reading recent article on RH diagnosed ex athletes. Which is being found to be more prevalent if and when diagnosed.
 
Back
Top