Downsides of low carb diet

[Mrs Vimes]

In answer to the OP again. Something I forgot: LCHF is relatively expensive.

I shop at Aldi, lchf is no more expensive than half.
I don't do all the baked goods though. I don't bake alternative breads or cakes.

 

[RuthW]

I think food prices also depend on where you live quite a lot. Even within the UK, if you live in an inner city, it can take a lot of effort to buy healthy food at a reasonable price. That does apply whatever diet you follow, of course. I mean whether you LCHF or HCLF, you should be eating vegetables and plenty of them. Where my son lives in London, it is quite a trek to get any amount of fresh ( as opposed to wilted) vegetables in any reasonable quantity. And it's a bus ride to the butcher's or the fishmonger. He has Sainsbury's local and Tesco local nearby but they are breathtakingly expensive for green food! If you don't have a car, shopping for healthy food takes so much time. Having said all that, meat is relatively cheap in England. It is much more expensive here in Turkey.

On the OP's original question, there is an interesting discussion of different diets (especially the different exclusion diets) here:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

I just want to make it clear here that I am not opposed to LCHF diets. I do think they can be the best option for some people some of the time. But there are other options, and also other priorities. Someone else on one of the threads here said once that he rejects any diet that makes apples "bad" and bacon "good". I think it's true that there are healthier and less healthy ways of "doing" any diet. What makes some of us queasy about the high fat argument is the enthusiastic advocacy of processed meats, like bacon, which are known to be a factor in stomach cancer, and the squeals of outrage when people eat like hunter gatherers would and indeed still do (low meat, low fat, high vegetable and fruit content). The paleo spear chucking fantasy is just that - a macho fantasy. Any anthropologist can tell you that about 90% of what hunter gatherers eat is gathered, and mostly by women. The men usually hang around wrestling, drinking home brew, dancing and chatting, or chewing mind-altering stuff. Every now and then they get round to hunting.

The women gather fruit, nuts, roots, seeds (grains are seeds), leaves, etc. They also pound seeds and grains into a pulp, mix them with other things and cook them. There is evidence that human beings have been eating cooked oatmeal for over 30,000 years. And that's more than enough time for a population to adapt to eating such foods. And it's hardly a difficult technology.

 

[Larissima]

The women gather fruit, nuts, roots, seeds (grains are seeds), leaves, etc. They also pound seeds and grains into a pulp, mix them with other things and cook them. There is evidence that human beings have been eating cooked oatmeal for over 30,000 years. And that's more than enough time for a population to adapt to eating such foods. And it's hardly a difficult technology.

The fruits and seeds have their season in nature, though. Also, pre-agriculture, those fruits and seeds had more fibre and less sugar and starch. I agree they too should have their place in a healthy diet, but not 5 portions a day (which is what the "5 a day" often equates to) 365 days of the year. Lots of the gathered food consisted of the currently unpopular small sources of protein and fat, such as grubs and insects. Fishing and shellfish gathering was also much easier (where possible, obviously) than big-game hunting. And when that big buffalo was caught, it was not just the steaks and other muscle meat that was eaten, but all the offal which contains even more nutrients. But that was in the past, and we need to do the best we can today - through reading as well as trying things out on ourselves and seeing if a particular type of diet works for us.

 

[ButtterflyLady]

The fruits and seeds have their season in nature, though. Also, pre-agriculture, those fruits and seeds had more fibre and less sugar and starch. I agree they too should have their place in a healthy diet, but not 5 portions a day (which is what the "5 a day" often equates to) 365 days of the year. Lots of the gathered food consisted of the currently unpopular small sources of protein and fat, such as grubs and insects. Fishing and shellfish gathering was also much easier (where possible, obviously) than big-game hunting. And when that big buffalo was caught, it was not just the steaks and other muscle meat that was eaten, but all the offal which contains even more nutrients. But that was in the past, and we need to do the best we can today - through reading as well as trying things out on ourselves and seeing if a particular type of diet works for us.

Indeed, it was the past. There's a logical fallacy called "appeal to antiquity", and that's what a lot of these ideas fall into.

 

[Indy51]

The fruits and seeds have their season in nature, though. Also, pre-agriculture, those fruits and seeds had more fibre and less sugar and starch. I agree they too should have their place in a healthy diet, but not 5 portions a day (which is what the "5 a day" often equates to) 365 days of the year. Lots of the gathered food consisted of the currently unpopular small sources of protein and fat, such as grubs and insects. Fishing and shellfish gathering was also much easier (where possible, obviously) than big-game hunting. And when that big buffalo was caught, it was not just the steaks and other muscle meat that was eaten, but all the offal which contains even more nutrients. But that was in the past, and we need to do the best we can today - through reading as well as trying things out on ourselves and seeing if a particular type of diet works for us.

Have you seen the documentary "In Search of the Perfect Human Diet"? Well worth watching for the lots of archaeological research, especially the Max Plank Institute isotope analysis. The companion book has recently come out and I've just started reading it on Kindle. All the human evolution stuff is fascinating

 

[Totto]

If LCHF turns out to be more expensive probably depends on what you ate before. Granted, a diet of rice, pasta and potatoes probably was cheaper. On the other hand on LCHF there are lot of things you don't spend money on, like fizzy drinks, biscuits, sweets, crisps and cake. Also you probably buy fewer takeaways.

And I think it's a good idea to spend money on vegetables as we tend to eat more of those on LCHF. What does cost more on LCHF is fat obviously. At least if you go for good quality fats in large quantities.

 

[Celeriac]

I try to avoid processed meats because they contain nitrates - even the organic stuff.

Prosciutto (Parma ham) doesn't because it's been air-dried with sea salt. The packages with the gold crown are the real thing, made in Italy with strict laws on which pigs can be used and from where - even how thick the fat must be on the legs. prosciuttodiparma.com parmacrown.com

Doesn't matter where you buy it, if it's got the gold crown on the packaging it's the real thing - I buy mine in Lidl.

Bacon is another pork product with nitrates and again, even the organic stuff. In N America it is possible to buy nitrate free bacon but in the UK I have only found organic nitrate free bacon from Laverstoke Park Farm and it was a really unappealing grey colour when cooked, although it tasted great.

I find bacon too salty now and prefer the prosciutto.It goes really crispy when cooked and is far cheaper than bacon.

For reasons which mystify me, the majority of organic supermarket lamb is chewy. It just doesn't seem worth paying more money for. So I buy Waitrose Duchy which is lovely, as well as New Zealand lamb.

New Zealand lamb has to be grass-pastured and non GM fed to qualify to be called New Zealand lamb. Waitrose uses NZ lamb in all its ready meals, maybe for this reason ?? Standard British lamb can be fed on GM feed and doesn't need to be entirely grass-pastured. Despite the fact that it travels so far, NZ lamb can be cheaper and often far more tender.

So buying gold crown Prosciutto do Parma for 1.99 instead of bacon and ham, and buying NZ lamb when I can't get Waitrose Duchy organic, keep costs down a bit.

Iceland does excellent frozen wild N Atlantic prawns and wild fish. Morrisons has a big range of wild fish at the fish counter but some of it seems to have been hanging around for a while. If you're going to cook it that day, then it's okay and most of their fish isn't expensive. Most of the fish at Sainsbury's fish counter is farmed and a fair bit at ASDA too.

I object to buying fish that could be fed GM feed, has had a miserable existence and might be 'previously frozen' so I have no idea how old it is. It annoys me when the farmed stuff is labelled 'responsibly sourced' and is more expensive.

Tinned fish is wild, I've yet to see any tinned farmed stuff but I guess it may happen eventually. You can get cheap salmon, sardines and tuna from places like Poundland, Family Bargains etc.

The very first thing we did when husband got a better job, was quit buying soya mince and then we stopped buying soya margarine and sunflower oil and bought butter and olive oil. Ghee is horrendously expensive, more expensive than steak, but I buy up offers.

www.mysupermarket.co.uk is really useful for this reason !

 

[AndBreathe]

That's absolutely true and for the most part, I don't blame them. Many people are proud of their success and many people have made significant improvements in their health by maintaining a LCHF diet.

Then, someone like me comes along and "challenges" (not to be misinterpreted as "disagrees with") their opinions and it can be difficult to have an objective discussion.

I rarely claim that someone is flat out wrong, but I do ask people loaded questions and challenge them to justify their opinions. I've been posting on Internet forums for 15 years and see how easy it is for biases to develop. My only goal is to seek the truth (and help others seek it) about diabetes and especially what is still unknown.

I take no issue with your challenges except that for many there are massively fundamental differences in the options they have available to them for effective management of their condition. By that I mean, for T2s, I don't believe it is an over-blown, exaggeration to say the most important weapon in our management is what we eat, unless we want to revert to medication, and probably more medication that most of us feel comfortable to regularly take. For T1s, aside from those in early honeymoon, the option to go medication-free simply doesn't exist, so it becomes a matter of where each individual sets their personal tolerance bar, in terms of the level of blood scores they are willing to accept/achieve, coupled with the amounts of insulin they are comfortable to inject - bearing in mind the potential for increased hunger, and for some, the added factor of insulin resistance.

For many T1s, it appears that blood control can be achieved, at levels the individual feels comfortable with, whilst eating a "normal" diet. For those for whom that is the case, and their weight remains stable, and no apparent side effects, I a[[laud them, and could have no reason, aside from envy, to try to dissuade their approach.

I do hate labels, and I further detest some of the partitioning that can occur in discussions including both T1 and T2 (and all the other variants) individuals, but sometimes, I do feel it has to be mentioned, as it does have an impact on the portfolio of options available on a day to day basis.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I try to avoid processed meats because they contain nitrates - even the organic stuff.

Prosciutto (Parma ham) doesn't because it's been air-dried with sea salt. The packages with the gold crown are the real thing, made in Italy with strict laws on which pigs can be used and from where - even how thick the fat must be on the legs. prosciuttodiparma.com parmacrown.com

Doesn't matter where you buy it, if it's got the gold crown on the packaging it's the real thing - I buy mine in Lidl.

Bacon is another pork product with nitrates and again, even the organic stuff. In N America it is possible to buy nitrate free bacon but in the UK I have only found organic nitrate free bacon from Laverstoke Park Farm and it was a really unappealing grey colour when cooked, although it tasted great.

I find bacon too salty now and prefer the prosciutto.It goes really crispy when cooked and is far cheaper than bacon.

For reasons which mystify me, the majority of organic supermarket lamb is chewy. It just doesn't seem worth paying more money for. So I buy Waitrose Duchy which is lovely, as well as New Zealand lamb.

New Zealand lamb has to be grass-pastured and non GM fed to qualify to be called New Zealand lamb. Waitrose uses NZ lamb in all its ready meals, maybe for this reason ?? Standard British lamb can be fed on GM feed and doesn't need to be entirely grass-pastured. Despite the fact that it travels so far, NZ lamb can be cheaper and often far more tender.

So buying gold crown Prosciutto do Parma for 1.99 instead of bacon and ham, and buying NZ lamb when I can't get Waitrose Duchy organic, keep costs down a bit.

Iceland does excellent frozen wild N Atlantic prawns and wild fish. Morrisons has a big range of wild fish at the fish counter but some of it seems to have been hanging around for a while. If you're going to cook it that day, then it's okay and most of their fish isn't expensive. Most of the fish at Sainsbury's fish counter is farmed and a fair bit at ASDA too.

I object to buying fish that could be fed GM feed, has had a miserable existence and might be 'previously frozen' so I have no idea how old it is. It annoys me when the farmed stuff is labelled 'responsibly sourced' and is more expensive.

Tinned fish is wild, I've yet to see any tinned farmed stuff but I guess it may happen eventually. You can get cheap salmon, sardines and tuna from places like Poundland, Family Bargains etc.

The very first thing we did when husband got a better job, was quit buying soya mince and then we stopped buying soya margarine and sunflower oil and bought butter and olive oil. Ghee is horrendously expensive, more expensive than steak, but I buy up offers.

www.mysupermarket.co.uk is really useful for this reason !

The majority of british lamb is grass fed, simply on cost.
Both NZ and british pastures can be fertilised, and chemically treated.

 

[ButtterflyLady]

I take no issue with your challenges except that for many there are massively fundamental differences in the options they have available to them for effective management of their condition. By that I mean, for T2s, I don't believe it is an over-blown, exaggeration to say the most important weapon in our management is what we eat, unless we want to revert to medication, and probably more medication that most of us feel comfortable to regularly take.

A lot of people are not opposed to taking medication, for T2 or other conditions. For those whose bodies are able to work well without medication, great, but there can be many reasons why people take medication. A person might not be comfortable taking medication, but may need it, all the same. I don't believe it's an either/or thing, ie either watch what you eat OR take medication. Many of us do both.

 

[AndBreathe]

A lot of people are not opposed to taking medication, for T2 or other conditions. For those whose bodies are able to work well without medication, great, but there can be many reasons why people take medication. A person might not be comfortable taking medication, but may need it, all the same. I don't believe it's an either/or thing, ie either watch what you eat OR take medication. Many of us do both.

I didn't suggest anywhere, ever, that everyone has the option to gain decent control without some medicinal help. Indeed, I usually reiterate how thankful I am that my body appears to have recovered itself a fair amount (of course we would never know how much or by how much it had been impaired in the first instance).

If people are content to just accept medication as a first port of call (and some do - which is their choice), that's fine, but for many of us who are fortunate note to have to take any long term medication, the prospect of having to isn't at all appealing.

I have again, often said that I believe the body to be a very clever piece of scientific machinery, which can, given the correct circumstances, and a load of luck, look after us very well. For me, I would rather my body look after me than something that comes in a blister pack.

I will just add that I am also not stupid enough to think this is necessarily a position I will be in forever. Always in these decision making/preference applying scenario there is a balance of risk/reward, coupled with quality of life. I wouldn't relinquish my quality of life just to save me taking medication if/when it ever came to it.

I am not a binary person, but do have strong preferences and beliefs.

 

[SunnyExpat]

If you're happy to drag out elevated levels at diagnosis, because you don't wish to accept any medical help, and decide to suffer possible damage from high blood glucose levels for a longer period, that's your personal choice.
I thought it was a better choice to use all the tools in a wider portfolio.
So initially, medical intervention was accepted, and a lifestyle choice was added to the solution.
After my levels were down to a very acceptable level, I could take a viewpoint that didn't include all the same choice of medicines.
I would guess I'm more hexadecimal in my outlook.

 

[Totto]

If you're happy to drag out elevated levels at diagnosis, because you don't wish to accept any medical help, and decide to suffer possible damage from high blood glucose levels for a longer period, that's your personal choice.
I thought it was a better choice to use all the tools in a wider portfolio.
So initially, medical intervention was accepted, and a lifestyle choice was added to the solution.
After my levels were down to a very acceptable level, I could take a viewpoint that didn't include all the same choice of medicines.
I would guess I'm more hexadecimal in my outlook.

I don't know what meds you were offered at diagnosis but if metformin I think you overrate it vastly as a means to lower BG for people of normal weight.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I don't know what meds you were offered at diagnosis but if metformin I think you overrate it vastly as a means to lower BG for people of normal weight.

I wouldn't like to advise others on what meds to have, or not to have, as I say, I worked very well with the medical care team, and between us came to a solution that satisfied me as an individual.

I think we all need to be adaptive, and set aside preconceived ideas at times, as simply accept what is necessary at the time, as an individual.
And if metformin had no effect on your personal BG readings, I'm sure you will agree, that's no reason to right it off for others, especially as I'm sure it's impossible to know everyone's weight at diagnosis.

 

[Totto]

I wouldn't like to advise others on what meds to have, or not to have, as I say, I worked very well with the medical care team, and between us came to a solution that satisfied me as an individual.

I think we all need to be adaptive, and set aside preconceived ideas at times, as simply accept what is necessary at the time, as an individual.
And if metformin had no effect on your personal BG readings, I'm sure you will agree, that's no reason to right it off for others, especially as I'm sure it's impossible to know everyone's weight at diagnosis.

I wasn't prescribed metformin at diagnosis as there is no valid research to show it has any effect on people with a BMI below 27 or possibly 28. @AndBreathe was similarly of normal weight as far as I remember. In both our cases low carbing did the trick in very short time though.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I wasn't prescribed metformin at diagnosis as there is no valid research to show it has any effect on people with a BMI below 27 or possibly 28. @AndBreathe was similarly of normal weight as far as I remember. In both our cases low carbing did the trick in very short time though.

If you believe the majority of type 2 are of a BMI of 27 or so at diagnosis, I'm sure you are correct to believe that metformin won't help at diagnosis.
As I said though, it's possibly dangerous advice to others who may be the higher BMI range, and who may well be the actual majority in reality. Hence my suggestion that the individual's need should be addressed.

(As to And Breathe, I don't believe she has ever advised on her weight, height, or BMI in actual numerical terms, so I wouldn't presume to speak for her, possibly you should invite her input for a numerical answer?)

 

[Totto]

If you're happy to drag out elevated levels at diagnosis, because you don't wish to accept any medical help, and decide to suffer possible damage from high blood glucose levels for a longer period, that's your personal choice.
I thought it was a better choice to use all the tools in a wider portfolio.
So initially, medical intervention was accepted, and a lifestyle choice was added to the solution.
After my levels were down to a very acceptable level, I could take a viewpoint that didn't include all the same choice of medicines.
I would guess I'm more hexadecimal in my outlook.

I do find your unwillingness to quote when you answer somebody a bit confusing. As you post now stands it's not clear who you disagree with. Is it @AndBreathe ? If so, I really don't understand what you disagree with.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I don't disagree with anyone, that's not really the point of the forum.
I have experience of my condition, if you disagree with what I say I have experienced as to the way I was treated, and now choose how to treat my condition, I can't really comment on that.
Possibly you choose LCHF as you only tool, and I choose a wider portfolio of options, and you see that as a disagreement with your choice, as you believe it should be able to suit me as well?

 

[Totto]

If you believe the majority of type 2 are of a BMI of 27 or so at diagnosis, I'm sure you are correct to believe that metformin won't help at diagnosis.
As I said though, it's possibly dangerous advice to others who may be the higher BMI range, and who may well be the actual majority in reality. Hence my suggestion that the individual's need should be addressed.

(As to And Breathe, I don't believe she has ever advised on her weight, height, or BMI in actual numerical terms, so I wouldn't presume to speak for her, possibly you should invite her input for a numerical answer?)

Not all T2 are over weight. Those who are I'm sure can make a choice if they want to try meds or not. I'm not advicing anybody. I share my experience. Metformin is proved to be of use to those with higher BMI.

I seem to remember several posts from @AndBreathe where she found it hard to keep a normal BMI and eventually ended up below the healthy range. Her HbA1c is visible on her profile as her profile is visible.

*comment removed by a moderator*

 

[SunnyExpat]

Not all T2 are over weight. Those who are I'm sure can make a choice if they want to try meds or not. I'm not advicing anybody. I share my experience. Metformin is proved to be of use to those with higher BMI.

I seem to remember several posts from @AndBreathe where she found it hard to keep a normal BMI and eventually ended up below the healthy range. Her HbA1c is visible on her profile as her profile is visible. Your profile is hidden. Do you have a lot to hide?

I'm sure insults from yourself aren't very constructive.
What do you believe is being hidden, and what do you like to judge others on?