Why Eat Carbs As A Type 2 Diabetic?

[lucylocket61]

There's 'facts' in the ideal sense of the word, and then there's scientific facts.

All science can do for us is help us to understand the world as best we can at any given point in time. If we at any stage think "right, now we know" then we haven't learned the lessons from scientific history.

Newton's laws were very useful, and still are, but it took Einstein to come along to suggest that they aren't quite right. Which was quite handy when, later, we started launching things into space.

At what point should we shut our minds down and say that we know why something occurs and there's no need for further enquiry? Hopefully long, long after we start to think "hmmm, maybe diabetes can be induced by eating carbohydrates". That seems like just one of the first baby-steps in understanding to me, and is likely to be just one interesting piece in a jigsaw. To leave it at that would require a complete absence of curiosity.

I remember this forum 6 years ago, when low carbing was still frowned upon by many, with loads of 'facts' thrown about in both sides of the debate.

I also remember the days when obesity was blamed for type 2 diabetes, before it was mainstream on here that obesity, particularly round the middle, was a symptom , not a cause, in those who put on weight and went on to be diagnosed as type 2's.

 

[DCUKMod]

If carbs are not lethal for diabetics what way would you word it?
I did say in my last post that diabetics 'may wish to aim for a very-low carbohydrate (ketogenic) intake.'
That seems very good advice. Advice I may add given on this site.

I dont understand what you mean by diabetes not being a binary condition. Surely you have it or you dont. Serious question.

Apologies - I've been away from my desk at an event for Diabetes Week, and only finding your post when generally catching up.

I would say that carbs for a T2 diabetic can be tricky. I would usually suggest self testing is important to gain, real-time, personal feedback for foods, os all sorts, but that some of the most startling results usually come from carbs.

I would hope never to categorically state they are lethal, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

In terms of dietary management, we each have to decide where our own apetite for risk is, because whatever we do in life, there are risks. I make my own management decisions based on my reading, self testing of blood and interstitial fluids, venous blood tests at the lab, my beliefs, preference, lifestyle and my wider household dynamic and social opportunities and preferences.

None of all of that lot is likely to be the same for anyone, nor is my approach likely to be a carbon copy of anyone else's, except in principle. On that basis, I have no great desire to mirror anyone else's eating patterns, any more than I expect anyone else to mirror mine.

Having been at the aforementioned Diabetes Week event today, I encountered a goodly number of people living with diabetes, and their individual stories were unique. Some were doing awfully well, some enduring significant co-morbidities, and a couple in frank denial.

Very, very little about living with diabetes is binary.

 

[JohnEGreen]

"but it took Einstein to come along to suggest that they aren't quite right."

Though he did believe in the static universe for quite a while still no one is perfect I suppose.

 

[Deleted member 308541]

because some of us want to, and our meters say we can.

I eat portion controlled quantity's of carbs, low carb bread, spud lites, reheated pasta. I also drink low carb beer in moderation.

My hba1c is 5.3% or 34 mmol/mol which is down slightly on my last lot of blood tests, my average three months bgl levels are 5.5 mmol/l and I have got my weight steady where I want it at 95 Kgs.

All from eating to the meter.

 

[Mbaker]

we will have to disagree, pending further research. The majority of people can eat carbs with impunity and not become type 2 diabetics.

I consider that your position is similar to blaming milk for lactose intolerance, or nuts for a nut allergy.

I look forward to more research being done on this subject.

Are you open minded, I have put a lot of evidence down which numbers in the millions of persons. I have changed my mind for example on the merits the Newcastle Diet vs LCHF, after finding out that metabolic rate goes down on calorie restriction I place low carb at the top of my preference.

Dr Kraft conducted thousands of insulin tests and was able to actively show the links between insulin response and glucose. If you do a YouTube search on Dr Paul Mason at low carb down under he outlines how the spiking of insulin by carbs predicts the likelyhood of getting Type 2 even in persons with currently normal glucose results (he was talking 90 to 100 (5 to 5.5 mmol).

The point you have made does not take into account what we don't see I.e the insulin curve / response, again we know which of the 3 macros causes the biggest rIse, often by looking at someone's waist to height ratio the affect of insulin resistance can be seen or if possible measuring visceral fat %. Convinced yet.

 

[Oldvatr]

Dam I had post #85 in the who's the first to mention "Hitler" sweep stakes. Just missed out on the all expenses paid trip to Scunthorpe.

Can't vote you as a winner then can we. You came close.

 

[lucylocket61]

Are you open minded, I have put a lot of evidence down which numbers in the millions of persons. I have changed my mind for example on the merits the Newcastle Diet vs LCHF, after finding out that metabolic rate goes down on calorie restriction I place low carb at the top of my preference.

Dr Kraft conducted thousands of insulin tests and was able to actively show the links between insulin response and glucose. If you do a YouTube search on Dr Paul Mason at low carb down under he outlines how the spiking of insulin by carbs predicts the likelyhood of getting Type 2 even in persons with currently normal glucose results (he was talking 90 to 100 (5 to 5.5 mmol).

The point you have made does not take into account what we don't see I.e the insulin curve / response, again we know which of the 3 macros causes the biggest rIse, often by looking at someone's waist to height ratio the affect of insulin resistance can be seen or if possible measuring visceral fat %. Convinced yet.

I totally agree about the connection between insulin response and glucose. I totally agree that carb intake is the major culprit. However, in most people, their bodies can deal with the insulin response and not become type 2 diabetics.

where we differ is that i believe that you get that response, in a sustained manner only in someone who has type 2 diabetes, even if that hasnt progressed to the level of being diagnosed yet. There can be a long latent phase. In my case, I think my diabetes began with gestational diabetes 23 years ago. My hormones went out of stability and never really recovered.

There are many people out there who have tons of carbs, every day, who do not go on to become type 2 diabetic. And there are many who do not eat tons of carbs, who do become type 2 diabetic due to having this fault or irregularity which leads to type 2 diabetes.

Its complicated. Its not just carbs intake = type 2 diabetes sooner or later.

 

[ObscureMH]

I joined this forum fairly soon after diagnosis, seeking advice, support, and a place to get things off my chest after the shock of that diagnosis, from people who have been in the same situation.
Everyone who responded to my posts I found to be supportive without being prescriptive, though have noticed the very occasional "hard-line" advice or short, pithy one-liners challenging others in other posts - an example being "why would you eat bread?".

I think the OP on this post has been deliberately provocative, and has succeeded in triggering challenging responses from a lot of people. That may have been their aim all along, rather than wanting a genuine debate and listening to the other side of the argument or indeed anything that slightly differs from their own view.

I'm no psychologist nor sociologist, but this post has confirmed my theory on the 4 stages on the road to zealotry;
1) Enthusiast: Discovers something new (e.g. LCHF), wants to give it a try, and likes what they discover.
2) Advocate: Having enjoyed the experience or seen success with it, is keen to tell people how it helped them and suggest it might help others.
3) Evangelist: Socialising their new found discovery, urging people to take it up, and endlessly talking about it.
4) Zealot: This discovery is now the only way to live life, and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but should be sent to purgatory and has no business disagreeing with them.

Religious zealotry is the classic example of this, and we all know what that leads to - historically and in more recent times.
I'm an advocate - and avoid the temptation of evangelism when my T2 Mum tells me she has had Weetabix for breakfast . I take the measured view that everyone is different and don't see the point of forcing your view on someone.

Be an advocate, share your experience and advice, try not to evangelize, but please refrain from zealotry. Please.

Peace out.

 

[archersuz]

I joined this forum fairly soon after diagnosis, seeking advice, support, and a place to get things off my chest after the shock of that diagnosis, from people who have been in the same situation.
Everyone who responded to my posts I found to be supportive without being prescriptive, though have noticed the very occasional "hard-line" advice or short, pithy one-liners challenging others in other posts - an example being "why would you eat bread?".

I think the OP on this post has been deliberately provocative, and has succeeded in triggering challenging responses from a lot of people. That may have been their aim all along, rather than wanting a genuine debate and listening to the other side of the argument or indeed anything that slightly differs from their own view.

I'm no psychologist nor sociologist, but this post has confirmed my theory on the 4 stages on the road to zealotry;
1) Enthusiast: Discovers something new (e.g. LCHF), wants to give it a try, and likes what they discover.
2) Advocate: Having enjoyed the experience or seen success with it, is keen to tell people how it helped them and suggest it might help others.
3) Evangelist: Socialising their new found discovery, urging people to take it up, and endlessly talking about it.
4) Zealot: This discovery is now the only way to live life, and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but should be sent to purgatory and has no business disagreeing with them.

Religious zealotry is the classic example of this, and we all know what that leads to - historically and in more recent times.
I'm an advocate - and avoid the temptation of evangelism when my T2 Mum tells me she has had Weetabix for breakfast . I take the measured view that everyone is different and don't see the point of forcing your view on someone.

Be an advocate, share your experience and advice, try not to evangelize, but please refrain from zealotry. Please.

Peace out.

WOW!!! I wish I could have put it so eloquently! That's exactly what I have wanted to say but lacked the necessary skills! Well done you.

 

[Jenny15]

I joined this forum fairly soon after diagnosis, seeking advice, support, and a place to get things off my chest after the shock of that diagnosis, from people who have been in the same situation.
Everyone who responded to my posts I found to be supportive without being prescriptive, though have noticed the very occasional "hard-line" advice or short, pithy one-liners challenging others in other posts - an example being "why would you eat bread?".

I think the OP on this post has been deliberately provocative, and has succeeded in triggering challenging responses from a lot of people. That may have been their aim all along, rather than wanting a genuine debate and listening to the other side of the argument or indeed anything that slightly differs from their own view.

I'm no psychologist nor sociologist, but this post has confirmed my theory on the 4 stages on the road to zealotry;
1) Enthusiast: Discovers something new (e.g. LCHF), wants to give it a try, and likes what they discover.
2) Advocate: Having enjoyed the experience or seen success with it, is keen to tell people how it helped them and suggest it might help others.
3) Evangelist: Socialising their new found discovery, urging people to take it up, and endlessly talking about it.
4) Zealot: This discovery is now the only way to live life, and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but should be sent to purgatory and has no business disagreeing with them.

Religious zealotry is the classic example of this, and we all know what that leads to - historically and in more recent times.
I'm an advocate - and avoid the temptation of evangelism when my T2 Mum tells me she has had Weetabix for breakfast . I take the measured view that everyone is different and don't see the point of forcing your view on someone.

Be an advocate, share your experience and advice, try not to evangelize, but please refrain from zealotry. Please.

Peace out.

Best post in the whole thread, IMHO.

BTW, @rab5, did you read the article I linked for you at post #32?

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...-a-type-2-diabetic.151019/page-2#post-1808583

You said several times in this thread that you are "always willing when the facts back it up to change my mind" and that you believe scientific studies carry more weight than anecdote and opinion. Around 10 studies are linked in the article, which summarises their findings in the context of what *may* be causing T2 in so many people these days.

 

[Boo1979]

Best post in the whole thread, IMHO.

BTW, @rab5, did you read the article I linked for you at post #32?

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...-a-type-2-diabetic.151019/page-2#post-1808583

You said several times in this thread that you are "always willing when the facts back it up to change my mind" and that you believe scientific studies carry more weight than anecdote and opinion. Around 10 studies are linked in the article, which summarises their findings in the context of what *may* be causing T2 in so many people these days.

V good link. Thanks for sharing

 

[Mbaker]

I totally agree about the connection between insulin response and glucose. I totally agree that carb intake is the major culprit. However, in most people, their bodies can deal with the insulin response and not become type 2 diabetics.

where we differ is that i believe that you get that response, in a sustained manner only in someone who has type 2 diabetes, even if that hasnt progressed to the level of being diagnosed yet. There can be a long latent phase. In my case, I think my diabetes began with gestational diabetes 23 years ago. My hormones went out of stability and never really recovered.

There are many people out there who have tons of carbs, every day, who do not go on to become type 2 diabetic. And there are many who do not eat tons of carbs, who do become type 2 diabetic due to having this fault or irregularity which leads to type 2 diabetes.

Its complicated. Its not just carbs intake = type 2 diabetes sooner or later.

This is what Kraft said, he classes persons who have insulin resistant as effectively diabetic, this chimes with what appears to be some of your view. In my case I felt fine in the November of 2014 (probably was pre-diabetic then), decided to go extra healthy eating, via extra orange juice, grapes, bananas on top of the porridge and regular carbs (pasta, rice, the usual), during December I felt sicker and sicker and began what I now know to be the symptoms of diabetes. I was tired, weeing a lot and getting thirsty - drank more orange juice. Clearly I had become carb intolerant. Diabetes took me by surprise as although I would do end of week doughnuts with the family or pizza, I was the guy who would go into the super or mini market to get mixed nuts and raisins or chicken, noodles and cabbage, dates - the healthy options.

I am sure that if I was knowledgeable that carbs turn to sugar, just as I avoided binge drinking, and never smoked I would not have selected foods that were say 30 grams of carbs per 100 and above, I definitely would not have gone over WHO guidelines by the margin I was (estimated 50 plus teaspoons of sugar a day in December 2014, mainly orange juice), I just know how I react to knowledge.

I don't disagree about the number of high carb eaters, I look at the general results of this in the average guy, children and athletes. I then see what happens when this method of eating is changed i.e what foods were changed, there always seems to be the same group.

 

[Crocodile]

The western diet full of carbs has more to do with causing t2d. The gene theory is an interesting one. Although it’s not like the genes that turn on/off to say choose the colour of your eyes.

The following link lists the nations of the world together with their diabetic incidence.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings
Nations of the west don't even feature in the top 20 with most of them well down the list. Your hypothesis that T2 is caused by western diets is a myth.

The condition was well known even to the ancient Egyptians long before western man made his first hamburger with fries.

 

[Crocodile]

I joined this forum fairly soon after diagnosis, seeking advice, support, and a place to get things off my chest after the shock of that diagnosis, from people who have been in the same situation.
Everyone who responded to my posts I found to be supportive without being prescriptive, though have noticed the very occasional "hard-line" advice or short, pithy one-liners challenging others in other posts - an example being "why would you eat bread?".

I think the OP on this post has been deliberately provocative, and has succeeded in triggering challenging responses from a lot of people. That may have been their aim all along, rather than wanting a genuine debate and listening to the other side of the argument or indeed anything that slightly differs from their own view.

I'm no psychologist nor sociologist, but this post has confirmed my theory on the 4 stages on the road to zealotry;
1) Enthusiast: Discovers something new (e.g. LCHF), wants to give it a try, and likes what they discover.
2) Advocate: Having enjoyed the experience or seen success with it, is keen to tell people how it helped them and suggest it might help others.
3) Evangelist: Socialising their new found discovery, urging people to take it up, and endlessly talking about it.
4) Zealot: This discovery is now the only way to live life, and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but should be sent to purgatory and has no business disagreeing with them.

Religious zealotry is the classic example of this, and we all know what that leads to - historically and in more recent times.
I'm an advocate - and avoid the temptation of evangelism when my T2 Mum tells me she has had Weetabix for breakfast . I take the measured view that everyone is different and don't see the point of forcing your view on someone.

Be an advocate, share your experience and advice, try not to evangelize, but please refrain from zealotry. Please.

Peace out.

Zealotry has other causes as well but that can be left for another day. I'm not even sure who the OP was since this thread was moved here by the mods from another thread.

 

[Crocodile]

Are you open minded, I have put a lot of evidence down which numbers in the millions of persons. I have changed my mind for example on the merits the Newcastle Diet vs LCHF, after finding out that metabolic rate goes down on calorie restriction I place low carb at the top of my preference.

Dr Kraft conducted thousands of insulin tests and was able to actively show the links between insulin response and glucose. If you do a YouTube search on Dr Paul Mason at low carb down under he outlines how the spiking of insulin by carbs predicts the likelyhood of getting Type 2 even in persons with currently normal glucose results (he was talking 90 to 100 (5 to 5.5 mmol).

The point you have made does not take into account what we don't see I.e the insulin curve / response, again we know which of the 3 macros causes the biggest rIse, often by looking at someone's waist to height ratio the affect of insulin resistance can be seen or if possible measuring visceral fat %. Convinced yet.

Dr Kraft's work may be important but it misses the salient point of this now rather lengthy thread. I don't agree that any of this research and statistics categorically points to carbohydrate consumption being the causative factor to the diabetic condition. It merely identifies the physiological responses to the condition. That's quite an important distinction.

 

[Jenny15]

Zealotry has other causes as well but that can be left for another day. I'm not even sure who the OP was since this thread was moved here by the mods from another thread.

I think you're right, the "only my way of eating is the right way" type of zealotry is just one of many types. I would be interested in a thread about zealotry in general, maybe in an off-topic area?

Another term I find interesting is orthorexia. Now, I know some people feel triggered by that word, because some DNs, bless them, call any of us non high carbers orthorexic, but I think there definitely are a few cases of it among diabetics of all kinds. The zealotry can make it hard to discuss this serious issue. We'd discuss bulimia nervosa in an adult way here (I assume). We should be able to talk about orthorexia, too.

 

[first14808]

"but it took Einstein to come along to suggest that they aren't quite right."

Though he did believe in the static universe for quite a while still no one is perfect I suppose.

I blame Karl Popper, and a simple fact that 97% of people don't understand the difference between theories and facts. And facts certainly aren't what they used to be, especially with the rise of 'fact checking'.. Often with it's own biases. Or there's lazy facts, where falsification is left to others, sometimes with stubborn refusal to accept inconvenient facts.

So there's a bunch of different theories relating to why T2 diabetes is on the increase, and strong evidence that it's diet related, and a statistically high probability that it's related to carb consumption, or excess carb consumption. I'm unconvinced that a zero carb diet is practical, or sensible though. There was a famous study (which I can never find) that tried to find out why someone who claimed never to eat protein still lived. When tested in a lab environment, the scientists discovered that the person was getting rather ill, and probably due to their rice being uncontaminated by the insects that were in their normal diet.

Science is fun like that.

To me, the evidence strongly suggests that if we're carb-intolerant, we should aim to keep our blood glucose in a 'normal' range. That doesn't mean we have to give up eating carbs entirely. And I also think there's good evidence that it's not a simple 'T2' diagnosis, ie many factors may be involved in metabolic syndrome that presents diabetes as a symptom.

 

[Oldvatr]

I think you're right, the "only my way of eating is the right way" type of zealotry is just one of many types. I would be interested in a thread about zealotry in general, maybe in an off-topic area?

Another term I find interesting is orthorexia. Now, I know some people feel triggered by that word, because some DNs, bless them, call any of us non high carbers orthorexic, but I think there definitely are a few cases of it among diabetics of all kinds. The zealotry can make it hard to discuss this serious issue. We'd discuss bulimia nervosa in an adult way here (I assume). We should be able to talk about orthorexia, too.

https://www.beateatingdisorders.org...b00LftBLDTNArJNXUXLM9E9SIZzZ2nA4aAmbtEALw_wcB

So Eating to meter is considered to be a sign of madness and mental instability? I think not.

 

[Mbaker]

Dr Kraft's work may be important but it misses the salient point of this now rather lengthy thread. I don't agree that any of this research and statistics categorically points to carbohydrate consumption being the causative factor to the diabetic condition. It merely identifies the physiological responses to the condition. That's quite an important distinction.

Surely the carbs link is implied, when testing in labs via glucose tolerance tests, it is with a carb solution, and if insulin is to be measured they use the same solution.

It is not the carbs then what, something in the late 70's and 80's caused an explosion of diabetes and obesity exponentially. History shows there was a correlation with the low fat guidelines, big food responded in kind, removed fat in some foods such as yogurts and added sugar, in other foods they added sugar and vegetable oils / trans fats (now banned I believe) . In nature fat and sugar is hardly ever mixed. The food scientists know this combination is delicious. I have spent hours in supermarkets looking at packets to see what I can tolerate, I believe not one cereal is less than 50 g per 100 (many sit around 60) I would say the GI / GL impact to insulin response is settled again in the 80 / 20 rule scientifically and practically in diabetics and non and perfectly demonstrated with the regime Type 1's perform, the majority of the insulin is to cover carbs.

Even the UK Government agree that carbs can turn to fat and lead to diabetes - listen to the 100 calorie snack advert.

I agree this thread is long, I have added to it, adding and reading is optional.

 

[Jenny15]

https://www.beateatingdisorders.org...b00LftBLDTNArJNXUXLM9E9SIZzZ2nA4aAmbtEALw_wcB

So Eating to meter is considered to be a sign of madness and mental instability? I think not.

I didn't see anything in that article about eating to meter. Use of the terms "madness" and "mental instability" suggests you may have a different understanding of psychological disorders to mine. That's OK though.

Great article BTW, very helpful. Severe orthorexia is a very serious issue for those affected. I know of someone local to me who shows clear signs of it and who will not discuss it with anyone. The threshold for me to be concerned is when there are very obvious signs of severe health effects, such as persistent severe deficiencies or very low BMI despite efforts to address that over time. Her BMI is about 14, according to what she has told me. I can be concerned, but it is not appropriate for me to push the issue.