To Low Carb or Not to Low carb
- Thread starter Dr H
- Start Date
I'm going to join in on this discussion.
Basically guys, I only found this forum last week, since them I have been addicted, reading constant information that people have shared. It has been a real eye opener for me.
I had based my diet essentially around 200-250g of carbs a day, including quite low fat foods (mostly) and ample protein. I have had good HBA1C readings last one was 6.2%.
I eat mostly wholegrain foods, brown rice pasta, bread (hardly ever touch white anymore). I have been tested my blood sugars rigorously over the past week, as many as 20 times a day. And well guys it got me worried.
Here are some of my findings :
after eating certain "low / medium GI" foods I found that two hours after eating my blood sugars where around 7, but I took this one step further and tested 40mins- one hour after eating.
ALL-BRAN I found sometimes sent my bloodsugars upto levels above 10 after the 45 minute mark. Then they dive down to the safe zone by the two hour mark and then hit less than 4 after the 2.5 hour mark, so I essentially eat fruit at that point to balance them out.
I have had similar high readings eating things like - baked potatoes have similar results of sky rocketing high then dropping again.
Now this surely means that I have a significantly higher chance of getting complications in later life?
i've changed nothing in years, had hba1c's below 7%, but clearly my sugars have been sky rocketing outside of the safe margin for a limited period after eating, a low HBA1C clearly isn't the be all and end all of doing things right?
I have been on a lower-carb diet for the past 2-3 days, feeling good so far, I have been having around a combined total of 90g of carbs - mostly from low gi fruit / veg / salad / new potatoes, and now included nuts / higher fat food in my diet.
i'm just unsure which way to turn as there is arguements for and against the low-carb diet.
Basically guys, I only found this forum last week, since them I have been addicted, reading constant information that people have shared. It has been a real eye opener for me.
I had based my diet essentially around 200-250g of carbs a day, including quite low fat foods (mostly) and ample protein. I have had good HBA1C readings last one was 6.2%.
I eat mostly wholegrain foods, brown rice pasta, bread (hardly ever touch white anymore). I have been tested my blood sugars rigorously over the past week, as many as 20 times a day. And well guys it got me worried.
Here are some of my findings :
after eating certain "low / medium GI" foods I found that two hours after eating my blood sugars where around 7, but I took this one step further and tested 40mins- one hour after eating.
ALL-BRAN I found sometimes sent my bloodsugars upto levels above 10 after the 45 minute mark. Then they dive down to the safe zone by the two hour mark and then hit less than 4 after the 2.5 hour mark, so I essentially eat fruit at that point to balance them out.
I have had similar high readings eating things like - baked potatoes have similar results of sky rocketing high then dropping again.
Now this surely means that I have a significantly higher chance of getting complications in later life?
i've changed nothing in years, had hba1c's below 7%, but clearly my sugars have been sky rocketing outside of the safe margin for a limited period after eating, a low HBA1C clearly isn't the be all and end all of doing things right?
I have been on a lower-carb diet for the past 2-3 days, feeling good so far, I have been having around a combined total of 90g of carbs - mostly from low gi fruit / veg / salad / new potatoes, and now included nuts / higher fat food in my diet.
i'm just unsure which way to turn as there is arguements for and against the low-carb diet.
hi serial45 correct me if i am wrong but a lot of people would say thay you are not low carbing because you are eating 90 g of carbs a day.i would like to know who decided that 50 g is low carbing.personally i think that we all lower carb to some extent and we just have to find our level.serial 45, you have found your level.but the question is ,are you a low carber?who can say that you are not? i would be interested to hear from the low carbers at what point you are no longer a low carber?
Dillinger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,207
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- Celery.
Mullaneder - I don't think it matters an iota what people call themselves, want to call themselves, or get upset for other people calling themselves when it comes to this high carb/low carb thing - we shouldn't get distracted by that.
To Serial45's point - I also found that porridge, that shining beacon of nutricious goodness really sent my blood sugars rocketing up and then plummeting down within a 2 hour period. You are right that the HbA1c is an average; so if you are having swings it won't pick that up. That's one of the many good reasons that I chose to cut out carbohyrdate as much as possible, green vegetables being the prime source of daily carbohyrdate for me. There are also lot's of other benefits which follow from that and which are well documented here.
All the best
Dillinger
To Serial45's point - I also found that porridge, that shining beacon of nutricious goodness really sent my blood sugars rocketing up and then plummeting down within a 2 hour period. You are right that the HbA1c is an average; so if you are having swings it won't pick that up. That's one of the many good reasons that I chose to cut out carbohyrdate as much as possible, green vegetables being the prime source of daily carbohyrdate for me. There are also lot's of other benefits which follow from that and which are well documented here.
All the best
Dillinger
mullaneder said:
Maybe I should have said "lower carb" still going from 230g to around 90 is a lot lower than previous(practicallyt a third).
I'm planning on taking a lower step in carbs, but unsure, going to see how things go with this new lower level in respect to my energy levels, health fitness etc, going to put more fat into my diet as well.
I only ate around 1000 calories yesterday,
40g bowl of bran with 100m milk = 170 calories , 25grams carbs
apple for snack = 15g carbs,
40g of peanuts = 158 calories, 4.1g carbs
Lunch salad with chicken - 240 calories 18g carbs
dinner - chicken grilled, 100g potatoes, 50g carrots, 100g brocolli, total around 31g of carbs, total calories around 280.
Some peanuts at night = around 100 calories.
Plenty of water and a few cups of tea throughout the day. (at least 2.5 litres)
hi serial45 thats sounds great and it works for you. all i was saying is that i think we dont have to get too hung up on the label low carb.i think it is the label that is causing the divide.as i said before ,we all need to find a level of carbs that works for ourselves.these levels will be different for everybody.and even these levels will be liable to change at any time.compared to the level of carbs that i ate before my diagnosis i would see myself as a low carber,but according to this forum i am not.i was just wondering that to those people that it is important to(they even have their forum on another site)where is the line in the sand? and to those to whom it is not important to (myself being one)keep on going and find out what works for you and go for it. 
We all stand somewhere along the line, rather than either side of it, Mullaneder.
Some of us have a choice about where we stand, others aren't so lucky.
Some of us have a choice about where we stand, others aren't so lucky.
I think it's worth remembering that normally. our bodies have peaks of up to 11 anyway.
If a non-diabetics go up and down like that anyway, i don't think it's worth getting yourself in a twist over.
If a non-diabetics go up and down like that anyway, i don't think it's worth getting yourself in a twist over.
Celtic.Piskie said:
didn't realise this tbh, figured normaly never go above 6-7.
Everytime i've testeds a family member, before, after eating they always seem to be around 5.5, maybe after a night out drinking i've noticed some slip to 4.0.
Dillinger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,207
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- Celery.
Serial45 said:
That's not correct - non diabetic blood sugars are very tightly controlled; it is a key element of homeostatis; here is a link to a site that details a recent study into non diabetic blood sugars and the highest they found after eating was 160 mg/dl (which is 8.8 mmol/l) but the average was 100-120 mg/dl (which is 5.5-6.6 mmol/l).
http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c ... rmal-blood
So, it is worth getting yourself into a twist over as it the key way of avoiding all those fun diabetic complications...
I would just like to pop my head round the door to say that this is the sort of thing that will make me leave this otherwise helpful forum.
If a poster feels that another poster has misunderstood something - please could they just say so, without adding a nasty little pop at the end.
It isn't helpful - and I am sure puts many people off - we don't all want to see diabetes as a combat sport.
If a poster feels that another poster has misunderstood something - please could they just say so, without adding a nasty little pop at the end.
It isn't helpful - and I am sure puts many people off - we don't all want to see diabetes as a combat sport.
Dillinger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,207
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- Celery.
Ok - I take your point, that bit of the post has been removed (and the link added), but it is really important not just to come up with 'facts' without checking them especially where we are dealing with a potentially controversial area like low carb/high carb strategies... Otherwise people will be confused and potentially disregard some very important information for them.
All the best
Dillinger
All the best
Dillinger
To be honest I am confused about it all.. and the fighting between every one does not help.
Why is there such a 'nastiness' between the two groups?
Is it historic?
I presume that is why there are Low Carb and a non-low Carb forums, as it can't be discussed in the open?
Why is there such a 'nastiness' between the two groups?
Is it historic?
I presume that is why there are Low Carb and a non-low Carb forums, as it can't be discussed in the open?
This is kind of out in the open, Marky. If you've got any good alternatives so that those who low-carb can carb-up while keeping acceptable control/preventing progression, then here would be a great place to post them.
As for the nastiness, I'm sure that's mostly just banter. Perhaps with some snideness thrown in for good measure.
Whether you love low-carb or hate it, the fact that you've heard of low-carb at all is good progress.
As for the nastiness, I'm sure that's mostly just banter. Perhaps with some snideness thrown in for good measure.
Whether you love low-carb or hate it, the fact that you've heard of low-carb at all is good progress.
Dilinger, I read your link and found it very interesting.
It just shows what a fuzzy edged business diabetes is. It was fascinating to read the various interpretations that could be made from the data. As the writer says, as with most other measurable aspects, there is quite a range of variability.
It is worrying to think that there could be even more undiagnosed diabetes than previously thought.
We are fortunate in that we have our diagnosis and can make efforts to do something about it.
Clearly one size will not fit all.
It just shows what a fuzzy edged business diabetes is. It was fascinating to read the various interpretations that could be made from the data. As the writer says, as with most other measurable aspects, there is quite a range of variability.
It is worrying to think that there could be even more undiagnosed diabetes than previously thought.
We are fortunate in that we have our diagnosis and can make efforts to do something about it.
Clearly one size will not fit all.
Beware textbooks :evil: . They perpetuate errors from one generation to the next. I have elementary Physics books which list the colours of the rainbow as Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. they even give you a neat mnemonic to help you remember"Richard Of York Gained Battles In Vain"
I look out of the window at a rainbow or make one with a prism and I cannot see blue AND indigo. There is definitely a shade of blue there, but it's not indigo.
A similar textbook tells me that if Ilook at a yellow object under a pure yellow light, ( sodium streetlamp will do), the object looks yellow. I've done it and the object is indistinguishable from white. Yes I do have perfect colour vision 8)
The writer of that textbook, completely missed Edwin Land's work on colour vision. There are 2 components to seeing colour. one is the physics of light, the other is the function of the eye. The bit they forgot
The same kind of nonsense ends up in books on nutrition. Viz, the work of Ancel Keys, which displaced the work of John Yudkin in the textbooks. However Keys's work was based on assumpions and Yudkin's on meticulous research.
I look out of the window at a rainbow or make one with a prism and I cannot see blue AND indigo. There is definitely a shade of blue there, but it's not indigo.
A similar textbook tells me that if Ilook at a yellow object under a pure yellow light, ( sodium streetlamp will do), the object looks yellow. I've done it and the object is indistinguishable from white. Yes I do have perfect colour vision 8)
The writer of that textbook, completely missed Edwin Land's work on colour vision. There are 2 components to seeing colour. one is the physics of light, the other is the function of the eye. The bit they forgot
The same kind of nonsense ends up in books on nutrition. Viz, the work of Ancel Keys, which displaced the work of John Yudkin in the textbooks. However Keys's work was based on assumpions and Yudkin's on meticulous research.
So on this basis we should mistrust the information contained in ALL text books? I think not! Obviously there ARE some that are wrong, but I suspect there are also quite a few - possibly even a majority - that are correct?
They really aren't the same thing you know.Dr H said:
Dr H said:
Maybe someone should tell my body that, since the EXACT opposite has happened. Increased my saturated fat consumption = increased HDL, decreased LDL and decimated trigs...
I don't touch any of those 'healthy' vegetable oils at all except for cold pressed olive oil and flax seed oil. Lard, butter and coconut oil all the way.
Hi Phoenix, you are right, I do eat all those fats you mentioned as foods, I was referring to cooking and dressing oils in my post really, I should have made that clear. Thanks for that clarification. I'm a big fan of nuts, avocados and oily fish. I eat nuts on a daily basis and have avocados and oily fish at least twice a week, usually salmon, mackerel or sardines! Avocados rock! LOL I might use sesame oil as a flavouring too. I eat a few seeds, particularly linseed but mostly nuts.
EDIT to clarify - I don't use sunflower oil, vegetable oil or rapeseed oil, or any spreads, I prefer my foods as natural as possible and all these require a great deal of processing or are high in Omega 6s. I avoid trans fats and hydrogenated oils at all costs
EDIT to clarify - I don't use sunflower oil, vegetable oil or rapeseed oil, or any spreads, I prefer my foods as natural as possible and all these require a great deal of processing or are high in Omega 6s. I avoid trans fats and hydrogenated oils at all costs
