600 calories to "reverse" Type2

[NewdestinyX]

This comment was made in the 'poll thread' about this diet and as I thought about it my, 'pontification' about the topic, is more appropriate in 'this thread' than there.. So I'll respond here:

Slimfast like Literlife are low calorie diets and they work by making your body use its own fat to survive. It takes about three days of eating 600 calories a day to get into 'fat burning'. It means the fat around the liver, pancreas etc is being used and when thats gone it uses the rest of the fat in your body for energy. Once in 'fat burning' one often gets a feeling of well being. Rarely, but it does happen, some people feel tired to begin with until the body 'switches gear'. Whilst on this type of diet, you need to drink 2 litres of water a day, this is to help push the ketones out of the body that you make by being on this diet. If the diet is adhered to, you can lose about 10lb in the first two weeks and then 3lb a week on average thereafter. I have known people lose 10 stone over 10 months. I myself lost 4 1/2 stone in 4 months. It works, but you have to be incredibly dedicated and stick to it.

From my experience and talking to many folks - MOST - people feel very 'sick' through the induction period of very lo carb diets. So much so it's called the 'induction flu'. I never had a sense of well being even after 6 weeks and it didn't control my blood sugars (as promised by many well meaning people on these forums) and I only lost 15 pounds (that was nice) and worst of all, I didn't have enough exercise to work out vigorously. The the body 'CAN" use fat as energy and 'does' - it's a 'less efficient' source of energy than are carbs. The body has to work much harder to convert the fat in storage to energy. This is why you don't always feel like you have enough energy. NOW - the kicker is - after a while the BODY 'can' be retrained and if you can tough it out for more like 2 months - you CAN get used to this way of eating and the 'way you feel'. As any 'ardent' lo carb supporter - they will tell you - they feel 'better' than ever. From my own journey trying 'ardently' both ways of life -the reason ANY of us feel better after we take control of our D is much less about the diet we choose and much more about having lower blood glucose numbers and secondly any exercise we've added. Assuming we all cut out the very, very carbiest of sweets from where we were eating before - again even moderate carbers are feeling better by taking the meds and/or insulin to control their BG levels. It's less about food choice, specifically and more about controlling the BG levels and the activity you've added to your life.

I know MANY non diabetics who eat the 'normal 300g of carbs a day or higher diet', are NOT athletes, but stay 'fit' and they feel AMAZINGLY healthy - even eating 'strawberries & cream' once a day. Feeling 'good', a very subjective notion to begin with, is mostly about proper body systems balance (BG level control and other systems in homeostasis) and light to heavy activity and getting good vitamins and minerals -- leading as stress free a life as possible -- AND LASTLY, but ALSO importantly - a 'good healthy' diet. (For the record I do NOT believe in Extreme lo carb diets of <50g of carbs a day as a mainstay for controlling BG levels. It's worked for me for 'dieting purposes only - and though it CAN work VERY effectively for MANY to control D, it is not the 'most healthy' in my research). Reducing and/or ELIMINATING 'processed carbs' IS a MUST - but just for GENERAL health purposes and not specifically for D control. We are also eating less of and afraid too much of 'fats' in modern society. From comparing LOTS of research the 'healthiest' ratio is not believed to be: 25% carbs, 30% protein, 50% good fats and some saturated fats too. Many D's will prefer to go more like 10, 30, 60 and I respect the decision but don't recommend it to newbies. I never felt well on that kind of diet even after giving it a long time.

That's my '2 years of educating myself' conviction. Others feel/conclude differently. I respect that.

As for me - I'm moderate carbing, don't deprive myself of anything but the harsh sugarey things and I even have them occasionally. I've lost 65 lbs in 2 years (the long healthy way to lose lots of weight from all I've read and my docs tell me) and I'll compare my monthly BG averages and A1c with any ardent ultra lo carber or lo calorie person anywhere. There are many ways to get to a goal. The important thing is 'making one' and staying on a path toward it.

Back to this topic.. This diet is still intriguing to me and I may consider it. I just don't know if I've burnt off enough of my pancreas and liver fat doing things my way. That's the intriguing part. It seems like once you do that.. Then it won't build back up that fast and when I return to 'my method' I shouldn't regain the fat/pancreas fat. At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

(For the record I do NOT believe in Extreme lo carb diets of <50g of carbs a day as a mainstay for controlling BG levels. It's worked for me for 'dieting purposes only - and though it CAN work VERY effectively for MANY to control D, it is not the 'most healthy' in my research). Reducing and/or ELIMINATING 'processed carbs' IS a MUST - but just for GENERAL health purposes and not specifically for D control. We are also eating less of and afraid too much of 'fats' in modern society. From comparing LOTS of research the 'healthiest' ratio is not believed to be: 25% carbs, 30% protein, 50% good fats and some saturated fats too. Many D's will prefer to go more like 10, 30, 60 and I respect the decision but don't recommend it to newbies. I never felt well on that kind of diet even after giving it a long time.

What you believe is of no consequence to a low carber so why say things like this, you are clearly just trying yet again to start an argument. I dont follow a <50g carb lifestyle but I dont have a problem with those who do its their choice, please respect that and stop trying to be provocative.

 

[viviennem]

I've tried to resist but I can't . . . :roll: here goes:-

Grant, we are all different, and I for one am not MOST people.

I managed 18 months on Atkins Induction in 2004/2005, no sickness or headaches, no bad breath, lost 80lbs, full of energy, very positive outlook on life, came off blood pressure meds and had a blood lipid profile to die for! (trigs 0.65). This was pre-diabetes - my blood glucose levels were also the best they've ever been.

Yes, I do know that my BP and lipids would have improved no matter how I lost the weight!

Why I came off that lifestyle is my business

Now I know low-carb will not suit everyone, but I have never heard of "Induction flu", nor have I ever met anyone who has seriously and carefully tried Atkins (the only low-carb diet I know anything about) who has had anything more than headaches in the very early days and (sometimes) ketone breath. I do know a number of people who've got a wonderful feeling of being "in control", after many years of struggling with weight they could not shift.

Sid suggests you are trying to start an argument and like to be provocative. I don't know whether that is deliberate, or is just the way your writing style comes over on posts - remember we can't see your body language or facial expressions, to temper your words!

I have almost got to the point of not reading a thread when I see your name as the latest poster. Which is very sad - for both of us.

Please - you are fairly new here, and although you have had diabetes longer than I have, there are members of this forum who have had either Type 1 or Type 2 (or others) for decades. Most of us do lots of reading round, and take in the science to the best of our varied abilities. We don't have to be "told", though we are always grateful for new info and a good discussion - as long as we are not steam-rollered!

Softly softly catchee monkee! :lol:

Viv 8)

Edited for gross mistake - I should have said 'low-carb will NOT suit everyone' I've altered it now - sorry!

 

[NewdestinyX]

These last two posts I quote really move us 'off topic' again. And if they'd been sent to me in PM - I would have responded in PM as well. And as they may be deleted from this thread I'll PM them as well to Sid and Viv - but I also need to respond publicly so more of you can know what makes Grant 'tick'.

please respect that and stop trying to be provocative.

I assure you, Sid, it is not my intent to merely provoke for provocation's sake but as I will explain to Viv, here - I do want people always to be in 'rethink' mode. I believe that's how we 'grow'. I know I do.

Grant, we are all different, and I for one am not MOST people.

I managed 18 months on Atkins Induction in 2004/2005, no sickness or headaches, no bad breath, lost 80lbs, full of energy, very positive outlook on life, came off blood pressure meds and had a blood lipid profile to die for! (trigs 0.65). This was pre-diabetes - my blood glucose levels were also the best they've ever been.

Hi, Viv. Congrats too!! You BET you're not 'most people'.. That;s for sure.. :wink: And that's part of my point - more to come.

Why I came off that lifestyle is my business

Agreed - 100%

Now I know low-carb will not (I think you meant to put a 'not' in this sentence) suit everyone, but I have never heard of "Induction flu", nor have I ever met anyone who has seriously and carefully tried Atkins (the only low-carb diet I know anything about) who has had anything more than headaches in the very early days and (sometimes) ketone breath. I do know a number of people who've got a wonderful feeling of being "in control", after many years of struggling with weight they could not shift.

This is one of those times when we both just get to scratch our heads - because I have 'never' heard of this 'empowerment feeling from 'ANYONE' I've personally known do it - and they 'ALL' have had 'induction flu' (as you describe it with headaches etc but a lot more - no energy) for 'weeks'. But that happens in life. I think the reason that is - is that we tend to circle with people who have had 'like' experiences. And acquaintances and friends will rarely tell us if they've had the exact OPPOSITE experience. They'd rather 'avoid the topic' - so we end up hearing from people who've had 'like' experiences. I COMPLETELY BELEIVE you when you say you've heard of only 'positive' experiences in induction period. But you have to believe me too when I say I've NEVER heard of that.

Sid suggests you are trying to start an argument and like to be provocative. I don't know whether that is deliberate, or is just the way your writing style comes over on posts - remember we can't see your body language or facial expressions, to temper your words!

Yes, you've noted that a couple of times to a couple of us - and I agree with you. That's why I posted my smiling face here so people would see an 'affable' person who smiles a lot and would have a whimsical look on his face if we were talking seriously about something we differed on. I would be 'pleading' respectfully. I am 'direct' and I might as well say -- as KaMon, Sid, and some others have said -- I won't apologize for the directness because I leave plenty of 'disclaimers' mentioning I respect your position.

I have almost got to the point of not reading a thread when I see your name as the latest poster. Which is very sad - for both of us.

That's normal in forums - and why the ignore button was created. I already have 3-4 people on ignore because I can tell 'their agenda'. You are not one. You seem level-headed and caring and straight. People like me need people like you to say - "Hey Grant, have you thought that when you say it like.........". I have people like that in my life and I'm open to you being that here, Viv.

Please - you are fairly new here, and although you have had diabetes longer than I have, there are members of this forum who have had either Type 1 or Type 2 (or others) for decades. Most of us do lots of reading round, and take in the science to the best of our varied abilities. We don't have to be "told", though we are always grateful for new info and a good discussion - as long as we are not steam-rollered!

I hear you, Viv.. Really I do. New to a forum doesn't mean 'unexperienced' - but thinking of this place as if I was a 'guest' invited to your home - WOULD be a good thing for me to consider more carefully. I hear you.

Here's the thing and this will help define me and my input to the forum -

"All choices are 'personal' ones - and on that merit, alone, the bearers of the choice should be 'respected' - as people. BUT not 'all personal choices' - are GOOD choices - just by virtue of them being 'personal' even if the choices have been arrived at after 'careful consideration'. That's where science and solid reliable standards need to continue to inform and 're-inform' us."

That's a good defining 'Grant Credo' as to 'where I'm coming from' in the Diabetes forum world. Am I 'judging' your choice based on 'MY standards'. No. I'm not 'judging you' nor are they 'my standards'. My input to a forum will always be based on 'rock solid standards' backed my peer reviewed studies and text books that all medical professionals learn from and articles from Google Scholar which have greater sourcing than Google normal. And 'blogs' are 'not proof of anything in my view' since they're often 'funded' thereby have agendas.

Softly softly catchee monkee! :lol:

Oh how I wish that were the case, Viv. Again I hear you -- but -- We live in such a 'relativistic' worldview in the Western World now that all standards are being thrown out the door. ALL ideas/choices are GOOD if they're PERSONAL. That's hard for me to swallow. This forum seems to have 'many' "well-established" personalities. :wink: I am 'learning my way'. But if 'soft' means - accepting every 'personal' choice as a 'good' idea, then I think I'll end up being on several people's ignore list. I will 'respect' people in my verbiage , you watch- but I will most likely 'challenge' any idea that trustworthy sources tell me is unhealthy. Nor does a person's 'personal success' necessarily validate the 'means'. That's a universal principle. The ends don't always justify the means and with diabetes a given approach may lead to 'longer term issues'.

I think pitting ideas against each other and seeing what comes out a winner (by the science - not by debating skills) serves us disbetics better than does simply offering - "Bless your heart - do whatever you want -- you'll be fine!"

 

[Toms Grandma]

Hmmmmmm, I feel like I opened up a can of worms.......

I was a Lighterlife Counsellor for two years and had many many people use the diet. I gave up being a counsellor because I felt the profit made by the company was disproportionate to the cost of the product and therefore unethical......my opinion only. No, it is not right for everyone, and yes I had one man who really did not feel well on it. But I also had lots of people who found it really helpful. Certainly when I was using the food supplements I felt amazing. I was not suggesting it is the right thing to do, just offering some insight into it. I put 3 stone of my weight back on because I over eat. Since being diagnosed with Type 2, I have done the low carb diet and have lost 2stone in seven months.....I would have done Lighterlife if I could have afforded it, but it is very expensive and actually I felt I needed to find a way of sorting my relationship with food for life rather than just to get rid of the weight. But for some people who have much weight to lose I believe Lighterlife can help. I do not know about reversing diabetes, I am not a medic, but my diabetic nurse explained to me that the fat around my middle was stopping the pancreas doing its job. So anything that gets the fat away from the middle of the body I am guessing might be helpful...........for some people.......as I have learnt over the last seven months, nothing is ever completely right for everyone as we are all unique...............

 

[NewdestinyX]

Hmmmmmm, I feel like I opened up a can of worms.......

Methinks 'all' topics with regard to controlling D are 'cans of worms'. All is well, TomsGrandma!

I do not know about reversing diabetes, I am not a medic, but my diabetic nurse explained to me that the fat around my middle was stopping the pancreas doing its job. So anything that gets the fat away from the middle of the body I am guessing might be helpful...........for some people.......as I have learnt over the last seven months, nothing is ever completely right for everyone as we are all unique...............

Yes, we are unique in our personal/sociological challenges in having/controlling D - but diabetes' working, most effective control regimens and progression (or lack thereof) aren't as 'completely individual' as sometimes they're characterized. There are lots general principles that apply to all of us T2's.

But one interesting 'uniqueness' is skinny T2 diabetics. So though your nurse is right about 80% of diabetics -being fat around the middle, and the loss of that fat enabling them to reverse their diabetes, the other 20% of T2 diabetics aren't fat at all. That's a terrible conundrum for researchers. And if forces us not to 'categorically' say that a person gave themselves T2 because they were fat. It 'almost' let's us blame ourselves :cry: - but not all the way - by any means -- :| .

Forgive this 'yank' - but am I reading correctly from Wikipedia that a 'stone', when referring to body weight, is about 14 lbs or 6.3 kg?

Thanks!

 

[viviennem]

Hi Grant

Thanks for noting my horrendous typo in missing out the 'not' - and reading the sense correctly. What a place to do it I've edited it now.

Only one more public comment - I too read around a lot, and put my faith into peer-reviewed articles and medical professionals, for years. I followed a high-carbohydrate. low-fat diet for about 15 years, and ended up weighing nearly 300 pounds and with diabetes. And some health care professionals still tell me that that is a healthy diet and the correct way to go.

I tried Atkins thinking it might kill me, but I was going to die in short order anyway! It worked - for me.

Now I still read around, I still read peer-reviewed articles (Google Scholar is excellent); many of them support my lifestyle, and fortunately Atkins (and others) give references. Now I work with my HCPs, who respect my choices and my intelligence - and are astonished by my results.

As a friend of mine would say - "there are more ways of killing a cat than buttering it with parsnips"! Not that I would - I love cats and hate parsnips :lol: Let's leave this one now.

Viv 8)

PS Not your fault, Tom's Grandma - this was simmering. I found your posts about Lighterlife very interesting. And yes, Grant - 16oz (ounces) = 1lb (pound); 14 pounds = 1 stone. 2.2lbs = 1 kilogram. It's that common language again :lol:

Edited for avoirdupois

 

[NewdestinyX]

Hi Grant

Only one more public comment - I too read around a lot, and put my faith into peer-reviewed articles and medical professionals, for years. I followed a high-carbohydrate. low-fat diet for about 15 years,

which I'm not for a MOMENT espousing - and most peer reviewed sources no longer espouse this for the general public anymore and certainly not for diabetics. But they also don't support Atkins style eating mostly because it just isn't sustainable for the vast majority.

and ended up weighing nearly 300 pounds and with diabetes. And some health care professionals still tell me that that is a healthy diet and the correct way to go.

Yes, sadly most general practitioners of medicine get less than a semester of study on diabetes and the endocrine system diseases. It's a real travesty and if people can afford it they should only be with an endocrinologist who has 'nutrition training'. They're rare to find but they do exist. Lower carbing is not as anathema now as it was 10 years ago. They're coming around. They just speak out against the 'extreme lo carbers' (less than 50g day) as well they should - because to 'extreme' lo carb 'necessarily' means you must 'hi fat' or you'll starve. And the jury's still WAAAY out on the topic of whether high fatting is heart healthy. But that's for its own thread and my 'guess' is -- there are MAAAANY thread here about that debate already.

I tried Atkins thinking it might kill me, but I was going to die in short order anyway! It worked - for me.

Atkins also helped me lose weight and break a craving or too - but it robbed me of the necessary energy to exercise vigorously and that was counter productive. The minute I moved back up into the 70-100g carbs range my weight loss went MUCH more regularly and my energy levels never waivered and I haven't regained a pound. On extreme lo carb (<50g) my body went into 'preservation mode' and I lost weight much slower and stayed on plateaus longer. Being in ketosis isn't something 'every' body adapts well to. I know it's worked wonders for many so I respect that. The jury's still out for me as to whether those who choose that path will have 'long term' "general health" even if their diabetes is controlled. Asking the liver to be in constant gluconeogenesis for at least what the brain needs in carbs is a big question mark in the peer reviewed medical circles. So the jury's out for me too.

Now I still read around, I still read peer-reviewed articles (Google Scholar is excellent); many of them support my lifestyle,

You'd have to prove that statement to me, Viv, as I've never read even 'one' that does. Many a 'lo carb' blog -- will tell you that and they all have at least 'one doctor' that will vouch for it. But broadly peer reviewed support (corroborated from several countries) for ultra lo carb regimens does not exist that I've read. I'm happy for you to share your data. But I've studied this almost daily for two years now and I still have yet to read broadly corroborated study data that long term ultra lo carbing is a healthy long term alternative for general health and heart health. So please share what you have privately or we can do it in another thread.

Now I work with my HCPs, who respect my choices and my intelligence - and are astonished by my results.

I found one too. He wants me on statins and I"ll keep saying no to that.. But he's pretty darn good. That's important to have a medical team that works WITH you.

But even maybe eventually coming to 'agree to disagree' on some of these issue - your 'results' in weight loss, diabetic control are to be congratulated and encouraged. I applaud your success!! But bear in mind that I've arrived at the same place as you have in your health stats but didn't need to change my eating habits anywhere near as drastically as you have. So I choose to keep moderating carbs (leaning heavily on veggie and complex carbs) and live life with a 'few more 'yummy texture' choices' in the foods I eat.

Though I must admit - if a day goes by without at least two big salads - I'm yearning for more veggies. Being in the 'hospital' for my gall bladder surgery - eating the carby swill they sent me was a NIGHTMARE!!!

Be well, Viv!

 

[Etty]

Newdestiny---The categories of lo carb taken up by the DUK and used by the Nutrition and Metabolism society, are moderate carb ( 26-45%), lo carb (< 26%), and very lo carb (< 6%). In a 2000 cal diet, this translates as 130-225g/day, < 130g/day, and < 30g/day. So 50g/day is "lo carb".
Perhaps you could refer to your "extreme" level as "50g lo carb" for clarity?

 

[NewdestinyX]

Newdestiny---The categories of lo carb taken up by the DUK and used by the Nutrition and Metabolism society, are moderate carb ( 26-45%), lo carb (< 26%), and very lo carb (< 6%). In a 2000 cal diet, this translates as 130-225g/day, < 130g/day, and < 30g/day. So 50g/day is "lo carb".
Perhaps you could refer to your "extreme" level as "50g lo carb" for clarity?

The problem is there are several standards out there, Etty. By the 'medical' standards I have in my source list anything that's 'half' of the daily recommended intake for normal people (300g/day) is considered SOME form of lo carb.

For what it's worth - those gradations you give work for me and seem reasonable - except that <50 is WAY closer to <30 than it is to <130 -- so it very 'deservingly' gets the term I use 'extreme'. I don't want anyone to ge the idea that <50g of carbs/day is anywhere near 'something normal'. And the term 'lo carb' is just being applied too widely to everythings from <30 to <200. And that's a HUGE difference. As I've said a couple of times - all T2's include 'some level' of lowER carbing since I don't think any of us eat 300g or more anymore. I actually don't know anyone that eats 200g either? Pretty much 95% of us would probably fall from <50 to <200. From the manjority of the boards I've visited most tend to break it down:
>125 = normal non diabetic carbic intake - though 'lo carbers' as a 'movement' call it 'high carb'. (Interestingly - 'normal folks, and the South Beach people would see from here, 125g, to 300 as 'lower carbing - then 300+ as normal)
Then for those in the diabetic forum world I see more like:
70-125 = moderate
51-70 = low
20-50 = very low (doctors and I call this 'extreme')

So I can see how the <50 crowd, not quite Dr Bernstein level of 30 but still very low - would want to just be called 'low'. But after a while this can become a very circular argument. From a metabolic standpoint 30 and 50 will both send 'any' body into ketosis - where above 60-70g is usually the threshold where the body won't burn ketones. The theshold at which we enter 'ketosis' is where medical professionals want us to consider 'ultra/extreme' since, in their informed opinion, a constant state of ketosis isn't healthy. As I mentioned - any person eating <50g will always be in some level of ketosis. The 'general' term 'lo carb' is more commonly reserved in my reading of medical journals for a 'non-ketosis' producing level of carbs.

So I think I'll stick with the docs on this one - with regard to tieing 'ultra/extreme/very low carbing', as a term, to the gram level at which the body turns to burning ketones, which is universally observed to be under 60g or a little more based on the individual. Simple 'low' carbing shouldn't force the body into ketosis - medically speaking as a dieting modification choice they'd support. "Ketosis" (and, yes, I know the difference between it and 'ketoacidosis') is a bad word in the medical community as not considered wise to be in as a 'whole life modifcation'. Whether they're 'right' about that or not - is another whole story.. I sit a little on the fence. But it's important a newly dx'ed at least 'hear' that the medical establishment pretty universally agrees that 'ketosis', for life, is 'unhealthy'. And to reiterate, any carbic intake under about 60g will produce a state of ketosis (burning belly fat [or muscle if your protein intake is too low]) in the vast majority of us.

 

[bowell]

600 calories to "reverse" Type2

A Hi-jacked thread again , Becoming bit of a habit


[youtube]zxJyfqeaKU8[/youtube]

 

[pianoman]

Mod edit -discussion of spelling

These are all just relative terms anyway. The diet trials I have read generally specify macro-nutrients as a percentage of total daily calories rather than in grams... 50g (of Carbs, Fat or Protein) to a 250lb 6'5' inactive man is not the same as 50g to a 175lb 5'6' athletic woman. This is why the terms low-carb, high-fat etc... are open-ended. I describe what I eat as low-carb/high-fat but only by comparison to what I see most folks around me eating. At the same time, what I eat is comparable to that which my Grandparents generation ate just a few decades ago.

 

[NewdestinyX]

Mod edit -discussion of spelling

I describe what I eat as low-carb/high-fat but only by comparison to what I see most folks around me eating. At the same time, what I eat is comparable to that which my Grandparents generation ate just a few decades ago.

Really? Maybe in terms of the fat. But the diet of 2 generations ago had 'way' more grains and starches in it than, I'd wager, you eat, from your identification with low carb/high fat. Rice and potatoes were in every meal in that generation, and depending on cultural background so was pasta in HUGE quantities.

And it's the mixture of 'hi fat' and 'hi carb' that's one of the factors that can be disastrous for heart health - which is also why there was such rampart heart disease in that generation too. I know the stats tell us that things aren't much better today. heart health-wise, after the "low fat experiment" of the last 30 years. BUT that still means there was a HECK of a lot of heart disease in your grandparents generation. It was indeed diet related. The arguments I've heard about the Inuit peoples are way more compelling a comparison than our grandparent's generation's diet.

So if you meant to imply that 2 generations ago they ate like the lo carb/hi fat "enthusiasts" of today - well that would just be revisionist history.

 

[pianoman]

Mod edit -discussion of spelling

My Grandparent generation did not have the fat-phobia which is so rife these days. They ate real whole food, mostly home-cooked, fresh and local. Of course with Diabetes I have to watch the starches -- that's a "no-brainer" as they say -- but otherwise the same principles apply.

 

[bowell]

Really? Maybe in terms of the fat. But the diet of 2 generations ago had 'way' more grains and starches in it than, I'd wager, you eat,

Do you think so ? Our older generations had to deal with a restricted diet because of rationing and WWII diet

This side of the pond rationing was harder to deal with than yours i believe

Official rationing began on 8 January 1940 with bacon, butter and sugar. Rations were distributed by weight, monetary value or points. One person's typical weekly allowance would be: one fresh egg; 4oz margarine and bacon (about four rashers); 2oz butter and tea; 1oz cheese; and 8oz sugar. Meat was allocated by price, so cheaper cuts became popular.
many appreciated the fairness and equality of rationing. It continued until 1954 due to the large number of men still in the armed forces, a badly damaged economy and Britain's responsibility to feed those parts of Europe under its control.

Ref
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/rationing_in_ww2#p00gffy3

[youtube]cDjXrctaNt8[/youtube]

[youtube]BlWw7Z1XhaI[/youtube]

 

[NewdestinyX]

Mod edit -discussion of spelling

My Grandparent generation did not have the fat-phobia which is so rife these days.

Agreed. BUT they also had just as much or more heart disease than we have today precisely because of what I said - high fat + high carb.

They ate real whole food, mostly home-cooked, fresh and local.

Again agreed - on that point I'm with you - we eat from less good 'sources' these days.

Of course with Diabetes I have to watch the starches -- that's a "no-brainer" as they say -- but otherwise the same principles apply.

Sorry. Can't let you off the hook that easily with that whopping a 'redirect' again :wink: . Is 'redirection' a technique you employ to provoke, Pianoman? It's getting, well... tiring. And then you sorta force me to reacquaint the thread readers withthe ACTUAL context after a redirect. Here's the context statement where you invoked your grandparents way of life as a 'comparison' to your own:

I describe what I eat as low-carb/high-fat but only by comparison to what I see most folks around me eating. At the same time, what I eat is comparable to that which my Grandparents generation ate just a few decades ago.

[my bold, underline and color] - Context is everything in a discussion with potentially differing or opposing viewpoints. You can't redirect the context when you're challenged. Your diet, in terms of macronutrient mixture, is nothing at all like "our" grandparents. They did not eat better (macronurtrient mixture-wise; your context) than most low-, and even moderate-, carb diabetics of today - not by a long shot. They ate high carb and high fat - a deadly combo per most medical sources I've read. And they paid/are paying for it BIG time in their advanced years.

Even my more moderate 70-100g of carbs and highER good fats diet is way better than the diet of 1-2 generations ago - as would your diet be too since you choose to make carbs so low and fats that much higher.

The only thing our grandparents did better on, in their diet, was more 'whole foods/freshly grown', as you said.

Edited post to 'soften' posture...a touch..

 

[mehdave]

Gentle reminder to please keep this thread on topic and friendly.

 

[josie38]

Hi all,

This is now off topic - Can we not argue over the corrrect spelling of things? If a member wants to use a different spelling that is their choice!!!!!!! Lets keep the arguements for pm's please?

I just have to say as regards food - my nan was a T1 diabetic all her life (she died at 70) and my mum says that most days my nan ate a lot of cabbage and she was never fat. That explained the weird smell at my nans house!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Josie

 

[Patch]

arguements

:lol:

Only jokin', josie! :wink:

 

[josie38]

Feel stupid now :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Only you patch :wink:

josie