Dare I take metformin?

[douglas99]

A reason why a lot of us use the scales with a mirror.
I know my BMI was fat, now I know it's muscle.
I'm good with that knowledge.

 

[Phub]

I don't know how to 'quote' you Jack. So I reply...


I agree. The present obesity epidemic has grown concurrent with the amount of time 'low-fat' has been the message. Things won't change in a hurry, because grain and sugars are so important to the economy. Whenever a country is in famine, it seems the first foodstuffs dolled out, are grain based. This is because its cheap, easy to produce in the West and easy to store. It seems to fill bellies quickly, at the risk of malnutrition. (Not the same thing as starvation of course.)

To me it suggests that turning to farming crops was the biggest mistake the human race ever made. If you don't rely on crops, you don't suffer famine; given access to plenty of game of course, you would be eating meat for the most part. Did our pre-agricultural ancestors have T2? I don't think so, because they wouldn't have been obese in the first instance.
.

 

[noblehead]

Two questions:
Have you never seen posts where some people, however small a minority complain that they failed to lose weight after going on LCHF.
Is there a suggestion that be lowering carbs and eating more fats one would automatically lose weight even if one actually ends up increasing calorific intake?

Pavlos

Quite often Pavlosn, some of these people have been a member of this forum for as long as I have and still struggle to loose weight following a LCHF diet, as with any diet it works for some and not for others.

 

[jack412]

I don't know how to 'quote' you Jack. So I reply...


I agree. The present obesity epidemic has grown concurrent with the amount of time 'low-fat' has been the message. Things won't change in a hurry, because grain and sugars are so important to the economy. Whenever a country is in famine, it seems the first foodstuffs dolled out, are grain based. This is because its cheap, easy to produce in the West and easy to store. It seems to fill bellies quickly, at the risk of malnutrition. (Not the same thing as starvation of course.)

To me it suggests that turning to farming crops was the biggest mistake the human race ever made. If you don't rely on crops, you don't suffer famine; given access to plenty of game of course, you would be eating meat for the most part. Did our pre-agricultural ancestors have T2? I don't think so, because they wouldn't have been obese in the first instance.
.

you click the reply button ..bottom right

usa subsidises corporate grain and corn production and grain oil, corn fructose, they won, fat lost
[nothing for the small veggie grower or tallow works ]

 

[sanguine]

The fact remains that LCHF is currently still controversial, still not the recommended diet of the medical profession. Although there are studies to support it there are equally other studies to support other nutritional theories.

You always have to look at who is sponsoring these studies. The pharmaceutical industry who pay for so many studies and with whom NICE are so cosy won't like the fact that LCHF works for so many and can be done with minimal or no drugs for so many T2s, reducing their profits.

 

[douglas99]

But what about those that don't believe diabetes is part of a great conspiracy theory?

 

[dannyw]

But what about those that don't believe diabetes is part of a great conspiracy theory?

Not sure what that means or who it is aimed at but my comments are my own, not because I believe in some sort of conspiracy. I only report what works and it is not an exact science but the majority of success stories here are based on the LCHF lifestyle. The amounts of carbs and fats and types will be different for many but most find a level that suits. My point I am trying to make is that it is at least a good start. Most will adapt it ans some may try it and find it doesn't suit. The phrase "eat to your meter" is sound and works but the vast majority of diabetics do not test BG levels on a regular basis. Totally agree this is wrong and they should be encouraged to self fund or plead with their doc but the sad fact is many don't. Such a shame and something I wish would change. Here's hoping.

 

[jack412]

Not sure what that means or who it is aimed at but my comments are my own, not because I believe in some sort of conspiracy. I only report what works and it is not an exact science but the majority of success stories here are based on the LCHF lifestyle. The amounts of carbs and fats and types will be different for many but most find a level that suits. My point I am trying to make is that it is at least a good start. Most will adapt it ans some may try it and find it doesn't suit. The phrase "eat to your meter" is sound and works but the vast majority of diabetics do not test BG levels on a regular basis. Totally agree this is wrong and they should be encouraged to self fund or plead with their doc but the sad fact is many don't. Such a shame and something I wish would change. Here's hoping.

I assume conspiracy was directed at older members , as a newer person, this isn't you. please don't be upset

edit

 

[sanguine]

But what about those that don't believe diabetes is part of a great conspiracy theory?

I didn't say diabetes was part of a great conspiracy theory. Conspiracy requires more than one party. My opinion (please note - opinion) is that the medical profession are being unwittingly led up the garden path by an industry whose prime function at corporate level is to make as much money as possible. There are huge profits at stake, so they can throw huge resources at protecting their markets. T2 diabetes is an epidemic now running wild, and the more people who take more and more drugs, including insulin, the better the pharm industry likes it. This is the same lot who brought us statins and the bonkers proposals to administer them to millions of healthy people.

As for your question, people are free to inform themselves and come to their own decisions.

 

[catherinecherub]

Can we please keep this thread relevant. Personalities and ignore lists are not part of it. If you do not agree with somebody, other than constructive criticism then please address your gripes via PM.I would hate to lock this thread but if it is going to get personal then there will be no sense in keeping it going.
It gets tedious for all members when people who do not agree keep trying to wind each other up. Turn the other cheek and stop goading each other.

 

[sanguine]

Can we please keep this thread relevant.

Relevant to what? The OP has been continuing to participate as the thread evolves.

 

[douglas99]

I don't know how to 'quote' you Jack. So I reply...


I agree. The present obesity epidemic has grown concurrent with the amount of time 'low-fat' has been the message. Things won't change in a hurry, because grain and sugars are so important to the economy. Whenever a country is in famine, it seems the first foodstuffs dolled out, are grain based. This is because its cheap, easy to produce in the West and easy to store. It seems to fill bellies quickly, at the risk of malnutrition. (Not the same thing as starvation of course.)

To me it suggests that turning to farming crops was the biggest mistake the human race ever made. If you don't rely on crops, you don't suffer famine; given access to plenty of game of course, you would be eating meat for the most part. Did our pre-agricultural ancestors have T2? I don't think so, because they wouldn't have been obese in the first instance.
.

The only major problem with that, was we would all have to be responsible for our own food gathering, if you wanted to live on game with no agricultural society.
I have to be honest, for me, the closest I get is picking up the odd road kill, usually mown down with the car.
But battering a wild animal to death with a club would indeed keep obesity at bay as well, particularly if that was the only thing I could eat, rather than nipping down to Tescos.
But it wouldn't be my lifestyle of choice, so I'm always doing a balancing act.

 

[jack412]

Can we please keep this thread relevant. Personalities and ignore lists are not part of it. If you do not agree with somebody, other than constructive criticism then please address your gripes via PM.I would hate to lock this thread but if it is going to get personal then there will be no sense in keeping it going.
It gets tedious for all members when people who do not agree keep trying to wind each other up. Turn the other cheek and stop goading each other.

I'm pretty sure I was explaining to the newer poster not to be upset by a fellow poster saying something about a conspiracy, as i doubt it was directed at him..would it be better if I let the newer person be upset?

 

[catherinecherub]

Relevant to what? The OP has been continuing to participate as the thread involves.

Part of the forum rules.

Entering a discussion to belittle or discredit someone.

I would have thought that calling someone a troll is enough to justify my comments. I am not saying that everyone is disrupting this thread but the people who are need to consider their postings.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

of course you don't sid, you think what you think
you don't know about t2 converting 10x the normal rate of glucose to fructose, that the liver lays down as fat

You seem to assume that you know an awful lot about me when you dont, you also seem to see yourself as an all knowing lchf diet guru but I very much doubt that you are.

Actually and for your info when I was eating 60g carbs per day and lost 4 stones in weight (56lb) I was also taking prednisolone which makes you eat like an olympic athelete and I was using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin as well, quite a feat i am sure you will agree to lose that weight under those circumstances and I I have managed to keep off that weight loss for the last 5 years plus lose another stone.

So please dont try to baffle me with irrelevant tripe and nonsense about conversion rates of glucose and fructose its all just a smoke screen that might fool some people but me ive read all this before by those who would try to baffle people into believing what they have read in some diet gurus book and most of it is utter tripe.

Oh and I did zero exercise in the period I am talking about as I suffer from chronic arthritis, basically if you eat fewer calories than you use you lose weight, and those who lose weight on a low carb diet lose it because they eat fewer calories, why do you find it so difficult to you accept the scientific truth?

 

[catherinecherub]

it seems the anti's are the odd ones out on this thread..perhaps a rethink?

People get very heated about subjects but calling people trolls and antis does nothing to diffuse the situation.
I am not going to argue with you, there has been enough unpleasantness in this thread. I am able to make my own judgements rather than use suggestions. It either gets back on track and no more name calling or it will be locked.

 

[jack412]

You seem to assume that you know an awful lot about me when you dont, you also seem to see yourself as an all knowing lchf diet guru but I very much doubt that you are.

Actually and for your info when I was eating 60g carbs per day and lost 4 stones in weight (56lb) I was also taking prednisolone which makes you eat like an olympic athelete and I was using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin as well, quite a feat i am sure you will agree to lose that weight under those circumstances and I I have managed to keep off that weight loss for the last 5 years plus lose another stone.

So please dont try to baffle me with irrelevant tripe and nonsense about conversion rates of glucose and fructose its all just a smoke screen that might fool some people but me ive read all this before by those who would try to baffle people into believing what they have read in some diet gurus book and most of it is utter tripe.

Oh and I did zero exercise in the period I am talking about as I suffer from chronic arthritis, basically if you eat fewer calories than you use you lose weight, and those who lose weight on a low carb diet lose it because they eat fewer calories, why do you find it so difficult to you accept the scientific truth?

thank you for your valued input Sid

 

[Sid Bonkers]

it seems the anti's are the odd ones out on this thread..perhaps a rethink?

Anti's, who are they? And what are they anti?

You are obviously not talking about me as I eat a reduced carb diet the same as you, but I am anti misinformation and myths that are often repeated on the internet.

Some low carbers seem to use the term antis a lot but ive never met one, ive met those who disagree with the views of others but that is just debate and opinion, anti's to me is a very provocative and aggressive name to call someone on a diabetic forum especially in view of the terms history here.

So please stop calling others antis it does no one any good and just causes arguments.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Any way thats it from me this thread has just reminded me why I dont post much here any more.

 

[douglas99]

Anti's, who are they? And what are they anti?

You are obviously not talking about me as I eat a reduced carb diet the same as you, but I am anti misinformation and myths that are often repeated on the internet.

Some low carbers seem to use the term antis a lot but ive never met one, ive met those who disagree with the views of others but that is just debate and opinion, anti's to me is a very provocative and aggressive name to call someone on a diabetic forum especially in view of the terms history here.

So please stop calling others antis it does no one any good and just causes arguments.

It's a strange phrase really.

Like you, I've done LC, LCHF in fact.
As I've posted before, it simply didn't work for me.
So I choose to do a diet that suits me, rather than try to prove it should have done regardless.

But somehow, it doesn't seem to be acceptable to some?