• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Diabetes Uk dietary advice

Unbeliever said:
I am almost certain it was sid who said that he had been told to measure in that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks to you and Stephen, I still can't remember to be honest, I just remember reading it.
 
Oh you said sock, I thought you said...

Back in that cold bath all of you.
 
Very big fins
 
Back on track please people... I don't want to be a kill joy! and light hearted comments are fine BUT given recent events I don't want another thread being derailed by people taking comments to heart so please ensure you stick to the original topic.
 

Yep, I was told by a dietician that a good way to measure a portion was to imagine that a portion is what will fit into one of your cupped hands. ie. rice would be about two tablespoons full which is what I usually use as a measure now, 3 or 4 baby new potatoes etc. Obviously not everything can be measured this way, bread for instance but it was not told to me to be 'in stone' just a way of imagining how large a 'portion' should be.
 
The problem I would have with that method is I'm 6ft2" tall,have size 13 feet BUT I have REALLY small hands(The same size as my 13 year old sons) so I'd have to wear a Baseball mitt to measure my Grub!! :lol:
 


I would have to disagree with this statement xyzzy as you are assuming that everyone is eating only enough food to fuel thier daily energy needs and most people who are overweight (80% of T2's) will not have to increase their fat intake at all, in fact if they do they are in danger of stalling weight loss or even increasing it. It is really only those who are in ketosis or are eating to maintain their body weight who will need to increase anything in their diet, most will need to cut all food groups substantially to lose the pounds.

To say a LCHF diet should be chosen because its the best option is purely your opinion and many people manage to lose weight and control their diabetes without using a LCHF diet. I thought we werent meant to make comments that my diet is better than yours here?
 

He's not saying that. He's saying that you have to get your energy from somewhere and that (unless you seriously bulk up your protein) then you have to get your calories from fat.

Assuming someone 150g carb a day (which is big by most standards), and a 16% protein intake:
1420kcal diet = 42% FAT 42%Carb
1500kcal diet = 44% FAT 40% Carb
2000kcal diet = 54% FAT 30% Carb
2500kcal diet = 60% FAT 24% Carb
3000kcal diet = 64% FAT 20% Carb

On 150g of carb you need to eat less than 1420kcal a day before you derive most of your energy from carb and not from fat.
On 100g of carb you need to eat less than 950kcal a day before you derive most of your energy from carb and not from fat.
On 50g of carb you need to eat less than 480kcal a day before you derive most of your energy from carb and not from fat.
On 25g of carb you need to eat less than 240kcal a day before you derive most of your energy from carb and not from fat.
 
To say a LCHF diet should be chosen because its the best option is purely your opinion
Click to expand...


Yes, but xyzzy is not alone in that opinion :

"If you want to lose weight, the actual material you want to rid your body of is fat. But to do that you have to change your body from using glucose as a fuel to using fat ? including your own body fat. This is another reason not to use protein as a substitute for carbs, as protein is also converted to glucose.

If you think about it, Nature stores excess energy in our bodies as fat, not as protein. It makes much more sense, therefore, to use what we are designed by Nature to use. And that is fat."
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html

and :

"we apparently have come to near identical conclusions on what is more or less the optimal diet for healing the majority of illnesses facing humanity. Kwasniewski, like myself, is a strong proponent for a diet that contains adequate but not excessive protein, few carbohydrates, and a proportionally large quantity of fat – ideally from animal sources."
http://180degreehealth.com/2009/01/cbs- ... wasniewski

Spring's here, and the swallows are arriving

Geoff ( a happy birdwatcher)

p.s. swallows go back to Africa each Autumn, then return each Spring to the same spot. Isn't nature fantastic ?
 
Don't disagree with you Sid about most people needing to cut their intake.

Look at like this, say someone is eating in the proportions 55% carbs, 25% Protein and 20% Fat BUT as you say are eating too much.

Lets take a case where a person is only eating slightly too much so not an excessive over eater so they will gradually put on weight over quite a long period of time. That is what happens to quite a lot of people I would suggest.

Now that person finally decides to diet. They are lucky as they haven't developed T2 so all they do is keep the same 55%, 25%, 20% ratios but eat slightly less of everything so that gradually the weight comes off and they get back to a normal weight. They are fine as they are now a normal weight with no harm done and they can keep eating with identical ratios if they want. It was a good regime to follow for a NON diabetic.

Now take an identical person who when they put the weight on developed T2 and so decide to also diet. The difference is they have T2 so have become for want of a better phrase carbohydrate intolerant. So not only do they need to eat the slightly less amount each day to trigger weight loss they also need to adjust the ratios so that their blood sugar levels remain safe. It is carbohydrates they will need drop to effect BG's and the amount they will need to drop them depends on a number of things so how much insulin resistance they have, have much beta cell damage occurred and how much medication they are willing to take.

What I hope you will see is whatever the combination they will need to adjust the ratios. Lets say for our theoretical person they have to drop the carbs down to 25% to keep safe. Now unless they do actually up the protein and fat %'s to compensate for that 30% drop in carbs then instead of being on a nice sensible slow weight loss diet they end up on some unsustainable crash diet. So what do they eat to make up for the loss of the 30% carbs? Well more protien and fat of course! So assuming they keep eating roughly the same amount of protein their ratio MUST by the laws of maths, logic and the universe end up as 25% Carbs, 25% Protein, 50% Fat which is a LCHF diet. Yes most people including myself probably don't go as extreme on the fat and would end up say around 25% Carbs, 35% protein and 40% Fat but that is still LCHF.

So you see I am not "making comments that my diet is better than yours" just proving by pure logic and mathematics what has to happen. To deny it is like denying the earth is round. I've proved using PORTION control and without once mentioning a "grams per day" figure or recommending any particular style or the words VLC, Ketosis or anything else that for an "average" T2 who developed the disease by only SLIGHTLY overeating and only has to reduce their PORTION sizes SLIGHTLY that the regime they choose when they do reduce their portion sizes AND control their blood sugar levels will be LCHF. Whether they wish to acknowledge that is neither here or there.

I really don't see what is wrong in admitting LCHF exists. It seems far better to acknowledge the truth of the matter so that good advice can be given rather than claim that some magical and purely fanciful notion that a low carb, low fat, low protein diet exists. That to me is far more of an extreme viewpoint than simply acknowledging the blindingly obvious truth. What is so taboo about LCHF in this country? It's a ridiculous state of affairs and it does our country no good to bury its head in the sand and claim LCHF is evil and bad and the equivalent of a sex crime.

That's my whole issue Sid. It's not that I don't think the DUK diet is necessarily dangerous per se just that its dangerous for a diet only T2. I would guess many T1 and T1.5's aren't particularly happy with it either. If you read Phoenix, as T1.5, says what the diet recommends is not ideal and I would guess many insulin using diabetics would have similar concerns.
 
Put more simply, if you eat 100g of carbohydrate a day then you three options:
  1. Eat less than 950kca at derive most of your energy from carbohydrate
  2. Seriously increase your protein intake and derive your energy from that instead
  3. Derive most of your energy from fat

(2) is not a good idea for a number of reasons (which I'll discuss if anyone is interested).

Low-Carb = High Fat or Very Low Calorie.
 
I would have to agree... lets remove the word 'diet' and purely look at maintaining weight... if you want to reduce carbohydrate then you will need to replace it with something.. that's going to be fat or protein..

Now I agree to some extent if you are looking to lose weight then you may look at just reducing carbohydrate and not fat / protein but proportionally if not actually you are going to be eating more fat / protein than you were before.

For Example:
Some made up numbers but demonstrates the point...

Before:
200 Carbs - 50%
100 Protein - 25%
100 Fat - 25%

After Carb Reduction:
100 Carb - 33.3%
100 Protein - 33.3%
100 Fat - 33.3%

So no change in actual fat or protein but an increase in the proportional amount of fat / protein in the 'diet'.
 

Agree entirely. It's all to do with proportions and not actual amounts. The proportions you end up with then determine the "name" of the regime you are on. Whether you think the name or label you actually end up on is taboo or "dirty" is your own hang up and prejudice.

This calculator shows the principle http://www.freedieting.com/tools/nutrient_calculator.htm. You feed in how many calories you eat and then pick a style or make up your own.

I defy anyone to make a low carb, low fat, low protein regime well at least in this universe :lol:

As you are talking about proportions and percentages the proportions for the three variables Carbs, Fat & Protein have to add up to 100% so if you cut one another has to go up to compensate. The important thing to realise is that you can change the proportions completely independently of how many calories you want to end up consuming.

I actually don't know at what ratio a regime technically becomes LCHF but I would guess any regime where Fat is HIGHER than Carbs must be LCHF or it wouldn't make sense to say LOW Carb HIGH Fat would it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…