I think the hope of those that established the eat well plate is that once a 'standard's Type 2 has lost the weight, they will be able to increase their carbs a little as their insulin resistance will have diminished and their pancreas will still be healthy enough to produce insulin. And for the vast majority of Type 2s I believe this is probably true - but that doesn't mean they can go back to their previous portion size and it doesn't help those who didn't have insulin resistance in the first place.
Smidge
i wished your experience was standard, your experience of their advice is bewilderingbut heyho
I'm 6'3 and definitely not a skinny but I can relate to cartys problem re portion sizes, I'm on a maintenance diet of around 2500 cals which using the eatwell plate model would mean 1250 cals from carbs, that's a hefty 320g carbs per day.The smaller portion may work for some but what about the skinnies who need to put on weight but keep our BGs down?
CAROL
I'm 6'3 and definitely not a skinny but I can relate to cartys problem re portion sizes, I'm on a maintenance diet of around 2500 cals which using the eatwell plate model would mean 1250 cals from carbs, that's a hefty 320g carbs per day.
That's the nhs's problem, no two diabetics are the same.
They have to start somewhere, so I guess it's fair to have a standard approach, level the playing field, prescribe the standard drugs. Some common sense obviously, but that's the one thing the doctor should have.
But all things being equal, if that works for the majority, fine.
If not, the 3 month review is where it moves on, then the 6/12 month review to check the progress.
I've been through the process, it worked well for me, I've worked with them, and they've worked with me, it's been mutual, and certainly I've met a range of professionals at all degrees of training, knowledge, understanding, as I'm sure they meet the same range of patients.
And therein lies the problem. This is where the 'high fat' part of low-carb has to come in. No diabetic can realistically eat that many carbs and maintain good BGs (possibly with the exception of those prepared to take very large doses of insulin) so the calories have to come from somewhere. There is only so much protein a human can eat so that leaves fat - the most calorie-dense food type, so small amounts add lots of calories. I believe it is only in this part that the medical profession really has a problem with low-carb - most know it makes complete sense but their dilemma is in recommending increasing the fat content of a meal to diabetics who are already at a 20% greater risk of heart disease.
Personally, I don't know if adding fat to the diet increases risk of heart disease. I do know that high BG causes all kinds of serious complications including heart disease, so I go with mitigating the known risk at the expense of the unknown risk. Simply, I prioritise my BG over everything else. That's my logic for low-carbing - no evangelical beliefs, simply a prioritization of the risk of high BG over all other risks.
Smidge
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?