M
I'm like you, playing the long game. I consume as few carbohydrates as possible all the time, as well as high fats and moderate protein. That is what keeps my weight down and my fasting bs at 4.5. To be constantly trying different things and pushing the limit doesn't work for me, abstinence is much easier and I enjoy the food I eat, so why change?Firstly, I respect that discussion of this nature can be quite prickly. I’d therefore like to open by making it clear that nothing I’m about to say is meant as a disparaging attitude toward anyone’s diabetes management. Food is very personal, and it goes without saying that we are all free to manage our condition as we please. I’m asking this question purely out of curiosity to see which camp we all sit in. If you’re uncomfortable with anything I say, or the manner in which I say it, then please accept my apologies and ignore the discussion rather than take the view that it’s an attack on your choices
With that out of the way, my question is as per the thread title. “Do you eat to the meter” as it were? Do you take the view that as long as you can get from one meal to the next with the maximum glucose load that your own prescribed limits will allow, then you’re ok? Alternatively, do you play the “long game” and always keep in mind that your goal is to purge the body of glucose, not keep topping it up to just below the MAX mark, most probably with the aim of reversal/remission/cure or whatever to you choose to call it?
In my own personal view, the latter method is the most effective, and I also find total abstinence of my kryptonite foods to be far easier than negotiating with them - weighing, counting, and then measuring blood glucose. I don’t feel that the former method is sustainable for me for long term, and also I take the stance that it will make my condition ever so gradually worse over the course of my life.
What say you, folks? Again, I know that people are naturally defensive of their own choices, so please read the first paragraph again if you’re considering expressing disapproval of my question or the way in which I have framed it. Open discussion invited though of course. A or B answers would be a bit boring
I eat to my meter to make sure I am well under the max my body can take. I think your question is a bit black and white, to be honest.“Do you eat to the meter” as it were? Do you take the view that as long as you can get from one meal to the next with the maximum glucose load that your own prescribed limits will allow, then you’re ok?
Perhaps I should clarify.
Eating to the meter = testing before and after food. Or knowing that the food you’re eating is putting glucose into your body but you’re happy with that.
Long game = not needing to test before or after. Keeping your toe in the water with occasional or daily fasting checks, but otherwise knowing that you are depleting glucose, not putting some in.
In my mind there’s a distinct difference between the two and I have extensive experience of both approaches. Anyway thanks for the responses so far
You seem to have this strange idea that the human body is full of glucose like some sort of crystallised fruit. Glycogen is stored temporarily but without being topped up would be exhausted in a day or so. Energy is stored long term as fat. By eating low carb we are putting less stress on our ability to deal with glucose and hopefully long term reducing insulin resistance. Your two scenarios are really not different.Perhaps I should clarify.
Eating to the meter = testing before and after food. Or knowing that the food you’re eating is putting glucose into your body but you’re happy with that.
Long game = not needing to test before or after. Keeping your toe in the water with occasional or daily fasting checks, but otherwise knowing that you are depleting glucose, not putting some in.
In my mind there’s a distinct difference between the two and I have extensive experience of both approaches. Anyway thanks for the responses so far
You seem to have this strange idea that the human body is full of glucose like some sort of crystallised fruit. Glycogen is stored temporarily but without being topped up would be exhausted in a day or so. Energy is stored long term as fat. By eating low carb we are putting less stress on our ability to deal with glucose and hopefully long term reducing insulin resistance. Your two scenarios are really not different.
I think (and I hope @Jim Lahey will correct me if I'm wrong) that Jim means that some here will eat a certain amount of carbs because their meter says they "can" i.e. less than a 2 mmol/l rise after having them. This will of course to a greater or lesser extent do exactly what you say.. .re-stock the glycogen stores so they are in a constant state of flux. Others like myself have the view that as few carbs as possible is a more effective way of looking at things. I guess you could say its the difference between "lower carb" and keto?You seem to have this strange idea that the human body is full of glucose like some sort of crystallised fruit. Glycogen is stored temporarily but without being topped up would be exhausted in a day or so.
Feel free to educate me by providing references to these leading experts explaining how glucose is stored in tissues and organs.Respectfully it’s not a strange idea. It’s the view of Dr. Jason Fung, and he knows a thing or two.
Glucose can be stored in tissues and organs. This is why blood glucose control on its own is not a marker of protection from future complications. It is why those on insulin still lose limbs. I don’t wish to argue with you of course, but your view of the mechanisms of T2DM is not in line with the current belief held by the world’s leading experts
Feel free to educate me by providing references to these leading experts explaining how glucose is stored in tissues and organs.
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?