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

Front page

Sid Bonkers said:
And if someone like Grazer is 'low carbing (say at a moderate 150g per meal)' would you say that is not sustainable?
Click to expand...

I am not low carbing. I've NEVER said I'm low carbing, so you can't use me as an example. I eat moderate carbs in my view, according to definitions I've seen. If I ate low carbs, and those low carbs made up 50% of my food supply, it would not be sustainable. As it is, my 150 grams a day of carbs ARE about 50% of my food intake and I STILL struggle to keep my weight up enough to maintain a BMI of 22. So on low carb, I wouldn't stand a chance unless I upped my fat or protein considerably.
 
Osidge said:
If your portions are small then at 50% carbs you could still have a low carb diet. The percentage of any food group eaten will be low, medium or high depending on the size of the overall meal
Click to expand...

I think that we all agree that 150g is about the upper limit for "low-carb".

1g of carbohydrate = 4kcal of energy. So 150g of carb = 600kcal of energy.

So for 50% carbohydrate to be "low-carb" you'd have to eat a maximum of 1200kcal of food per day. That amount is not sustainable unless you are a very small, sedentary woman.

At the RDA levels:
2000kcal @ 50% carb for a woman = 250g carbohydrate
2500kcal @ 50% carb for a man = 312g carbohydrate
and for me personally
3500kcal @ 50% carb for borofergie = 437g carbohydrate

I'm not aware of anyone that controls diabetes without insulin on 250g to 437g of carbohydrate a day.
 
Sid Bonkers said:
And if someone like Grazer is 'low carbing (say at a moderate 150g per meal)' would you say that is not sustainable?
Click to expand...

Grazer doesn't eat 150g of carbs per meal - it's more like 150g of carb per day.

If he is eating 50% carbs @ 150g per day then he could eat no more than 1200kcal.

That is definitely NOT sustainable.

As a "skinny diabetic" if he tried to eat < 1200kcal a day for a long period of time, he'd die of malnutrition.
 
@Osridge - I take your point that you could maintain a 50% carb intake by reducing portion sizes. The issue for me and many others in that scenario is if you reduce your plate size down by an amount required to keep your blood levels safe you end up on a starvation and totally unsustainable diet. If you look at the official NHS site it says:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/understanding-calories.aspx

You can use the calorie information to assess how a particular food fits into your daily calorie intake. As a guide, the average mans needs 2,500 calories to maintain his weight, and the average woman needs 2,000.
Click to expand...

so from that I take it the eatwell plate as a generic regime that is recommended to the population as a whole would be suggesting calorific intakes of that 2000 (woman) or 2500 (man) amount. I agree there are always extremes of people who may well find they can survive on an extremely low calorific intakes and could therefore do what you suggest but for the average person that really isn't going to be an option. If it was an option then surely sites like the NHS would be stating that men and women need a lot less calories a day to maintain a healthy lifestyle and weight?

On your links to new medications. The obvious point to make is why take medication at all when many of us find we don't need to? Are you suggesting I should take a load of drugs simply so that I can eat a plateful of rice or pasta? One of my relatives has been on a load of new drugs for his T2 over the last three years. They worked for a while but he has none the less recently progressed to insulin. He is not least happy to find out that all he needed to do was reduce his carbs and tried once I was diagnosed but it was far too late for him as most of his pancreatic function had been shot to pieces by then. The medication route is an option for everyone but it would be nice if the NHS explained you can likely avoid the diseases progression by cutting your carbs early on after your diagnosis.

@Phoenix - As I said in my previous post you and I interpret differently what that ADA quarter plate recommendation actually means. As I've said many times the ADA 2011 / 2012 diabetes position statement clarifies what "quarter" means by assigning the value 130g / day as an RDA for carbohydrate. On a realistic 2000 calorie per day regime that is roughly a 25% carb regime and 25% would mean a quarter of your plate as the ADA site states in the link I provided.

In any event the discussion about the make up of the plate is not what the thread is about (unless Dawn says otherwise). Dawn's original objection is to do with DCUK issuing the same starchy carb message as DUK / NHS / N.I.C.E and my comments regarding the ADA refer to the fact that because DCUK ties itself to restricting itself to the prevailing and in my opinion well out of date UK dogma it can't even officially advocate something as uncontroversial as the ADA quarter plate advice.

As DCUK's aims state it wants to offer an alternate viewpoint and reduce suffering then one very effective way of doing that for diet only T2's like myself would be to broaden the advice it officially hands out to at least include modern internationally accepted dietary advice.
 

Sorry borofergie, that was a typo what I meant to say was "And if someone like Grazer is 'low carbing (say at a moderate 150g per day)'" as he is often saying. I never said anything about 50% of carbs per meal and never have done I dont think, in fact I was under the impression that the current advice for diabetics was to eat meals of 30% carbs although I am not sure, I'm not an expert.

But yet again you talk of what is and what isnt sustainable :lol: All I can say is I eat carbs with almost every meal, I eat small portions of everything and I can assure you it IS sustainable or I wouldnt be here, in fact it is so sustainable that I am still slightly overweight but am happy to be so, but I would call a diet sustainable if I have been the same weight for nearly 3 years, what would you call it?

@ Grazer, you say: "I am not low carbing. I've NEVER said I'm low carbing, so you can't use me as an example." but if you eat less than the RDA then by definition you are a low carber, just as I am. We may not call ourselves low carbers but of course we are
 

You're right Stephen. In fact, I recall (but not certain) that even on 150-180 grams carbs a day (as per my signature) my famous xyzzy "doughnut" showed I was about 50% fat I believe, and I eat a lot of protein, - but I still graze on tons of nuts to keep my weight up.
 
The advice for type 2's from the DCUK site:

As a general guide, a diet that includes a good variety of vegetables, a good source of unsaturated fats such as in nuts, avocados and oily fish and focuses on unprocessed foods is a good start.

Type 2 diabetes and the NHS diet
The diet advice that is generally given out by the NHS is to include starchy carbohydrates with each meal, eat more fruit and vegetables, to eat at least 2 portions of oily fish a week and to cut down on saturated fat, salt and sugars.

The most disputed part of the advice is over the recommendation to eat starchy carbohydrates at each meal.

Many people with type 2 diabetes find that even low GI sources of starchy carbohydrate (such as basmati rice and whole grain bread) tend to significantly increase blood glucose levels.

People should do blood glucose tests before and 2 hours after meals to see which foods, and in what quantities, are appropriate for them.

Read more on pre and post meal blood testing
Low carb diets and type 2 diabetes
Low carbohydrate diets tend to be popular with people with type 2 diabetes, with many people reporting improved blood glucose levels on a low carb diet, and it can help to reduce dependency on medication.


Low carbohydrate diets, despite their popularity and apparent effectiveness, have yet to be endorsed by the NHS. Read more about low carb diets and NHS recommendations.


People who are taking medication for type 2 diabetes should be aware that low carb diets could raise the likelihood of hypoglycemia so it’s recommended to speak with your doctor before starting such a diet.


Raw food diets and type 2 diabetes
Raw food diets can be viewed as effective detox diets. Some of the health advantages of raw food diets are a result of the reliance on freshly prepared food and the high amount of fruit and vegetables involved.



Raw food diets are quite restrictive and it’s recommended that you check with your doctor before starting a raw food diet to ensure you get a good balance of nutrients.

Very low calorie diets and the Newcastle study diet
A study published in 2011 known as ‘the Newcastle study diet’ showed that a very low calorie diet could be particularly effective at reversing the symptoms of type 2 diabetes.

Since the results were published, a significant number of people with type 2 diabetes have been keen to give the 8 week long diet a try.

Very low calorie diets, such as the Newcastle diet, are viewed as quite extreme diets and not recommended to be started without supervision from a doctor.

Very low calorie diets
The Newcastle diabetes diet

What more do people want :? diabetes isn't all about type 2's or low-carbers!
 

180g of carb a day = 720 kcal from carbs = 1440kcal a day @50% carbohydrate = dead Grazer.
 

1200kcal a day is not sustainable for the vast majority of people (I excluded very small sedentary women earlier).

That isn't an opinion, it's a scientific fact.
 
 
noblehead said:
What more do people want :? diabetes isn't all about type 2's or low-carbers!
Click to expand...

Agree but the issues raised are central to a the concerns a lot of T2 people have regarding the advice they get about their condition. If as a T1 you felt you were receiving similarly poor official advice wouldn't you want to change things?

I accept DCUK has many pages that explain a range of diets but as I've stated previously they are all just words unless they are advocated in at least an equal way to the prevailing NHS message. Stating the NHS message is controversial is not the same as saying its wrong if you are a certain kind of diabetic or even saying other methods are equally applicable if you are this or that kind of diabetic. The example I have been using is a case in point. Even though the UK bases a lot of its recommendations on the ADA's recommendations it has yet to adopt the ADA quarter plate message and so DCUK would never officially state that as a position because in the end it will only officially state things that are compliant with UK guidelines in the same way that DUK does but again if someone wishes to correct that I am quite happy to retract.
 
xyzzy, the advice for type 2's is there on DCUK for all to see, I really don't know what yours and other people's problem is, diabetes can be managed a number of ways and it isn't all about severely restricting carbohydrates, we have members here who manage their diabetes successfully using various methods.
 

What on 450g of carbohydrate a day? That's how the 50% carb advice works out for me.
 


The type 2 diet advice on DCUK I quoted earlier doesn't say 50% :?
 
"They" give us a choice of 50 different diets, presumably all more or less useful.

So we ask our diabetic dietitian for advice ....

A Diabetic Dietician? That's like looking for a Vegetarian Butcher
Click to expand...
 
noblehead said:
diabetes can be managed a number of ways and it isn't all about severely restricting carbohydrates, we have members here who manage their diabetes successfully using various methods.
Click to expand...

Exactly and I have no argument with your general statement although I do object to you implying my whole argument is about "severely restricting carbohydrates" for all diabetics which is far from the truth. My stance is pretty much identical to that which catherinecherub has stated earlier i.e "eat to your meter" or using methods to control our BG's to the level our meters tell us is needed so I would respectfully ask you to take note of that.

The point is the eatwell plate (or however you wish to portray the UK guidelines) denies and discourages a significant number of diabetics official backing to methods that work.

The DCUK site lists many regimes that effectively do advocate alternate, safe and rigorously tested regimes which is good. My objection is that DCUK would ever advocate one of those alternatives in preference, or even equally, to the UK guidelines because it's policy is to only officially recommend the UK guideline compliant regime.

Let me make it plainer. If for example I asked DCUK to specifically make a page about the ADA quarter plate method and said it should make it very clear that DCUK thought this method to be equally as good as the UK eatwell plate would they produce such a page? I suspect the answer would be "no because the ADA quarter plate method is not officially recognised in the UK". A similar response would be met for say Mediterranean regimes or lchf regimes. If that is not the case then as I've said previously I will apologise and retract. If it is the case then I stand by my opening comment that when push comes to shove DCUK will not officially advocate anything more than DUK does which I feel is a wasted opportunity.

I believe that until an organisation such as DCUK does break from simply adhering to the UK guidelines we will continue to be stuck in what IanD described as the current impasse and T2's like me will continue to receive what we believe to be very poor if not dangerous dietary advice.
 
I think a lot of people are forgetting what the DCUK actually is!

DCUK is a internet franchise company, that sells diabetic products mainly for the UK market etc it's not an organisation that actually provides support for diabetics.. The forum it provides is done so for business interests rather than a support, it's just another avenue for advertising their various products they offer...

But it very much seems that some members do think there 'personal' choices they've made is the only 'regime' that should be promoted.. As there are many diets that are helpful for the diabetic and each diabetic needs to chose which is most suitable for themselves..

And I'm always intrigued when people start to quote in percentages of what should be a 'diet' as most people don't eat in that manner whether they high carb it or low carb it... To eat a meal that is only x percent of this and that, would take some working out, which in the main more effort than most people are willing to work out...

I don't, the only part of a meal I do work out, is how many carbs I'm actually eating for that one meal, and I only do this to enable dose adjustment of my insulin.... I take no notice of fat content, and when it comes to protein it's just a consideration that might effect my insulin dose, but I would never weight it just a eyeball guestimate...

I very much suspect that most people would also be in the similar vein,
 

Some good points made jopar and also from noblehead too I do weigh food because guesstamating ( this word should definately be put into a dictionary) :lol: just doesn't seem to work well, I mean by over guesstamating and then underguesstamating so that is one of the ways I prefer.
(I excluded very small sedentary women earlier). This was written by borofergie, a small, which I am, sedantary women, which I am not. Nearly wet my self laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF WOMEN BEING SEDANTRY, have you ladies? seen a few men though, especially outside standing about 'working' :wink: Best wishes RRB ps thanks for the good laugh, I certainly needed it, ta.
 
@Jopar -


Is that the case? Certainly its mission statement and people would suggest otherwise.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/our-mission.html
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/contributors/index.html


If you are going to make accusations like that then at least have the guts to name the people you are accusing of doing such a thing so that they have an opportunity to respond. Or better still retract what is a totally unjustified allegation in my opinion.

@Robinredbreast -

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF WOMEN BEING SEDANTRY, have you ladies? seen a few men though, especially outside standing about 'working'
Click to expand...

I would respectfully ask you refrain from making derogatory comments about my sex. I do not find it amusing in the slightest.
 

Is that rue? I find that horrifying. I though this forum was all about being kind and sharing knowledge and experience to help each other.

That definition sounds so cynical and heartless and manipulative of vulnerable people in my view
 
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.…