GP uses low carb diet with 13 patients -amazed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

charon

Well-Known Member
Messages
201
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
This thread reminds me of the problems the Australians had suggesting that stomach ulcers could have a bacterial cause.
Maybe a Nobel prize in the offing?
 

stuffedolive

Well-Known Member
Messages
542
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Daily Mail, you know the sort
hornplayer said:
we shoot down every person with an idea, why would anyone offer help again? If you agree, or are interested in something someone has said, then, great. If not, isn't it more polite to thank them for their input, then move on? - Or maybe give them the benefit of the doubt and stay silent?

What we need Hornplayer is evidenced results. What we don't need is theories without evidence.
Without evidence low-carbing is only a theory and should have no more credence than chanting over crystals or chucking money in a wishing well. Some people will grasp at any theory in desperation to relieve their problems. Such people are vulnerable to any unevidenced crackpot idea. Such things are touted on this site and should be challenged.

I myself am a low-carber. I have read evidenced results on this site (but not from SGP) so I do believe that it works. But that won't stop me challenging SGP to 'prove' what he/she is claiming.
 

charon

Well-Known Member
Messages
201
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Not really.
Carbohydrates get turned into sugars in the blood so it is a strong possibility that reducing the carbohydrate intake will lower the blood sugar.
I agree that it is not proven - like the assumption that not eating cholesterol would lower cholesterol levels but it is an easily understood theory and so people are more likely to follow it.

From a personal point of view (from testing) if I eat carbohydrates my blood sugar level goes up and if I don't it goes down. That has been verified over a number of tests to the extent that I can acknowledge it is verified for me. Might not be the same for everyone but it is worth a try as there is so much anecdotal evidence for it. It seems sensible not to do things that will raise your BG level.

Whether the diet is sustainable from a health point of view is another question - would the raised blood sugar level/drugs be better than other affects of the diet? I still haven't seen any studies about that and my quality of life is so much better at the moment that I am willing to take the risk.

Until a study is made to determine who low carbing would be beneficial for it will be up to individuals to try it and see, discuss with their GP and decide what to do after that. Personally, I would need some very strong arguments or evidence to change what I am doing now.
 

Yorksman

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,445
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
charon said:
Carbohydrates get turned into sugars in the blood so it is a strong possibility that reducing the carbohydrate intake will lower the blood sugar.

That's true but with one caveat. Humans can only digest the so called alpha carbohydrates and, unlike many other animals, cannot digest beta carbohydrates because we do not produce the cellulase family of beta cleaving enzymes. Wholegrains contain varying amounts of cellulose which we cannot digest and turn into glucose. Others include cruciferous vegetables such as brussels sprouts, cabbage and kale and tubers, such as potatoes, carrots, yams etc. These are all high in cellulose.

Potatoes of course also contain a lot of starch, alpha carbohydrates, which is easily turned into sugar. However, as any vodka maker will tell you, it's all in the preparation. Vodka makers want the sugar and basically mash and ferment the potatoes in a process called saccarification. Diabetics, if they eat potatoes want them to be as young and solid as possible so new potatoes boiled are much higher in beta carbohydrates than old mashed potatoes.

Typically humans should eat some cellulose because of the fibre content.
 

Daibell

Master
Messages
12,658
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Charon. I have to disagree that low-carbing isn't proven to reduce blood glucose; it is more than a possibility. There is endless evidence over the years on this forum that reducing carbs does reduce sugars and this is what you would expect from the bodies metabolism. Now, you might call this anecdotal evidence but that's no worse than the lack of NHS evidence for diabetics to 'eat starchy carbs with every meal'. Very occasionally we see people on the forum who say carbs have little effect on their sugars but I've never seen any that say having carbs reduces their sugars. Although I low carb I don't suggest people should reduce their carbs more than is necessary to keep their sugars within range.
 

sinbad

Member
Messages
18
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
diabetes
Hi
any chance of emailing me the diet sheet
thanks
 

carty

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,383
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Can we ask the GP to let us know he is still with us ?
CAROL
 

paul-1976

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,695
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Dishonesty
carty said:
Can we ask the GP to let us know he is still with us ?
CAROL

I DO hope he will return..He could be such an asset to the forum and diabetic community as a whole.
 

Jude

Well-Known Member
Messages
430
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Insulin
I just want to add to this thread my recent experience. My Community Diabetes Nurse visited me at home a couple of weeks ago and we were discussing low-carb diets as I have recently gone on to the Harcombe Diet which is eating real food only and no processed food. She was telling me how that the Dietitian in their community team is issuing low-carb diets and some even vlcd. I was quite surprised about this but very pleased but realise they are going against the general tide of advice in the NHS.

After reading through this thread I am rather dismayed at the general tone and maybe we have now lost a genuine GP who could be really helpful for us. I fortunately have a really good DSN whom I can ring at any time but not all diabetics have this.

As someone else commented "the biggest problem for diabetics is other diabetics" :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
carty said:
Can we ask the GP to let us know he is still with us ?
CAROL

Ask him yourself directly. He was on the site yesterday and the day before and would have seen the pleas. Try a private message just to be sure. There have been so many messages of support, I would imagine he couldn't ignore them.
 

lizzie-mac

Newbie
Messages
1
Type of diabetes
Prediabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I am so pleased to see this post and well done that GP. I have just been diagnosed with impaired glucose and was given a sheet of paper and told to return in a year!!!! After doing lots of research myself I too am following a low carb and moderate fat diet. I won't know the results of this until my year is up which is in about six months but your post has made me a lot more confident that I am doing the right thing.
 

VickiT11979

Well-Known Member
Messages
151
Current GMC guidance is that if a doctor is going to comment on medical matters on the Internet AND identify themselves as a doctor, then they should identify themselves by name.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tubsolard said:
carty said:
Can we ask the GP to let us know he is still with us ?
CAROL

I DO hope he will return..He could be such an asset to the forum and diabetic community as a whole.

But he has returned.... three times in the last three days!!! If you look at his profile he visited the site at 9:37pm this evening and before that at about 4.47pm yesterday and 7.20am the day before. Unless anyone else has heard from him privately I wonder what the purpose of his visits to the site is. Maybe he's after a new kitchen? Look at his profile NOW if you don't believe me!

At least you can be reasonably assured that he is not quite such a sensitive, easily hurt soul as you think. Otherwise he might have responded to the apologetic blogs begging forgiveness and pleading for him to come back. This should come as somewhat of a relief to you and others equally concerned about his well-being.

What have you got to say about this?
 

charon

Well-Known Member
Messages
201
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Daibell said:
Charon. I have to disagree that low-carbing isn't proven to reduce blood glucose; it is more than a possibility. There is endless evidence over the years on this forum that reducing carbs does reduce sugars and this is what you would expect from the bodies metabolism. Now, you might call this anecdotal evidence but that's no worse than the lack of NHS evidence for diabetics to 'eat starchy carbs with every meal'. Very occasionally we see people on the forum who say carbs have little effect on their sugars but I've never seen any that say having carbs reduces their sugars. Although I low carb I don't suggest people should reduce their carbs more than is necessary to keep their sugars within range.

That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions without a scientific study.
There are those that are having problems with BG even on a low carb diet - it's not as simple as low carb = low BG.
When I started this low carbing did lower my BG but then eating some carbs lowered it even more.

There do seem to be those who it works for (me at the moment) and there's no reason not to rely on that but there's no data about who it will be good for and who it won't and why that is.

Basically a few people saying that it works for them isn't proof and members of this forum will not be a representative sample.

Hence I feel that it is likely that it is a good idea for a lot of people but not proven.

As to the NHS stance on starchy carbs - I haven't seen why they make that stand, I'm guessing it might be historic from times when it wasn't so easy to control your diet or maybe from when it was thought that it could affect cholesterol. I doubt whether anyone here is going to defend it though.

I've been though the Open University 1st year course Living With Diabetes (which will follow the NHS - unfortunately the course isn't available any more) and it seems concerned about weight gain if starchy carbohydrates are not the main part of a meal (but we all know that isn't true). It also spends a lot of time discussing why people won't keep to a diet and I suspect that is why anything strict isn't suggested. It says that the biggest killer of people with diabetes is cardiovascular disease - and that controlling blood pressure and cholesterol is at least as important as blood glucose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
charon said:
Daibell said:
Charon. I have to disagree that low-carbing isn't proven to reduce blood glucose; it is more than a possibility. There is endless evidence over the years on this forum that reducing carbs does reduce sugars and this is what you would expect from the bodies metabolism. Now, you might call this anecdotal evidence but that's no worse than the lack of NHS evidence for diabetics to 'eat starchy carbs with every meal'. Very occasionally we see people on the forum who say carbs have little effect on their sugars but I've never seen any that say having carbs reduces their sugars. Although I low carb I don't suggest people should reduce their carbs more than is necessary to keep their sugars within range.

That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions without a scientific study.
There are those that are having problems with BG even on a low carb diet - it's not as simple as low carb = low BG.
When I started this low carbing did lower my BG but then eating some carbs lowered it even more.

There do seem to be those who it works for (me at the moment) and there's no reason not to rely on that but there's no data about who it will be good for and who it won't and why that is.

Basically a few people saying that it works for them isn't proof and members of this forum will not be a representative sample.

Hence I feel that it is likely that it is a good idea for a lot of people but not proven.

As to the NHS stance on starchy carbs - I haven't seen why they make that stand, I'm guessing it might be historic from times when it wasn't so easy to control your diet or maybe from when it was thought that it could affect cholesterol. I doubt whether anyone here is going to defend it though.

I've been though the Open University 1st year course Living With Diabetes (which will follow the NHS - unfortunately the course isn't available any more) and it seems concerned about weight gain if starchy carbohydrates are not the main part of a meal (but we all know that isn't true). It also spends a lot of time discussing why people won't keep to a diet and I suspect that is why anything strict isn't suggested. It says that the biggest killer of people with diabetes is cardiovascular disease - and that controlling blood pressure and cholesterol is at least as important as blood glucose.

Yes, I don't think that anyone would dispute the fact that reducing carbs substantially improves bGs and weight and so must be beneficial. I could, right now, drop from 250g per day to, say, 80g with the absolute certainty that my bGs would reduce substantially and my weight loss speed up. However, I need to know what other vital nutrients in that 'lost' 170g I am missing out on and possibly will affect me over the long term. Would a reduction of 68% only do me good? It's not good enough for me to hear ... 'I'm feel great after 5 years'. I feel great now. I need to know what the long-term prospects are before I make any further changes.

By the way, I am mid-way through a Life Sciences OU degree course, now superceded by Natural Sciences. What a fantastic course. It's just a pity that the OU has largely removed residential, lab-based courses, in favour of web-based 'virtual' experiments.
 

IanD

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,429
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Dislikes
Carbohydrates
charon said:
Daibell said:
Charon. I have to disagree that low-carbing isn't proven to reduce blood glucose; it is more than a possibility. There is endless evidence over the years on this forum that reducing carbs does reduce sugars and this is what you would expect from the bodies metabolism. Now, you might call this anecdotal evidence but that's no worse than the lack of NHS evidence for diabetics to 'eat starchy carbs with every meal'. Very occasionally we see people on the forum who say carbs have little effect on their sugars but I've never seen any that say having carbs reduces their sugars. Although I low carb I don't suggest people should reduce their carbs more than is necessary to keep their sugars within range.

That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions without a scientific study.
........

For years DUK have been saying they need long term studies on the safety of low carb diets. They even include teh 4-year Swedish studies in their references, yet insist that the long term safety is still in question. I have checked a lot of the references in their "Position Statement" on Low Carb, and find that their conclusions are NOT justified. They do a survey of lots of studies and come to their own conclusion.

I tried to get a constructive discussion without those who attacked Southport but this was "modded." This includes my comments on the DUK citations.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
IanD said:
charon said:
Daibell said:
Charon. I have to disagree that low-carbing isn't proven to reduce blood glucose; it is more than a possibility. There is endless evidence over the years on this forum that reducing carbs does reduce sugars and this is what you would expect from the bodies metabolism. Now, you might call this anecdotal evidence but that's no worse than the lack of NHS evidence for diabetics to 'eat starchy carbs with every meal'. Very occasionally we see people on the forum who say carbs have little effect on their sugars but I've never seen any that say having carbs reduces their sugars. Although I low carb I don't suggest people should reduce their carbs more than is necessary to keep their sugars within range.

That's the problem with trying to draw conclusions without a scientific study.
........

For years DUK have been saying they need long term studies on the safety of low carb diets. They even include teh 4-year Swedish studies in their references, yet insist that the long term safety is still in question. I have checked a lot of the references in their "Position Statement" on Low Carb, and find that their conclusions are NOT justified. They do a survey of lots of studies and come to their own conclusion.

I tried to get a constructive discussion without those who attacked Southport but this was "modded." This includes my comments on the DUK citations.

Ian, I read your last low carbers blog (post blocking) and found it to be most interesting and reassuring. All the articles seem to be generally in concert in saying that there is evidence that low-carbing is beneficial in either lowering bGs and/or weight in the short-term at least with the caviat that further research and studies are needed to evaluate longer-term effects and benefits.

The first article provides a definition of low-carb diet as "For a 2000kcal diet, the recommendation for carbohydrate is 225–300g per day (45–60%)" and this is not defined otherwise by the other articles, or, indeed, Southport GP. I have been asking for a clear definition of what low-carbing is, so thanks for answering that for me. As I have always thought, I am a low-carber as I meet the definition in terms of calories/carbs per day, lower bGs and weight loss, and this set of articles from different sources supports my experience.

So, it seems as though everyone who had modified their diet to lower bG and reduce weight is a low-carber, in which case, I find myself in the interesting position of agreeing with Southport GP, Therefore, setting up a 'low carbers only' blog is pointless.
 

IanD

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,429
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Dislikes
Carbohydrates
gezzathorpe said:
IanD said:
For years DUK have been saying they need long term studies on the safety of low carb diets. They even include teh 4-year Swedish studies in their references, yet insist that the long term safety is still in question. I have checked a lot of the references in their "Position Statement" on Low Carb, and find that their conclusions are NOT justified. They do a survey of lots of studies and come to their own conclusion.

I tried to get a constructive discussion without those who attacked Southport but this was "modded." This includes my comments on the DUK citations.

Ian, I read your last low carbers blog (post blocking) and found it to be most interesting and reassuring. All the articles seem to be generally in concert in saying that there is evidence that low-carbing is beneficial in either lowering bGs and/or weight in the short-term at least with the caviat that further research and studies are needed to evaluate longer-term effects and benefits.

The first article provides a definition of low-carb diet as "For a 2000kcal diet, the recommendation for carbohydrate is 225–300g per day (45–60%)" and this is not defined otherwise by the other articles, or, indeed, Southport GP. I have been asking for a clear definition of what low-carbing is, so thanks for answering that for me. As I have always thought, I am a low-carber as I meet the definition in terms of calories/carbs per day, lower bGs and weight loss, and this set of articles from different sources supports my experience.

So, it seems as though everyone who had modified their diet to lower bG and reduce weight is a low-carber, in which case, I find myself in the interesting position of agreeing with Southport GP, Therefore, setting up a 'low carbers only' blog is pointless.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

You did not look at the "Position Statement" I was quoting from & linking to - the point of my partial quote was the ridiculously high carb recommendation we all receive from DUK/NHS. It did not occur to me that anyone would consider "225–300g per day (45–60%)" as low carb. The link goes on:

How much carbohydrate is in a low-carbohydrate diet?

For a 2000kcal diet, the recommendation for carbohydrate is 225–300g per day (45–60%) (2).

There is no agreed or set definition amongst researchers regarding the amount of carbohydrate in low-carbohydrate diets, but a critical appraisal by Accurso et al (2008) (3) suggested the following definitions:

Moderate-carbohydrate diet: 130–225g per day (26–45%) of a 2000kcal diet
Low-carbohydrate diet: less than 130g per day (26%) of a 2000kcal diet
Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet: less than 30g per day (6%) of a 2000kcal diet

For the purpose of this position statement, the term “low-carbohydrate” is used as a collective term to describe any amount of carbohydrate restriction which is less than the dietary reference value of 45% of total energy.

The DUK definition of low carb used in the Position Statement rejects the suggestion from their reference.
 

Sid Bonkers

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,976
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
Paul_c said:
stuffedolive said:
Dillinger said:
So, Sid Bonkers and the others who offered such a 'warm' welcome to this GP; I assume you are busy composing your heartfelt apologies for your unpleasantness?

Argue all you want about strategies for controlling blood sugars but when you are patently wrong and rude about something the decent thing to do would be to apologise wouldn't it?

Dillinger

Absolutely not Dillinger! We were right to question the authenticity of the post.
It is against forum policy to post as a GP and in doing so it seemed that SouthportGP was trying to give extra credence to his argument.
You will recall that I have asked twice now for the published results of the study - none have been forthcoming. As a GP. SouthportGP should know that anecdote is no evidence at all but at the moment that is all he is offering. At the moment all we know is that he is a GP. The results of the 'study' he relates to us is no surprise to us. If he/she really wants to make a difference he will publish the results in a medical journal, otherwise its just pointless.

Sid Bonkers went first with the Troll claim, perhaps because it went completely against his portion control and NHS eatwell plate directives.

Paul the reason for my questioning the "doctors" credentials are the forum rules which state quite clearly that:
Forum Rules said:
Company user names are considered covert advertising. As anyone could set up a profile with professional titles (Dr, Prof, etc) as part of their username, whether they have the relevant qualifications or not, we do not allow titles as part of one’s username. Users with such a username will be asked to choose an alternative username.

Quite why you feel the need to bring my diet into this is beyond me, especially as you have no knowledge of it what so ever.

I simply do not like to see people hoodwinking others by breaking forum rules, it is quite easy for anyone to say I am a doctor, Gillian Mckieth and Barry Groves did it to great effect and both sold many books and influenced many people off the back of bogus medical titles, medical titles are NOT allowed on this forum although I believe that medical professionals are welcome to post here as ordinary members and to post their own personal experiences.

Any medical or scientific studies that have not been published or open to peer review have absolutely no validity what so ever and I am sure that this apparently anonymous doctor would agree with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.