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

Type 2 Have you reversed your T2?

Thank you Serenity. That's a good way of calculating "normal" carbs (ie a third of total cals). But why PLUS the 130g your brain needs. That throws out the 1800 cals calculation. Surely what your brain needs should be part of the 150g?
 
Tannith said:
Thank you Serenity. That's a good way of calculating "normal" carbs (ie a third of total cals). But why PLUS the 130g your brain needs. That throws out the 1800 cals calculation. Surely what your brain needs should be part of the 150g?
Click to expand...
exactly!!! hence the formal complaint now as I am convinced, through this and some other stuff, that she hasnt got a clue what she is doing, but in charge of hundreds of patients.
 
Tannith said:
Thank you Serenity. That's a good way of calculating "normal" carbs (ie a third of total cals). But why PLUS the 130g your brain needs. That throws out the 1800 cals calculation. Surely what your brain needs should be part of the 150g?
Click to expand...
I think its also worth me pointing out here that, if normal carbs are about 150-200g a day (based on usual calorie daily intake figures) then a lot of people are eating far from normal amounts of carbs daily. Many hundreds of carbs over the day.
 
Tannith said:
Thank you Serenity. That's a good way of calculating "normal" carbs (ie a third of total cals). But why PLUS the 130g your brain needs. That throws out the 1800 cals calculation. Surely what your brain needs should be part of the 150g?
Click to expand...
And these calculations don't take into account that humans don't need any dietary carbohydrate.
 
serenity648 said:
I think its also worth me pointing out here that, if normal carbs are about 150-200g a day (based on usual calorie daily intake figures) then a lot of people are eating far from normal amounts of carbs daily. Many hundreds of carbs over the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's considered normal carb intake in any government food guideline (e.g. healthy plate).
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
And these calculations don't take into account that humans don't need any dietary carbohydrate.
Click to expand...
the DN also couldnt grasp the difference between glucose made in the body and carbs. She thinks that carbs make glucose. Only carbs make glucose, and thats that and I dont know what I am talking about.

She also talks about starches (potatoes, rice etc) and carbs. To her, carbs are sweets stuff with sugar in. Anything else is healthy starches. But at the same time, I need to cut out the sweet stuff but eat carbs....................

I know, its like fighting with mist to try to find the logic.
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
I don't think that's considered normal carb intake in any government food guideline (e.g. healthy plate).
Click to expand...
http://www.healthyfood.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FINAL-Eatwell-guide-15-MARCH-2016-1.pdf

this is the UK eatwell plate. The recommended intake for making us healthy (insert hollow laugh here) Over 1/3 of our calories are to be made up from carbs. They are to form the basis of all our meals. So that equates to around 175g of carb for women and around 200g of carbs for men daily. This is what our government considers a normal and optimal amount of carbs to eat.

: (((((
 
Hi @Tannith some good probing questions. The evidence is that before the current guidelines circa 1977, populations across the globe were healthier - not even the most eloquent debater can dispute the correlation between obesity, diabetes, basically metabolic syndrome and the "normal" eating patterns.

When I have researched the foods that clearly affect circa 50% percent of statistically measured humans (and increasingly domestic pets) struggle with, how can this be normal in historical or reasonable context. Modern mainstream bread has a massive GI, pasta is made from flour, which is highly concerntrated and again high GI, rice has one of the highest arsenic content of harvested food and many people react to grains with bloating. If table sugar were invented now, would it be allowed. I stay weĺl clear of these foods, whilst many "normal" eaters rotate these routinely throughout the week and the stats on blood glucose disorder (pre-diabetes and diabetes) don't lie, neither do the spikes generally exhibited or the additional weight.
 
No. And I don't expect to. The best I can hope for is control through restricting carbs and avoiding the Western diet that has spread across the globe. My main area of concern now is to educate my family especially my grandchildren, I plan to scare the bejasus out of them and stop them ending up with this horrible condition.
 
serenity648 said:
http://www.healthyfood.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FINAL-Eatwell-guide-15-MARCH-2016-1.pdf

this is the UK eatwell plate. The recommended intake for making us healthy (insert hollow laugh here) Over 1/3 of our calories are to be made up from carbs. They are to form the basis of all our meals. So that equates to around 175g of carb for women and around 200g of carbs for men daily. This is what our government considers a normal and optimal amount of carbs to eat.

: (((((
Click to expand...

Our government also thinks its ok to allow people on the bottom rungs of society to fall deeper into poverty while those creating much of the poverty EVADE taxes altogether and are happy for nurse to rely on foodbanks. I tend to disagree ever so slightly and so tend to ignore what these self-serving parasites see as "normal". I think I shall arrive at my own choice of food based on reality and sound experience.
 
Yes, I have reversed my diabetes.

Protocol 1
  • Gradual to high intensity static cycling and walking and some weights
  • Low Carb Low Fat, with home made soda bread and oats
  • Lost 10 kg
This yielded HbA1c's of 41 and 42.

Protocol 2
  • Low Carb High Fat
  • Gradual change to heavier weights and less cardio but all HiiT
  • Gained 4 kg of muscle
I have a bowl of nuts, berries, seeds and yogurt (14 elements) mainly for breakfast. Meat or Fish, with lots of above ground vegetables. Usually a desert similar to breakfast, but now smaller or cheeses and the occasional home made cake with yogurt (Full fat Greek).

My wife a HCP has guided me and adjusted her thinking at the same time. In hindsight I would have either done just protocol 2 or the Newcastle Diet followed by protocol 2, which I am going to stick to indefinitely, although I am going to reduce my portion sizes.
 
pleinster said:
Our government also thinks its ok to allow people on the bottom rungs of society to fall deeper into poverty while those creating much of the poverty EVADE taxes altogether and are happy for nurse to rely on foodbanks. I tend to disagree ever so slightly and so tend to ignore what these self-serving parasites see as "normal". I think I shall arrive at my own choice of food based on reality and sound experience.
Click to expand...
I was replying to a question about what governments consider normal. I didnt say I agree with it.
 
Tannith said:
Thank you Serenity. That's a good way of calculating "normal" carbs (ie a third of total cals). But why PLUS the 130g your brain needs. That throws out the 1800 cals calculation. Surely what your brain needs should be part of the 150g?
Click to expand...
Plus of course the 130g that your brain "needs" can be made by the body and does not need to be ingested .
 
After having an hba1c of between 36 and 38 three years running I believe I have reversed my diabetes however, according to my DN 'once a diabetic always a diabetic' so I have not, officially, reversed it. However I think her stance may be something to do with the fact that, when we gave our annual 'statin' debate, I always ask why someone with normal blood levels should have to be on statins if cholesterol is 4 or above when for non-diabetics the recommended level is higher.
 
Daphne917 said:
After having an hba1c of between 36 and 38 three years running I believe I have reversed my diabetes however, according to my DN 'once a diabetic always a diabetic' so I have not, officially, reversed it. However I think her stance may be something to do with the fact that, when we gave our annual 'statin' debate, I always ask why someone with normal blood levels should have to be on statins if cholesterol is 4 or above when for non-diabetics the recommended level is higher.
Click to expand...
So how did you do it?
And Mbaker, what proportion of your weight at the time was the 10kg you lost?
I am trying a 900, (sometimes to 1000) cal version of ND. As Mbaker suggested on another thread I am now including a 20min walk most days. I am on day 18. I am hoping this will reverse my preDiabetes. As opposed to "treat"it by keeping the sugars down on a temporary basis with metformin or low carb diet (some people combine the two). I understand both bring sugars down but sugars go straight back up as soon as you stop either metformin or low carbing.
 
Tannith said:
I understand both bring sugars down but sugars go straight back up as soon as you stop either metformin or low carbing.
Click to expand...
Metformin has only a very, very small effect on sugar levels. It is not an instant sugar lowering pill.
Low carb is a lifestyle, not a diet or a two week "cure". Taking up Low Carb is a realisation that the diet we have all been eating and encouraged to eat for the last few decades is actually bad for us and does not promote maximum possible health and, very very slowly, damages all the body's organs. Blood sugar levels are only an indicator of harm and things going badly wrong with your metabolism. The best way of stopping the damage is to stop putting sugars (ie carbs) into your body - always. You don't need them and soon won't want them.

Sally
 
sally and james said:
Metformin has only a very, very small effect on sugar levels. It is not an instant sugar lowering pill.
Low carb is a lifestyle, not a diet or a two week "cure". Taking up Low Carb is a realisation that the diet we have all been eating and encouraged to eat for the last few decades is actually bad for us and does not promote maximum possible health and, very very slowly, damages all the body's organs. Blood sugar levels are only an indicator of harm and things going badly wrong with your metabolism. The best way of stopping the damage is to stop putting sugars (ie carbs) into your body - always. You don't need them and soon won't want them.

Sally
Click to expand...
totally agree, in the two months since Hubby was diagnosed we have completely changed how we eat as a couple ( can't convince the teen !) partly to show support and partly to prepare less meals, I have adopted the low carb method of eating and I have lost half a stone (pleasant surprise !) you really don't miss the sugars. I've known for a long time that sugar is inflammatory and that too many grains upset my IBS. Today after an egg and bacon breakfast we went out for a 6 mile walk-that would never have happened before he was diagnosed. Definitely convinced that it can be reversed with time and the correct approach x
sally and james said:
Metformin has only a very, very small effect on sugar levels. It is not an instant sugar lowering pill.
Low carb is a lifestyle, not a diet or a two week "cure". Taking up Low Carb is a realisation that the diet we have all been eating and encouraged to eat for the last few decades is actually bad for us and does not promote maximum possible health and, very very slowly, damages all the body's organs. Blood sugar levels are only an indicator of harm and things going badly wrong with your metabolism. The best way of stopping the damage is to stop putting sugars (ie carbs) into your body - always. You don't need them and soon won't want them.

Sally
Click to expand...
 
serenity648 said:
http://www.healthyfood.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FINAL-Eatwell-guide-15-MARCH-2016-1.pdf

this is the UK eatwell plate. The recommended intake for making us healthy (insert hollow laugh here) Over 1/3 of our calories are to be made up from carbs. They are to form the basis of all our meals. So that equates to around 175g of carb for women and around 200g of carbs for men daily. This is what our government considers a normal and optimal amount of carbs to eat.

: (((((
Click to expand...
I don't think that's quite correct. Yes, 1/3 (maybe even a bit more than 1/3) of the "healthy" plate shown is starchy food. But if you take the "healthy" plate literally then 1/3 of your food intake by weight is supposed to be starch, another third mostly veg (with little starch, protein, or fat), 1/4 beans/legumes (and a tiny amount of fish/meat), and the rest dairy, and a tiny amount of chemically processed veg oil, then I suspect this adds up to the majority of your calories being from carbs.

Zoe Harcombe looked at the eatwell plate and calculated it has more 60% of daily calories coming from carbs. So for women, that would mean at least 300 g of carbs and for men 375 g.
 
Back
Top