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

Is 'low carb' an absolute scale?

Useless Pretty Boy

Well-Known Member
Messages
96
Hey, this is pretty much my first post here (though I introduced myself, so maybe that counts as my first). I've seen a lot around about going 'low-carb' and there seems to be quite a bit of animosity on the subject. I was wondering if I could get some explanation on a few things.

Firstly, as a type 1 diabetic, lowing my carb intake does seem to make logical sense. Carbs make blood sugar go up, ergo, taking in less will keep your BSLs down (for reference, my HbA1c is currently 5.4). I read Fergus' introduction to low carbing and it seems very concise and well written, but I was left with a couple of questions, I apologise if they've been raised elsewhere, I'm still learning where to look for things here.

It seems to me that carbohydrates are always referred to in an absolute manner. Really low is below 50g a day, quite low is less than 100g, high is above etc etc etc. But I would have thought that carbohydrate should be given as a percentage of your daily intake. To elaborate: I used to work 12 hours a day, on my feet, waiting tables in a busy restaurant. As such, I reckoned I was easily burning 3000 calories a day, maybe more. My fiancee works in an office at a desk. Even on her most extravagent days, she probably never burns more than 2000. But even now that I write for a living, and so don't expend as much energy, because I'm physically larger than she is, I'd still burn more energy at rest (I think I'm remembering this correctly from GCSE biology) than she would.

So wouldn't low carb for me actually still allow for a larger amount of carbohydrate per day than it would for her? Or is there a reason for it being measured in absolute amounts, rather than percentages?

I wanted to find out what most people do with their days. I've read about this Bernstein character and I honestly think that if I followed his advice about carb intake, I simply wouldn't be able to take in enough calories a day to not shrink down to a rake. I take about twice his daily recommended allowance of carbs as my pre-workout snack. I go to the gym about four or five times a week for two hours at a time and end up with blood sugar levels at about 6 or so after finishing. By comparison, my nightly insulin injection is at a level that lets me fast a whole day without hypoing, so I don't think I can be taking too much insulin.

I'm sorry if this is long winded. I'm just trying to ask if carbohydrate requirement is as absolute as it seems to be, or whether it's all relative? Is the fact that I have to take so much carbohydrate simply down to my body chemistry, or am I missing something? I don't have any diabetic friends to compare notes with, so I thought I'd canvass here.

Thanks for reading. :)
 
At the risk of being shot down in flames - wouldn't be the first time - I don't get the need for people to label themselves as one thing or another when it comes to diet. It's sometimes treated like a private member's club.

I think you're absolutely right about the need for all diabetics to reduce their carb intake, scientifically it makes good sense although even saying that, many do not at all and still maintain good control. Others have to drastically reduce to achieve the same results.

I think I'm saying that diet descriptions are relative, personal, individual and defy categorisation. You have a very good HbA1c figure already, so whatever you are doing obviously works very well for you, so I'd say stick with it! If it ain't broke don't fix it! :wink:
 
You both make some very good points guys.
Many people, myself included, have posted ranges of low to high carbohydrate intakes in terms of grams per day and then applied descriptive terms low, medium, high etc. It tends to look as if there are very tightly defined ranges into which we fit, or don't. Then we find these divisions can breed hostility between people who may think those in other categories are doing something wrong.

To be honest, the term 'low' can only be relative, but relative to what? I'd suggest that a large proportion of the membership here is following a 'low' carbohydrate diet relative to the standard dietary advice dispensed via the NHS. The current orthodoxy promotes a diet that restricts dietary fat and promotes dietary carbohydrate. Many diabetics find that the very opposite principles actually work very much better in terms of blood sugar, weight and lipid results.

The bottom line I suppose is that the terms themselves only have meaning in a relative sense. If, as we keep saying we are all different, then the term 'low carb' is only really useful for someone coming to the idea anew. Once we have found a level of carb intake that allows us to maintain non-diabetic blood glucose, lipids, weight, blood pressure etc. then we've arrived at the real answer - right carb!

Given that abnormal blood glucose etc. is so widespread however, I do think it's very important that more people gain an understanding of the impact of carbohydrates on their health. Then, who knows, low-carb might become something far more people aspire to rather than object to!

fergus
 
Hi UPB,

We all function differently and need to match our nutrition to our body type and activity. Some studies have been done and the percentage fat/protein/carb for the caloric requirements have been used. I think it would just be too difficult to count this on a daily basis so we tend to talk about grams of carbs. Vigorous exercisers can put away a fair amount of carb and maintain good blood sugars.

My son is a teenager and he is eating a much higher total amount of carb in his diet than previously. He was doing great aged 12 on 100g or less of carb but is eating more now. His meals are still centred around large quantities of protein and any fruit, veg and starch is loaded with fat whenever possible to up the calories and spread out the glycaemic impact.
 
Someone posted this on here some time ago, I think its a rough guide really.

Low carb (ketogenic) 0-50g
Typical low carb 50-90g
Liberal low carb 90-130g
Moderate carbs 130-170g
High carb 170g plus a day

In the early days I used to have at least 400g carbs a day, so for me to suddenly reduce to 350g I really considered this as being on low carb!

I dont think there are very strict guidelines, I reduced my carb intake so that my bg figures would be at non-diabetic level but it was hard because in those days I didnt have a tester, it was much easier once I was able to test and learn how the different foods were affecting my bg.
At one point I was on around 40g carbs a day and still had readings over 7, but it got better, as I became more active, but more relaxed at the same time, I am now around 120, max 150 a day and still maintaining my bg levels and have done so for years now, last Hb1ac was 4.7, for the past few years my highest ever was 6.2.

All diabetics need to watch/reduce carbs, by how much depends on your individual make up, whether you take any form of medication, etc, how your body responds to certain foods. So actually the terms of low carbing, high carbing and anything in between dont mean anything much at all.
And when I first started with reducing carbs these terms were not even around then, it was simply called a diabetic diet, reduce carbs - get better bg readings. Simple (ha but it wasnt for me though, hell I really had to learn a lot over the years)

All the best

Karen
 
Thanks for all the answers people, I really appreciate it. :P

kegstore said:
I think you're absolutely right about the need for all diabetics to reduce their carb intake, scientifically it makes good sense although even saying that, many do not at all and still maintain good control. Others have to drastically reduce to achieve the same results.

This is sort of what I'm getting at. It makes sense to me not to have frivolous carbs (like a bag of crisps or a few biscuits as a snack just because you're bored), but at the same time, I'm sure I downed almost 100g of carbs just with breakfast today. That said, I check my glucose roughly every two hours (my doctor said I can probably cut back to 4 times a day, but I figure better safe than sorry) and it hasn't gone over 6.4 today. As far as I can see by looking round here, 100g in one meal is huge, yet I'm being prescribed insulin at such a rate than I'm only using about half of it before I get my next batch. So on one side, it seems like I'm really splurging over the top on carbs, but on the other, I look like a self-depriving nutjob (or somesuch) who is going to extremes. Or is that sort of schitzophrenic feeling not uncommon?

I suppose if I take into account the type of carbs (porrige, skimmed milk, a small banana and a little agave syrup), which are all pretty slow burning, and the fact that I probably won't take anywhere near that for any other meal, I can kind of justify it to myself. I guess I just wonder if I'm doing the right thing - or if I could do a better thing. I think my doctor thinks I'm a bit extreme. I was apparently her only patient with a HbA1c under 6 in the whole month of April. I ask how I can do better and she just tells me that I'm doing fine as it is. That's not the answer I'm looking for. I want to know that I'm not going to get to 60 and really lose my eyesight or have to have a foot lopped off and be told that it happens to some in their 40's and if I'd only handled it a little better, it wouldn't have happened.

Am I just being anal or is this a normal sort of attitude?
 
In order to entirely prevent complications you are going to have to be pretty obsessive about your routines. Join the club!
 
Useless Pretty Boy said:
I'm sure I downed almost 100g of carbs just with breakfast today.
It is frighteningly easy to do if you don't care - or are not aware of - what you eat. My current mantra (they change every week...): Knowledge Is Power

Useless Pretty Boy said:
I want to know that I'm not going to get to 60 and really lose my eyesight or have to have a foot lopped off and be told that it happens to some in their 40's and if I'd only handled it a little better, it wouldn't have happened.

Am I just being anal or is this a normal sort of attitude?
Not at all. Caring about it now means you can make a difference to the outcome. And it is scary how quickly 40 appears and you realise you are there and everything "they" said has come true...

I must say as a general point, if I was paranoid I'd think there's a very comfortable symbiotic menage-a-trois going on between food companies, drug companies and government. But I'm not so I don't...
 
kegstore said:
I must say as a general point, if I was paranoid I'd think there's a very comfortable symbiotic menage-a-trois going on between food companies, drug companies and government. But I'm not so I don't...

...but you thought it! :P :D

I don't think there's a 'conspiracy' as such but there is definitely a lot of self protection going on out there (what industry wouldn't) - the result is the same though, we don't get the full facts!
 
I would suggest reading 'The Diet Delusion' by Gary Taubes for an in-depth look at the effect of carbohydrates on the body (from scientific studies) - and then form your own conclusions.
 
I would suggest reading 'The Diet Delusion' by Gary Taubes for an in-depth look at the effect of carbohydrates on the body (from scientific studies) - and then form your own conclusions.
Absolutely!

fergus
 
Back
Top