• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Low Carb - explained in 60 seconds


Well done! That is some achievement!
If you have a read of some of the 800 cal/ND threads (which you may have done already) you will find quite a few people are doing exactly that - kicking off weight loss and reversal with the ND type diet, then moving to LCHF for further loss or maintenance.
 
That is the best quick introduction resource that I've seen, and so many people relate to images so much better than loads of words (which I tend to use, yawn, switch off for many people)!

I agree with others who have commented, I think it should be somewhere that is easily accessible, not dropping down forum lists - maybe 'sticky' it or put the link of the information that @daisy1 sends out to newbies?
 
ND/800cal is challenging and not recommended or sustainable in the long term, the tricky is to maintain without gradually slipping back into old habits like I have done. I like to excercise in the early morning as psychologically it starts my day off in a healthy and positive way and I find it easier to be disciplined about what I eat. My general wellbeing is so good when I'm in this routine and early morning power walks can be exhilarating, it's just so easy to let it slide!!
 
I understand the low or no carbs but surely if you eat tons of calories of any food you will not loose weight, but put it on. I thought to loose weight you need a calorie deficit, ie burn more than your eating.
 
FUD said:
I understand the low or no carbs but surely if you eat tons of calories of any food you will not loose weight, but put it on. I thought to loose weight you need a calorie deficit, ie burn more than your eating.
Click to expand...

Hi and welcome.

People often lose weight on low carb diets even if they add in fat.
It seems to be a combination of things:
- the increased fat stops people being hungry so they actually end up eating less - even though they are no longer hungry
- if the body fuels itself on fat instead of sugar then it is used to burning fat - this makes it easier to use up fat reserves
- when we are diabetic we are glucose intolerant. for many of us, this means we crave carbs. once we stop eating them, the cravings go away, so we no longer want to eat all the junk and rubbish that made us gain the weight in the first place
- LCHF encourages insulin levels to reduce, simultaneously reducing insulin resistance - making it easier to lose weight
- people often have more energy and fewer aches and pains when on low carb high fat, which means they are more active and have greater stamina.
-by eating low carb higher fat, we actually eat better food, with better nutrients, more veg, etc. the effect of this is that the body is able to start repairing itself from all the damage we have done to it, eating the rubbish carby diet.

If you need convincing, you can rummage around the forum and see all the fabulous success stories. Or you could try it yourself although it needs insulin or med adjustment, because people often need to lower their meds and adjust their insulin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That link makes sense - I will be switching to a vegetarian/vegan diet from the new year. Ideal as this will help me keep carbs low, most of it will be plenty of green veg, some fruit but not too much, limited legumes/wholegrains/nuts/seeds, water, almond/soya milk low in sugar, no potatoes, no pasta, no rice, no bread. That and exercise.
 
Brunneria said:
This was sent to me by a friend.
We both found it very powerful:

www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/60-seconds
Click to expand...

Having had a kidney/pancreas transplant ten years ago, I like to keep a close eye on developments with diabetes healthcare. In the early 80s, the advice regarding diet was low fat, average protein, with the bulk of calories coming from complex carbs such as rice, bread, pasta or potatoes. Looking back to when I was diagnosed with T1, I think I was started on 12 "portions" (i.e. 120 g) of carbohydrate a day. I was 13 years old and slender, so no need to lose any weight. My insulin (porcine) was administered twice a day and my mealtimes were rigid. Nevertheless I had very little problem in maintains good control.
I now see so much press about the benefits for diabetics to adopt a very low carb diet and followed a thread where many members took this to an extreme of under 20g carbs per day! A number of contributors were able to give precise weights and exact carb and calorie content of every morsel they ate, right down to single calories. Many of these people were consuming well under 1000 calories per day.
I have a few questions that I hope some of you will be kind enough to answer, so that I can understand things better...

1. Why are so many T1s following such a low calorie diet? I have never been overweight and consuming so few calories would leave me tired and underweight.
2. How many units of insulin are people injecting at mealtimes if they are only consuming 4 or 5g (or less) of carb per meal?
3. I understand the desire for optimum bs control, however, is this constant extreme fine tuning and very restricted diet that go hand in hand with a VLCD worth the perceived benefits?
4. Is there any reliable data to show that following a very low carb diet reduces diabetic related complications, and if so, what are these benefits and to what degree have they been reduced (compared to following a slightly higher intake of carbs)?

I am grateful to anyone who can answer these questions, either from a personal or general point of view.

Many thanks
 

If you read Dr Bernstein's book The Diabetes Solution, all of those questions are answered (I think), with an excellent explanation of his Law of Small Numbers. It certainly demonstrates that keeping low blood glucose can, over time, reverse diabetic complications.

If you prefer to do your reading online, rather than in a book, Dr Bernstein has an excellent website and posts articles and videos.

You may also find it interesting to join the Facebook Group TypeOneGrit. It is for very low carbing T1s and their families, and I understand it is extraordinarily helpful and supportive, with a vast range of experience and technical knowledge in its members.

Have you asked your questions on the thread you mention, where T1s are eating so low carb?
I am aware of a thread on this forum where T2s eat this way (I contribute to it myself), but I haven't come across a T1 thread on here for such very low carbing.
 

Many thanks for your advice Brunneria. Perhaps the thread I was reading had both T1 and T2, I know it did not specify one or the other... either way, it is still a pretty extreme was to manage your diabetes, but then I am still in the process of discovery hear.

You said that keeping low blood glucose can reverse diabetic complications, well I have not been T1 for ten years now following a SPK transplant - no insulin injections and a normal HbA1c. I cannot tell you how wonderful it has been and I will always be eternally grateful. The thing is, very few diabetic complications are reversible. Any sort of vascular damage cannot improve - so diabetic retinopathy, kidney disease, damage to veins and arteries etc remain unchanged. As does any peripheral nerve damage, such as to the toes or feet. What I can confirm is that after years of normal blood sugars these conditions have not got any worse - it's as though they came to a halt the day I had my transplant, which is what I hoped would happen.

I will have read of your suggested material and see what more I can find out. Thanks again!
 
There are people here, and Bernstein himself, and his patients, who have experienced improvements in diabetic complications, so don't be too sure that things are automatically irreversible. Mind you, length of time since damage, severity, and length of well controlled blood glucose all play a part. As does nutrition.
 
Oh this thread is amazing - both the 60 seconds explanation and the discussions after. I have one question, though - have I been counting my carbs wrong?

Clicking on a link in the dietdoctor thing and I found this:

The above numbers refer to digestible carbs, and discount the fibre. You can deduct them from your carb counts, i.e. eat all the natural fibre you want from vegetables, for example.

Another word for digestible carbs, with the fiber deducted, is “net carbs”.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-low-carb-is-low-carb

When I do my end-of-day tallies, I'm adding up whatever the carbohydrate total is for the amount I ate, I don't subtract anything.

Should I be? Am I inadvertently lower-carbing than I thought?
 

No, you have not been doing it wrong if you are in the UK.

In the UK on the food labelling the fibre has already been deducted for us and is listed as a separate item. You look for total carbs. There is no such thing as net carbs in the UK.

In the USA it is not deducted, so you have to deduct it yourself.
 
Okay, so, for example:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=250281180
Carbohydrate 12.6g
Sugars 1.2g
Fibre 1.7g

Is different to:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=268323259
Carbohydrate 3.5g
of which sugars 3.5g
Fibre 3.8g

Because the sugars have been subtracted from the first (Tesco product) but not the second (Aunt Bessie), where they're given as a subset of the total, but fibre is counted completely separately in both?

(Which also makes me wonder what on Earth Tesco is doing with its carrot and swede mash that its fresh product has almost 4 times as many carbs in per 100g as Aunt Bessie's frozen one).

Is there somewhere that gives guidance on how to read these labels? I feel like an idiot just asking, to be honest - I thought the whole point was they had to be easy to read and simple to understand. As it is, I've resorted to reading the info on the website because the data as it's printed on the packaging is far too tiny to read more often than not, or placed in such a way that it either gets ripped when you open the packet or is deformed and rendered illegible by the way the plastic is sealed and folded.

But even the way the info is presented on the shopping website (and it's across the board, not just Tesco) is inconsistent - whether totals are given individually or per weight, how much weight a total is given for, and what exactly seems to be included in the total, as demonstrated above.

I'm annoyed enough that the quick-hit on the front gives only sugar content (useful to no-one) not the carb content, and have had to get pretty good at noticing what amount the measurements are being given for after buying a product that said it was only 12g carbs - per 25g (the majority of items seem to give totals for 100g). When factored up to the same weight that other labels of comparable products gave their nutrition totals in, it actually had the highest carb content by some margin.

There seems to be no standard - and I had no idea about the fibre. I'm now wondering what else I haven't been properly clued in about. And how is it that such a highly regulated food industry can still be able to pull these little labelling tricks?
 
@SockFiddler

In the UK the total carbs is what you look at. I don't know why one of those examples quoted sugars rather than "of which sugars" but suggest it is a typo. The UK law states that on food labels total carbs means total carbs and includes sugar. Sugars are carbs, not something separate, and are included in the total carb amount. Fibre is deducted and listed separately. The amount of sugars is only useful if you are more interested in the speed of release once inside the body. The more sugar, the more likely it will have a faster glucose release and any spikes will be earlier. ................ Just look at total carbs and ignore the sugars.
 
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.…