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

Low carb/low calorie

S

Shelly47

Member
Messages
14
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Hello.
If I'm eating low carb should I also aim for low calorie intake too? Confused over what's the best approach
 
Hi. The simple answer is no. Low-carbs are normally the best way for us to go as it controls both BS and weight. Together with LC you would need to have enough fats and proteins to keep you feeling full for longer. Fats and proteins don't increase BS or weight by much compared with the carbs. Forget you ever heard of calories as they are irrelevant in what eat and mainly useful in what you burn in the gym. The reason is that fats have twice the calories of carbs but have a completely different digestive process. If you go low-calorie (as in the Newcastle Diet) you can end up reducing the fats rather than carbs to keep the calories down and that's not good.
 
Shelly47 said:
Hello.
If I'm eating low carb should I also aim for low calorie intake too? Confused over what's the best approach
Click to expand...

Its call Low Carb High Fat for a reason.. we use fats and protein to replace the carbs we no longer eat.
There are two ways of looking at it.

1. Fat provides greater satiety so you end up eating less
2. Your body metabolises fat and protein differently to carbs so you can eat those without putting on weight

I'm happy to let the scientists argue about that but I know that it worked for me without counting calories. I did end up skipping breakfast so just eating 1-2 meals a day which I think also helped..
 
I agree with the comments upthread, a calorie is a unit of heat not a unit of nutrition. In theory you could get all your calories at a restricted rate from carbs but chances are that this would end up in a lack of satiety, a lack of nutrient density and imo is unsustainable.
 
Thanks for the replies. I'm so used to counting calories that it seems "wrong" to ignore them
 
It's a personal choice I do both and that seems to work for me most of the time.
 
Shelly47 said:
Thanks for the replies. I'm so used to counting calories that it seems "wrong" to ignore them
Click to expand...
Hi @Shelly47 its really difficult to ignore a lifetime of brainwashing by the Low fat/calories in/out message. It took me a looooong time to embrace the fat bit of LCHF, its very weird eating tubs of clotted cream, cheese etc and losing weight. I have to make a conscientious effort to add more fat in my daily foods to ensure I dont loose too much weight.
I have just had a chunk of cheese, nuts and 99% dark chocolate
 
Think it really depends upon what direction you are approaching diabetes, why, how well you understand them and how dedicated you are in using that knowledge.

All, I know about calories is, because of my resection, I need about 20% more of them than I should. So, if I eat more of them than are comfortable, I put on a little weight.

I know a little more about carbs, fats and proteins. So they have slightly more significance: Too much fat upsets my colitis and to maintain my weight, without potatoes, it seems I have to eat a lot more than is comfortable. This also makes the colitis grumble and, so it seems, the diabetes nurse.

If you know enough to approach the numbers scientificaly, then perhaps you could play the swapsies game: If I have one of them, instead of two of that, I get 3 of those, 4 of the other and but only 1 of those and it gets me 6 of these, and avoid the ear bashings altogether?
 
I must be on of the unlucky ones as HAVE to do both, more than a few days of going over 1200 calories no matter where I get them from be it protein, fat, carbs or fresh air I gain weight
 
When I was trying to lose weight I did both. Approx 1200 calories and low carb. As soon as all my excess weight had gone and I stabilised, I stopped counting calories. I had to increase my calories to stop losing weight and stabilise - I added back more fats and protein and at the same time lowered my carbs even more. I never was low fat though, and ate whatever protein I had always eaten. It was more portion control with me.
 
Shelly47 said:
Thanks for the replies. I'm so used to counting calories that it seems "wrong" to ignore them
Click to expand...
The longer you are diabetic and have other health problems as you age like me you realise how much ignorance and bad advice there is amongst so-called experts. Calories is the about the power of marketing over good science.
 
JohnEGreen said:
It's a personal choice I do both and that seems to work for me most of the time.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with this comment. There are some foods it pays to be mindful of the calories when we eat them, especially if they are considered acceptable on a low carb diet but don't necessarily satiate. For example, some people can eat a whole bag of peanuts and not feel satiated by them, yet others well and truley will. Peanuts are high in calories, so if one finds they are not particularly satiated by them then one ought to be mindful of that fact and perhaps consider choosing a portioned amount but also consider other types of snacks that could potentially satiate more successfully such as cheese for example.

In terms of approach, increasing fats can successfully create a feeling of fullness on occasions that results in us not necessarily needing to eat when we otherwise might have done so in the past. By habit our brain and body may say 'eat now' due to routine - but instead when recognizing that accompanying feeling of fullness I try to capitolise and use it to skip a meal. That action has really helped me in the process of weight loss.
 
I think this is where the idea that we all have different metabolisms, different kinds of diabetes even, and different food strategies affect people's bodies, and their diabetes, in different ways, really comes to the fore.

I would say, just to add my two cents worth - if you are on LCHF for quite a while, as in years, you don't keep losing weight - you will stabilise at a level, and no longer keep losing weight. (Imagine if you did). What that weight is differs between people, and has to do with different metabolisms - and our pesky blood glucose regulating systems and cells and so on.

So, a long winded way of saying - different strokes for different folks! Different folks having different bodies, and different types of diabetes (where food and food restrictions can affect you differently).

 
Oh! And I should add - sometimes just experimenting with different treatments/ways of eating/ways of not eating is the only way to find out what suits you and your diabetes best.
 
i'm confused by the LCHF diet, ?????
i'm now at 37 hba1c was 49, by removing all fat, from dairy animal/fish and cholesterol from eggs, excercise
NO oils as fat do not give satiation, as calories per volume are hugely dense.
stomach volume gives satiety
eat carbs from veg , legumes, starch potatoes /new potatoes etc

followed plenty of youtube vids Dr Mccdougal, brian clements, dr klapper etc. how to reverse DB by WFPB diet (what i did)
fat buried in visceral fat, also ends up in liver and pancreas so when you water fast for weeks, fat is lowered in liver and pancrea causing normal insulin sensitivity.

you get all the fat you eat from whole food - clearly avoid processed foods
yes carbs are converted to glucose, but its the fat which causes the problem

so why follow a high fat diet , unless you want heart attacks strokes and dementia??
 
Goodness, @mark3evo, I don't know where to begin!

There is considerable evidence that the original hypothesis that saturated fat, and what was considered healthy fat (before the 1960s and 70s, and is again now in many circles ) is what caused the huge increase in CVDs and now the dementia you mention, was based on doctored data, so was never proved, and has since, on many many many research/studies occasions since, has been actively disproved.

If following this online, the original hypothesis is called 'the diet-heart hypothesis'.

It is quite an extraordinary story! So have fun reading up on it. But do be prepared to feel hard done by, because if you have/had type two diabetes it could be a major dietary change that hugely contributed to you having the disease you have today - or for you - the disease you had yesterday? .

Also, I find healthy fat unusually satiating, just as a by the by. Salad/veg and fish, for me, is not.

You also need to follow up on hyperinsulinemia, and the role of the brain getting healthy fats to function well, as well as ketosis in terms of an alternative energy system that helps diabetics live well on low-carb diets. Remember, you are in a diabetes forum, and we here have our health hugely affected by what level of carb consumption is best for us. I have no idea what level of carbs affect you personally, but I know my own very well of course.

From how quickly you went into remission, I would hazard a guess that you have what the Swedes call a MOD or a MARD diabetes - mild age related or mild obesity related. And in my country, NZ, an HBA1c of 49 is still considered intermediate hyperglycemia and not fullblown diabetes (it begins for us at 50.) So here, in NZ, you would be considered returning to normal glycemia, not in remission from a diabetes you would not have been diagnosed wiht in the first place. Just an aside.

According to the Swedes - those kinds of diabetes have a different genetic pathway underlying them than the others - being SIDD (severe insulin deficient diabetes, those are the ones saying 'insulin dependent type two' on their avatar I surmise), and of course - SAID - severe auto immune diabetes, and the SIRDs like me - severe insulin resistant. It is the MODs and the MARDs in here that have quick and as I see as straight forward remissions in here. Which is a truly marvellous thing, as about 66% of those with diabetes generally, including type 1s and ladas etc, have MOD and MARD. This bodes very well for the possibility of mass marvellous remissions.

This is how the Swedes at Lund University are seeing it in any case.

These different diabetes desire different treatments obviously.

And different people have different food preferances, can live in vastly different countries with different climates and therefore have different food, food tratitions and so on, and then different reactions to carbs, and different metabolisms. Hence people adopting different kinds of ways of eating. (If they do at all, which of course is another personal preference.)

I think it fabulous that a whole foods (peskatarian?) based diet worked very well for you. I think it a fabulous way of eating. But it would not be for me. Isn't it great then that there be a whole range of healthy ways of eating out there for us to adopt and be healthy? .
 
hmmm, this subject is way more complex than i thought

yes i must have been a MARD, weight piled on slowly over years with sedentary desk job, probably why i got to 49 hba1c at age 56 then
only discovered DB when checking for lump in neck, dreaded chemotherapy over , is the main reason for non processed vegan diet.. deffo no fish/meat dairy etc
as animal protein and animal fats promote cancer once given.
with 22kg shifted my stomach has shrunk by 9 inches in circumference, so it would have been relatively easy to reverse. MARD i guess

with regards keto diet , both me and me wife enjot 5:2 fasting , 22 hours betwen evening meal to the following day seems relatively easy now once mastered
 
Thumbs up to you, @mark3evo, on fighting the good fight with the cancer (and I am very sorry you have had two enemies looming up on you there to fight off!).

But, "Animal protein and animal fats promote cancer once given". Is this due to the insulin like growth factor hormone ? (I think this is Dr Gundry's principle argument against eating animal protein. That and less animal protein for a lengthened life, and less human doctored meat and fish as in corn fed or hormone added fake feed. Oh yes - he is on the Neu5GC in animal meat encouraging cancer and metabolic dysfunction too.) Or something about the TMAOs? They seem like pretty good arguments. I understand it when fighting the big fight - going vegan or vegetarian.

But I am not convinced that a diet low in animal protein and fat is intrinsic to human health in ordinary circumstances. Or maybe even in any circumstances? If we were out there on the African savannah, tearing around in the Americas, or plodding across the European continent, or traipsing around that vast land of Australia, or walking along the beach or in Polynesia, and the rainforest in the South Pacific (well, you get the picture) - pre agriculture, dead critters of any kind would have been marvellously satiating and I cannot see how they weren't the mainstay of a satisfying kai (as we say here in the this part of the world). And even, once upon a time in Great Britain? There was food before pie, batter, potatoes and bread and cheese . (I list those foods with all due respect - I have my percentage of Great Britain-ness.) Fatty plump birds. The more ancient cows, and sheep and goats. Squirrels? And definitely before soy and tofu, and legumes that need to be soaked for a day in order to be digestible and not kill us even. Fish in the waters, and mammals of various sizes to hunt and kill and definitely eat! In short - animals/birds/sea creatures. If I am hungry I go for the roast meat over the salad any time! The salad/greens is more a condiment. (And what a lovely condiment it is. So lovely one can eat masses of it to fill you up if there isn't enough of the cooked critters .) And fruit ditto as a wonderful treat and condiment. (I try not to think of fruit now for obvious reasons.) (the dia-bloomin'-betes no less.)

And let us not forget the eggs! I will never forgive the diet-heart doctrine of the 70s for taking them away from me and replacing them with muesli!

If I was at dinner with Dr Gundry, Or Dr Mercola - both marvellous nutritionists, writers, and medical professionals to boot, I would relish their arguments to out the meat, or at best - keep it exceedingly low, but tuck into my roast lamb (grass fed, hey - I live in NZ!), or my roast organic/free range chicken while discussing it.

As I always say - each to his own when it comes to food and what suits in ways of eating. (And absolutely - sorting out health problems.)
 
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.…