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

Low carbs do not always work

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maybird
  • Start Date Start Date
Another totally pointless thread.....


Whatever works for you is the right way and thats all I have to say
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Another totally pointless thread.....
Click to expand...

I don't think the OP will think that way, the thread has stimulated a discussion it may not be your cup of tea but that's no reason for your dismissive comment.
 
I wish some one had told me about low carb diet. it has been the most effective of controlling BG for me. Dieticians have emphasised sugar intake, which is important but not easy, and less emphasis on carbs which.
 
rajni1 said:
I wish some one had told me about low carb diet. it has been the most effective of controlling BG for me. Dieticians have emphasised sugar intake, which is important but not easy, and less emphasis on carbs which.
Click to expand...


i agree totally :thumbup: it clearly isnt for everyone but i think newly diagnosed folks should at least be made aware of the existence of low carbing so they can give it a go and see how it works for them
 
Low Carbs or controlled carbs or counting carbs - there are many levels and finding the level you need should be successful for anyone, if they want it to be. It is just that your level of how many carbs per meal may not be the same as mine. For instance, if I were to eat two slices of bread with my breakfast as you mention you do, my blood sugar reading would be too high. Also, if one eats too much protein while doing low carbs, this can upset the numbers as well. It also matters how much fiber and fat you eat along with the carbs. Some people might get away with more carbs if they eat them with some healthy fat and fiber. I guess finding a system that works for an individual is what's most important, but counting carbs, a method using low carbs can work for any and everybody if they look into it and understand all the factors and are motivated to use it correctly. It takes determination to count and measure and weigh until you get the hang of it. Sure, I'd rather eat as much fruit as I want, but that would not be low carbs, would it, and it would raise my numbers.
 

It also depends on exactly what you are measuring. 9g of amylopectin/amylose (starch) contains exactly the same amount of glucose as 19g of sucrose/lactose (sugars).
 
paul-1976 said:
2 slices of Bergen bread is near enough 25 grams of carbs in itself-near enough what I consume in a whole day so far from low carb.
Click to expand...

It also may be an issue that the OP is eating this first thing in the morning. Especially if they are subject to the "dawn phenonemon".
 
If someone cant tolerate 2 slices of bergen bread any time of day for any meal then anybody think meds, either insulin dose or tablets needs investigating?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
rajni1 said:
I wish some one had told me about low carb diet. it has been the most effective of controlling BG for me. Dieticians have emphasised sugar intake, which is important but not easy, and less emphasis on carbs which.
Click to expand...

Actually it is about sugar intake. Specifically GLUCOSE intake.
The real problem here is that too many people, including many supposed experts, don't appear to know that "complex carbohydrates" are polysaccharides. Which literally means "many sugars". Whereas what food labels call "sugars" are monosaccharides (single sugars) and disaccharides (two sugars). A side effect of the way sugars are joined together means that there are more sugars than you might expect in disaccharides and (especially) polysaccharides.

The actual numbers are
100g of amylopectin/amylose (starch) equates to 111.1g of glucose into the blood.
100g of maltose equates to 105g of glucose going into the blood.
100g of glucose equates to 100g of glucose going into the blood.
100g of sucrose/lactose equates to 52.5g of glucose into the blood.

Thus it's most important to cut starchy foods. Far more so than "sugar".
In some cases replacing "starch" with "sugar" would actually be a positive step e.g. a sweetened rather than unsweetened breakfast cereal if you must have cereal.
In terms of food labels total carbohydrate is the most useful figure, lower the better. (The "sugars" figure is only useful comparing items where the total carbohydrate is the same. In which case higher is likely to be better.)
 
All starches are not equal
Equal amounts of amylose and amylopectin do not result in equal amounts of glucose in the blood. Some amylose starch in particular escapes digestion thus is resistant starch. This is the reason for example that boiled high amylopectin rice like sticky Thai rice has a GI in excess of 100 whereas there are high amylose rice varieties with GIs in the 30s.
Several studies in the 1990s and later have demonstrated that amylose compared with amylopectin produced lower glucose and lower insulin responses.
Resistant starch is fermented in the gut and may have several health benefits. Indeed the original studies on higher carbohydrate diets were very high in legumes which tend to be high in resistant starch.

A simple article but with a lot of references.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-a ... ant-starch
 
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.…