Low GL Diet

It is not the same as low carbing - but not a million miles off.

This little book is excellent at explaining, and making it easy to make choices.

I am delighted that they said low glycemic *load* rather than *index*, as load takes quantities into account properly.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/GL-Glycaemic-Lo ... 0007222149

Although the book appears to be mainly about weight loss - the general advice will help ensure that your blood glucose levels remain steady, and don't spike and dip.

It seems odd that a HCP would advise you to use the GL approach and not explain the concept to you.

Try this site,
http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Two excellent books explaining the principle, the need for portion control, recipes, exercise etc... are, The Low G.I. Diet and Living the G.I. Diet both by Rick Gallop.

(as always too long and answer and others have replied :lol: Oh well!)
When you eat carbs they are converted to glucose to use as energy. Some carbs do this really quickly, others much more slowly. If you eat a fast acting carb the fast release hits your blood stream too quickly for your insulin to deal with it, so bgl rise to a big peak. If you eat a slower abosorbing carb the glucose is released overtime, giving time for your insulin to cope with it. so there is a smaller glucose peak.
Many carbohydrate containing foods have been tested to find out how fast or slow they act in the average person(and tests have show people with diabetes react similarly to non diabetics) . They have then been ranked according to speed. Glucose with a GI of 100 is very fast, and high on the glycemic index whereas something like a fruit fromage frais (first one I found) with a GI of 22 is slow so has a low number on the index. Some foods are much faster than one would have thought baked potatoes, often suggested asgood because of their fibre have a high gi, as high as 98, other on the other hand chana dahl, a type of chickpea which you can find in Tescos (bengal gram dahl) has an incredibly low GI of only 11.
But some foods are very dense in carbs, some much less so. The glycemic load takes into account both the speed (the GI) and the amount of carbs eaten.
We also don't eat carbs on their own (we eat mixed meals) and this alters the glycemic index of the meal.
Sounds terribly complicated, in practice it's not.
The best place to find out more is the GI website of Sydney University. The FAQs are a good place to star and explain things far better than I have done.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
One tip I've always found useful is for any type of carb containing food ,to go for the lowest gi you can find... the lowest type of potato (small waxy), the lowest type of rice (for me a mixture of brown, wild and white basmati). If possible test, using your meter to make sure that they are low for you (if not look for another type, it may be better) and weigh portions, no matter how low the gi of a carb , too much will raise BG levels too high. (the glycemic load will be hig)

heavensoul,

Well, I use both methods. I have cut back on carbs to less than half of what I ate only months ago, whilst the carbs I do consume are all low- gi foods. So far I have had excellent results and I intend to stick with this diet long-term. Sometimes you can lower the gi value of a meal by introducing other foods into your meal. Best to read up first, but it is quite simple to follow and meal ideas are plentiful.

Good luck

Nigel

Hi heavensoul,

The only way you will find a diet that suits you is to test, initially testing before a meal then 1hr and 2 hours after. This way you will be able to find out the effects of carbs on your BG, check out Alan's blog for some sound advice.

http://loraldiabtes.blogspot.com/2006/1 ... djust.html

This is another good site that explains the importance of testing.

http://www.bloodsugar101.cm/

Regards
Graham

Testing is everything. Since I have been testing I have realised I cannot tolerate an absulute maximum of 50g carbs a day, and that this needs to be spread out over the day to stabilise my blood sugar.

I have made several stepwise changes since my diagnosis in February. I started by cutting out obvious sugar and junk, small reduction in numbers at the next test, but still diabetic levels.

Then I found the glycaemic index and managed to get a further reduction in the numbers to borderline, but still basically diabetic.

It was not until I started testing and moved to a low carb diet that I actually developed good control of my blood sugar. I suspect that if I went to a pharmacy for a blood test now that it would not pick up that I am diabetic.

As diabetics we are all the same - we cannot metabolise glucose, it poisons us. However, we are all different in that our pancreas (the source of the insulin we produce or don't produce) is damaged to different levels. We are affected differently by the level of insulin resistance we carry - perhaps from carrying too much weight, as I do. As you see this can be a very complex equation.

What makes some poeple spike has a different impact on others, the only way you find out is by testing and then eating to your meter.

All the way along my aim has been to have a better result at the next blood test.

As for recommending glycaemic load, I think this may be the most scientific way of buckiing the conventional NHS advice on "eat lots of starchy carbs", it is about as close as someone can get to saying don't eat starchy carbs :roll:

The Glycaemic Index is supported by Diabetes UK, who even have official celebrity cookbooks by Anthony Worral-Thompson, and the NHS supports this approach too. I found getting to grips with low GI quite complicated when I was doing it, although my GP smiled and nodded happily when I said I was going to adopt a low GI diet.

I rather suspect that you were not given proper information because it is complicated if you are trying to explain it and to be honest, I think the detail is irrelevant if you are testing. This would have involved suggesting you test regualry to see how you are doing :shock: :shock: :roll: Heaven forbid, they don't like us T2s testing. Makes us anxious, apparently :roll:

You have been given a break that most NHS workers don't give 8) Make the most of it :mrgreen: Follow up the links Graham has given you. I found Blood Sugar 101 most helpful, then I found my way here and on to http://www.lowvarbdiabetes.com

I recently got out of the library a very interesting book by Patrick Holford called The Low GL Bible. No only does it have menu plans and explains what GL means but also has lots of interesting stuff on supplements you can also take to assist with lowering BS levels such as Chromium. The think I like about the book is that unlike quite a lot of others of its type, it is British so all the resource pages and measurements are UK driven.
I have since ordered this one for myself also by Patrick along with a cookbook for extra inspiration on the strength of the one from the library (either Amazon or the Book Depository do it very reasonably).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Low-GL-Diet-Mad ... 857&sr=1-4

Hope this helps. The link is now clickable above.
cugila.

Chromium seems to be effective if you are a chromium deficient diabetic. The study was done on a population that was chromium deficient. http://www.bloodsugar101.com has a fairly up to date section on food supplements.

Spiral said:

Chromium seems to be effective if you are a chromium deficient diabetic. The study was done on a population that was chromium deficient. http://wwwbloodsugar101.com has a fairly up to date section on food supplements.

Click to expand...

So do we.....and we are a UK site too .

Hi Helen,
I had a look inside some of his books on Amazon and from what I could see they seem to contain fairly accepted things about diet but the author is extremely controversial in his advocacy of certain supplements . I would balance what he says with what you can find from other sources.
I don't really know much about him but there is a whole website devoted to exposing his (alleged) flaws.
http://holfordwatch.info/holford-myths/

phoenix said:

Hi Helen,
I had a look inside some of his books on Amazon and from what I could see they seem to contain fairly accepted things about diet but the author is extremely controversial in his advocacy of certain supplements . I would balance what he says with what you can find from other sources.
I don't really know much about him but there is a whole website devoted to exposing his (alleged) flaws.
http://holfordwatch.info/holford-myths/

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....Thanks for the heads up on this, I agree that the diet aspect seems fine and I think the Chromium is a well known supplement that works for some diabetics. As with any of these diet claims you have to take them all with a smallish pinch of salt don't you. As if they were so fabulous then everyone would be following them and we'd all be super healthy :lol: :lol: :lol:

What, exactly, did dinner consist of? We may be able to offer some advice and suggestions.

Glad the numbers are improving tho

What did your meter tell you after this, heavensoul?

Hi heavensoul,
If your numbers were back to the original that they were 2hrs. before the meal then it is obvious that it worked. The 6.7 you had prior to the meal is the one that, although not overly high may be the problem because if there was a four hour gap between the two meals then one wonders what the reading would have been 3hrs after the previous meal. Perhaps the byriany may have peaked at 2 1/2 - 3hrs afterwards :?:
Hope this makes sense :?: