Hi,
Is there any consensus of opinion on whether skipping a meal is a good or bad thing as a type 2?
I have been having my “breakfast” at around 1.30 thinking it was a good thing as the less often you eat, the less often you are going to get a spike.
I have just read, however, that missing a meal can effect your levels later in the day.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Nick
I eat when I'm hungry. I don't count that as "missing meals". Usually that means a substantial meal around 7-8pm, and often a bit of salami/cheese/olives around 1.30pm. This often doesn't happen as I don't want anything. I have a pot of coffee in the morning and plenty of fluid the rest of the day, no carb.
If I eat anything more substantial mid-day I won't want to eat in the evening. When I have a fry-up breakfast (not often, because I'm not often ready to eat in the morning) I won't want to eat again all day. There is absolutely no effort involved in not eating, as there's a complete absence of any desire to eat anything.
Carbs in a meal will affect my BG, other food items won't. Naturally I expect my BG to go up after I eat carbs - I'm more concerned about the duration and height of the rise. I don't expect any spikes (in my playbook a rise is not a spike) because I don't eat anything (eg pastry) that I know causes them.
The issue with fasting causing a rise in BG is
probably because your liver is used to operating at higher BG levels and does its best to top your glucose up through gluconeogenesis, where it constructs glucose and releases it into the bloodstream (this is the process that metformin interferes with).
It's a natural and beneficial process - the issue is the BG level the liver thinks you should be at. It will try to get you there. Livers seem to be slow learners - mine took about a year to accept that I was OK with lower levels, but it got there.