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

Please be careful

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maybird
  • Start Date Start Date
fatbird said:
This explains a lot about type two diabetes.

The idiotic dietary advice we give to diabetes patients

It is true that in people who do not have diabetes, eating a high-carbohydrate diet probably does little harm – although there are some who believe that a switch from fat to carbohydrate in the diet has driven the current surge in obesity levels.

But in type 2 diabetes, a high-carbohydrate diet puts increased stress on the ß cells and will worsen insulin resistance. In fact, the only pathway the body has for getting rid of excess glucose – when liver and muscle stores are full – is to convert glucose into fat in the liver, then export this fat via VLDL/triglycerides to adipose tissue.

And this is a process driven by high insulin levels. In short, if you have type 2 diabetes and you eat a high-carbohydrate diet, you will push up blood glucose levels and blood insulin levels. You will also create hypertriglyceridaemia and, due to protein transfer from HDL to VLDL, a low HDL level. Which is the exact metabolic state now known to be associated with CHD – metabolic syndrome, or syndrome X.
Click to expand...

People can be insulin resistant with apparently normal blood glucose levels. Also glucose can be converted to fat both by the liver and fat cells. In either case insulin is required.
 
Maybird said:
I agree that we should take what we need from the forum and then make our own choices but some people are very undecided as to what they should be doing and are willing to try anything that is suggested.
Click to expand...

If people blindly take "advice", whatever the source, then that is really their own problem.

That is why I think when it comes to diet advice on here people should be careful in what they say and how they say it and should always make the point that it works for them but may not be suitable for everyone. That is why I say sometimes it's best to check with the professionals as you do not want to do anything that could be harmful to you
Click to expand...

The standard of advice from so called "professionals" can quite easily be very poor. e.g. the NHS/DUK advice "At each meat include starchy carbohydrate foods" This is about a sensible as telling coeliacs to have plenty of wheat with each meal or that people with nut allergies to "eat more peanuts".
 
Here, for example, is a quote from Dr William Castelli, director of the Framingham study, one of the longest-running and most widely quoted studies in the world. ‘In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol’ – by which he means LDL2.
Click to expand...
read the context of this quotation, context is crucial.
And that's why I dislike , it is very easy to misrepresent what people say, no citation, just giving a totally wrong impression of what people actually say. It's certainly happened to me and what I say isn't important in the scheme of things.
Here's the original source of the statement : ( I have checked it out but this easier to reference as only part is free to view)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AFra ... eart_Study
It's from a response to a paper 'On nuts' which suggested that these were the miracle cure. It is actually about confounding factors ( for indeed people who ate the most in this study also ate the most of everything but were also the fittest and the most active)
After the quoted part Castelli goes on to say
Eventually, diet intervention trials were done, and where the follow-up got out beyond 3 years, they all show the same thing. The larger the percentage fall in cholesterol, the larger the percentage fall in CHD
Click to expand...
read the sarcasm in the conclusion and then decide what Castelli really thought
Should dietitians everywhere tremble? Has the magic bullet arrived? Is it the humble nut? Should fat people eat fat-rich nuts to lose weight and atherosclerosis, or do nuts only work in vegetarians? Should nuts replace oat bran as the shield that I can load up on each day which will let those hot dogs just bounce right off my chest, no trouble.

Will this article affect the stock market sending the lipid-drugs reeling when that well-balanced report appears in the Wall Street Journal? So many questions, so little time. In the meantime, hold the cheese, I will have my nuts (walnuts?) on whole wheat, please
Click to expand...
Castellis views on sat fat are quite explicit. If you want to read them there is a long discussion here http://www.prescription2000.com/Intervi ... cript.html
 
phoenix we can trade links and others views until doomsday. Many of the members on the forum have reduced carbs and obtained excellent blood glucose control. Your opinion on saturated fats is manifestly clear. If members do not make up the calorie deficit with saturated fats what do reccomend?

FB
 
I would say (personal opinion) that the evidence at the moment still supports a diet lower in unsaturated fats but including sufficient omega 3 fats, as in oily fish, with few processed starches. It includes fruit and veg but also legumes and real whole grains (not the stuff in boxes of breakfast cereals with the big wholegrain labels!).
It's near enough a Med diet like this pyramid here and don't forget the exercise and enjoying meals with others that underlies the whole thing or even the wine in moderation! (traditional vegetarian Asian diets are also good but difficult for many of us)
http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/file ... _flyer.jpg

(really am stopping now others were quite right to become perplexed but what I was trying to say in the previous post is that quoting out of context can distort the whole message as in this famous example)
"the most confusing, asinine, ridiculous —yet somehow addictively awesome — television show of all time."
The blurb hunters at ABC chose to abridge the quote ever so slightly. What appeared on TV screens was: "The most addictively awesome television show of all time" — Vanity Fair

Night Night!
 
phoenix said:
I would say (personal opinion) that the evidence at the moment still supports a diet lower in unsaturated fats but including sufficient omega 3 fats, as in oily fish, with few processed starches. It includes fruit and veg but also legumes and real whole grains (not the stuff in boxes of breakfast cereals with the big wholegrain labels!).
It's near enough a Med diet like this pyramid here and don't forget the exercise and enjoying meals with others that underlies the whole thing or even the wine in moderation! (traditional vegetarian Asian diets are also good but difficult for many of us)
http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/file ... _flyer.jpg

(really am stopping now others were quite right to become perplexed but what I was trying to say in the previous post is that quoting out of context can distort the whole message as in this famous example)
"the most confusing, asinine, ridiculous —yet somehow addictively awesome — television show of all time."
The blurb hunters at ABC chose to abridge the quote ever so slightly. What appeared on TV screens was: "The most addictively awesome television show of all time" — Vanity Fair

Night Night!
Click to expand...

:?

FB
 
bit lost too , but another thought I just had lol. People keep saying misguided advice from nhs to eat low fat, and have starchy carbs with each meal. isnt that so they can give the patient appropriate meds and a correct diagnosis to get their levels under control whilst eating a balanced diet. or, the other option to do low carb, have wrong meds, keep levels under control through low carbs, cheat on diet occasionally, (really), have occasional much bigger sugar spikes due to lack of appropriate treatment and cause more damage than having right meds, balanced diet. Bit like why suspected celiacs are advised to still eat what/gluten until an official diagnosis, and correct one is made.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
brett said:
bit lost too , but another thought I just had lol. People keep saying misguided advice from nhs to eat low fat, and have starchy carbs with each meal. isnt that so they can give the patient appropriate meds and a correct diagnosis to get their levels under control whilst eating a balanced diet. or, the other option to do low carb, have wrong meds, keep levels under control through low carbs, cheat on diet occasionally, (really), have occasional much bigger sugar spikes due to lack of appropriate treatment and cause more damage than having right meds, balanced diet. Bit like why suspected celiacs are advised to still eat what/gluten until an official diagnosis, and correct one is made.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

Hi brett interesting that you mentioned Coeliacs.
Coeliacs are advised to eat wheat and gluten because if the person stopped eating gluten and wheat the result may come back as a false negative. Meaning the villi would appear vertical and unaffected, but prior to that, the damaged villi would be flattened.

RRB
 
Exactly rrb a false test reading, resulting in wrong diagnosis. Just if that was a low carber, the correct level of meds would not be prescribed.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Brett, if the the lack carbs are keeping bgs in the correct zone why would a 1.5 diagnosis be important? i was under the impression that the damage is done from db by the high sugars not the dx, im curious because i had keytones in my urine when dx, and with my dad and daughter, there is a chance of 1.5 for me but if my bgs are good why would i care?
 
andy, well I suppose you wouldn't lol, but, that type of thing would bother me though, so was just thinking aloud. Yes, it is the high sugar levels that do the damage, but if your testing regularly you would spot any changes that happen like that even if lc. But, if someone were testing regular at the beginning of lc, then relaxed testing and things progressed it would be a problem. Or during illness, can push sugars up, and also can be a trigger for type 1.5 to evolve to a full type 1.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Also, as said previous if a lc had a 1.5 diagnosis, they may well be very happy to inject and east a few more carbs without having sugar spikes.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
ah :) thats cool, i dont test often but do test radomly once a week or so, usually in traffic jams or when i try new food so i guess id notice :thumbup: and im quite happy on this way of eating so ill take this over injections (not that itd be too bad for me, i dont mind needles etc) but just to eat potatoes? nah :)
 
but i eat amazingly well, i just had roast beef, cabbage, brussels & green beans, followed by jelly and cream, now sucking on a piece of 90% lindt, i had my yogurt and berries for brekkie and as mentioned bacon butty on livlife for lunch, what am i missing? :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
Andy12345 said:
but i eat amazingly well, i just had roast beef, cabbage, brussels & green beans, followed by jelly and cream, now sucking on a piece of 90% lindt, i had my yogurt and berries for brekkie and as mentioned bacon butty on livlife for lunch, what am i missing? :thumbup: :thumbup:
Click to expand...

White bread and butter ;)
 
Not much andy, sounds all yum. I would be missing my cereal and toast for breakfast, just cause I don't like yoghurt. Um, my roasties, gravy and small amount mash with tea. Must admit I could do the bacon buttie for lunch though :)
Oh, and my snacks between meals :)
Seriously though, I know its not one show fits all and your obviously enjoying (thumbup). Also think you've done really well with your weight loss and exercise regime.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
:wave: :D :wave: pretending he didnt read the white bread and butter comment :wave: :D :wave: :D
 
Back
Top