Re Diabetes UK

[marphil]

I have over the years been subscribing to Diabetes UK and have been getting more and more fedup with the attitude that "if you behave yourself and always keep your bm's at the correct level you will not get any long term complications" I am now subscribing to Diabetes.co.uk and find many more people write in and get sensible , helpful and witty replies to the many questions asked by members. It's been a big help to me. Congratulations.

 

[hanadr]

DUK are right in his respect.If you keep Bgs down, by whichever means suits you, you are at lower risk of complications.
I don't agree with their dietary advice, but that bit's right.

 

[Celtic.Piskie]

Well, isn't tht the main point of diabetes control, to get our blood glucose down to normal levels?

Lower levels = lower risk of complicatiions.
Higher levels = higher risk of complications.

Is it just me or have i completely been missing the point all these years?
Whaat on earth is that glucose monitor for then?

 

[graham64]

Is it just me or have i completely been missing the point all these years?
Whaat on earth is that glucose monitor for then?

Hi Celtic.Piskie,
Many T2s are being denied the opportunity to test, despite the well documented evidence of the complications that can arise from high BG levels.

Local restrictions
An increasing number of people with diabetes are reporting restrictions or denial of blood glucose testing equipment causing distress and anger among those who rely on these tools to self-manage their diabetes (39). 27 per cent of PCTs in England (40) report the existence of a policy restricting the provision of blood glucose test strips for people with diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/Our ... d_glucose/

Graham

 

[Celtic.Piskie]

Graham, that's just plain old stupid that policy.

 

[Dr H]

I myself was not given prescription test strips. In the end, I had to get a friend to prescribe them. However, I sort of agree with the dietary advice, in the way they tell you to cut out sugar but increase starch. That makes sense, but the overall reduction is the important part in keeping bg levels down. Changing from sugars to starches just helps prevent spikes in your bg levels.

Also, even if you do keep your bg levels down low, you can still get complications. That's what annoys me about the NHS and Diabetes UK.

 

[graham64]

Graham, that's just plain old stupid that policy.

Hi again CP,
Trouble is I expect due to financial restraints it will get even worse, wev'e even had reports of insulin dependants being told to cut back.

Graham

 

[hanadr]

Dr H
increasing your starch may reduce spiking, but what advantage is there to a BG level that is steady and HIGH?.
It's been known since the 1920s that carbs are not essential( Stefansson and Anderson), so why eat any carbs other than those in green leafy vegetables?

 

[timo2]

Is it just me or have i completely been missing the point all these years?
Whaat on earth is that glucose monitor for then?

Hi Celtic.Piskie,
Many T2s are being denied the opportunity to test, despite the well documented evidence of the complications that can arise from high BG levels.

Local restrictions
An increasing number of people with diabetes are reporting restrictions or denial of blood glucose testing equipment causing distress and anger among those who rely on these tools to self-manage their diabetes (39). 27 per cent of PCTs in England (40) report the existence of a policy restricting the provision of blood glucose test strips for people with diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/Our ... d_glucose/

Graham

What we really need is a generic test strip so that companies like Roche can't keep milking the diabetes cash cow. Their 'loss leader' approach gives us cheap or even free meters, but hideously expensive test strips. :x

 

[Celtic.Piskie]

It's been known since the 1920s that carbs are not essential( Stefansson and Anderson), so why eat any carbs other than those in green leafy vegetables?

Art isn't essential either, music, theatre, the opera or ballet.

Life isn't about what is 'essential'. If you have high sugar levels, and cutting out carbs helps, then great.
But if you have good sugar levels, then what's the problem with eating things that bring you pleasure, while still having good blood control?

 

[Dennis]

But if you have good sugar levels, then what's the problem with eating things that bring you pleasure, while still having good blood control?

Absolutely no problem with that whatsoever - and I have never seen anyone on this or any other site suggest otherwise. But the important point is maintaining good blood control (i.e. a level of control that will avoid diabetic complications). If you can do that and eat what you like then go for it. Life is too short to not enjoy it!

 

[Dr H]

Dr H
increasing your starch may reduce spiking, but what advantage is there to a BG level that is steady and HIGH?.
It's been known since the 1920s that carbs are not essential( Stefansson and Anderson), so why eat any carbs other than those in green leafy vegetables?

Now you're confusing eating carbs with having high blood sugar levels. Funnily enough, not everyone who eats carbs has dangerously high levels of blood glucose.

Also:

'Carbohydrates are not essential nutrients in humans: the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats[5][6]. However, the brain and neurons generally cannot burn fat and need glucose for energy'

 

[sugarless sue]

Surely it depends just how many carbs you are eating?

 

[sugarless sue]

'Carbohydrates are not essential nutrients in humans: the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats[5][6]. However, the brain and neurons generally cannot burn fat and need glucose for energy'

From DrH.

When glycogen stores are not available in the cells (glycogen is primarily created when carbohydrates such as starch and sugar are consumed in the diet), fat (triacylglycerol) is cleaved to give 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process called lipolysis. Which is by the way a key way to lower your blood lipids.

Most of the body is able to utilize fatty acids as an alternative source of energy in a process where fatty acid chains are cleaved to form acetyl-CoA, which can then be fed into the Krebs Cycle. It is important to note that acetyl-CoA can only enter the Krebs Cycle bound to oxaloacetate. When carbohydrate supplies are inadequate, however, the liver naturally converts oxaloacetate to glucose via gluconeogenesis for use by the brain and other tissues. When acetyl CoA does not bind with oxaloacetate, the liver converts it to ketones (or ketone bodies), leading to a state of ketosis.

During this process a high concentration of glucagon is present in the serum and this inactivates hexokinase and phosphofructokinase-1 (regulators of glycolysis) indirectly, causing most cells in the body to use fatty acids as their primary energy source. At the same time, glucose is synthesized in the liver from lactic acid, glucogenic amino acids, and glycerol, in a process called gluconeogenesis. This glucose is used for energy by cells such as neurons and red blood cells.

If the diet is changed from a highly glycemic diet to a diet that does not provide sufficient carbohydrate to replenish glycogen stores, the body goes through a set of stages to enter ketosis. During the initial stages of this process the adult brain does not burn ketones, however the brain makes immediate use of this important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain. After about 48 hours of this process, the brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly utilize the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs, thus avoiding the depletion of the body's protein store in the muscles.

So a low carb diet will mean that your body breaks down fatty acids primarilly and not protein (this happens in ketoacidosis and not ketosis) and synthesises its own glucose in the liver for the use in the brain, etc.,

From Dillinger.

 

[Dr H]

Yes, but this misconception has cropped up a few times in threads. Eating carbs doesn't necessarily mean that you've got high blood sugar. Eating a lot of carbs is probably going to give you high blood sugar.

Another misconception that the Bellevue experiments take into account the very-long-term effects of no carbohydrates. As I've mentioned above, the brain cannot process fats and only a few amino acids (3 or 4... Can't remember) can be converted to glucose. Which is at the expense of most of the molecule. The bellevue experiments showed that there were no ill-effects in the year spent eating nothing but meat and fat, like eskimos do. However, the very-long-term effects are still up in the air. What happens if you spend your life eating just meat and fat?

You'd assume that we'd be able to look at the eskimos for help, and we can (sort of). In all this we must bear in mind that genetically, the races are different. Asian people are more likely to get diabetes etc. etc.

Eskimos have 50% higher rates of coronary heart disease. However, this is where it gets complicated. The more eskimos who eat mainly caribou had more significant levels of Alzeimer's in old-age than their counterparts who ate more oily fish. This is thought to be down to the effects of omega-3.

However, all this illustrates is that the diet on which the Bellevue, and some subsequent experiments, were flawed. Just as every experiment is when we look back at it with the benefit of hindsight. It didn't last longer than a year, which wasn't ample time to fully document the final conclusions.

So please, don't take experiments as gospel.

EDIT: If you didn't realise it, the Kreb's Cycle is incredibly inefficient. It can cope with supporting the body in the short-term but experiments and clinical trials haven't shown if it can support the body for a lifetime.

 

[sugarless sue]

I posted the two different comments as there is such a huge inconsistency in the two statements.I would like someone to find a definitive statement as to which is correct or where the truth lies between the two.

 

[hanadr]

Stefanssson lived about 83 years, most of it after the experiments. I've never found any evidence that he was in any way impaired, or that he went back to eating large quantities of carbs.
As to the high incidence of Coronary disease among the Inuit, isn't that only since they got freezers and pizza etc.?
and what about the Maasai, who don't have these conditions and remain healthy on their traditional low carb diet?
What work has been done on the diet of tribal peoples, indicates that they remain healthy until they get the taste and opportunity for "Fast Foods".
The main causes of death among tribal peoples, are usually related to infections and accidents.
To become edible at all, grains have to be highly processed. You can't eat wheat straight from the field, it's indigestible and toxic. Breakfast cereals, far from being "healthy wholegrains" are some of the most highly processed factory made foods available to us.
If we eat the diet we evolved with, it's inevitably low carb

 

[Dr H]

I added the actual science in the latter post. The brain cannot break down fat (unlike muscle cells can) so it relies entirely on glucose. This is normally found in carbs, but if you resort to the crebs cycle, there are only a few amino acids that can be converted to glucose.

 

[Celtic.Piskie]

Stefanssson lived about 83 years, most of it after the experiments. I've never found any evidence that he was in any way impaired, or that he went back to eating large quantities of carbs.

So, one person didn't get ill, that proves everyone that doesn't follow his diet WILL get ill??
Your reasoning is entirely flawed. Just because one person didn't get ill, doesn't mean it makes everyone else ill.

If we eat the diet we evolved with, it's inevitably low carb

Yes, because farming grains, making bread, beer etc is such a modern invention??
You have still yet to show even a single reasonable point that carbs = high blood sugar. Which they don't, or carbs = bad, which they aren't.

What exactly is your point?
One person doesn't mean a thing. It's nowhere near a scientific study.

 

[sugarless sue]

I posted the two comments to get some clear evidence on the subject.Please stick to that and do not bring low carb and no low carb into it.The question is can the brain run without glucose or not,simple!!!