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

Replacing carbs with fat...

Thanks, Patch. I'm still feeling a complete failure for allowing myself to become diabetic, and every bit of support is appreciated!

Viv

. . . but what do I know?
 
It's very unlikely that you "allowed yourself" to become diabetic! Don't believe that it is your own fault.

Hundreds of years ago, we would be the ones that would have survived thgrough the times of famine! (With our bodies being so efficient at storing fuel!) :wink:
 
Well, from my own experience, I've found that it is the same people that continue to de-rail threads around here...

Not naming names, obviously.

I've also found that replacing Carbs with Fat is an EXCELLENT way to curb my appetite. I have also found that I need a much lower amount of calories from Fat than I do for calories from Carbs to get the same feeling of satiety. (I don't count calories - but I am aware of the amount of calories in the types of food I eat).

To tell the truth - carbs NEVER give me a feeling of fulness, even when combined with fat (I can eat a whole pizza and still be hungry!)

BUT, if I eat HALF of the toppings from the same pizza (maybe wrapped in a lettuce leaf) I feel completely satified for a long period of time. Easily until my next meal.

Replacing carbs with fat works for me - and I'm much happier eating a much smaller quantity (and thus minimising portion sizes) of high energy food to keep me from getting hungry.
 
All sounds good........So does that mean that all your Bg levels are within targets, that your Cholesterol is good, that you are not overweight, that you are a well controlled Diabetic.

My personal experience is that I eat low carbs and low fat, never feel hungry, always got Bg levels never above 7.5 mmol/l. Cholesterol levels all well controlled, BP averages around 110/70 most days. 5 1/2 stone weight loss. Fit, healthy and plenty of energy. Up at about 7 each day.......never in bed before 2am.

Strange how I don't need to stuff myself with large amounts of fat........

BTW, if someone derails a thread please let a Monitor know, we can deal with it.
However, many threads go off at a tangent sometimes......that's what happens when people discuss things. If you feel something is not being done to your satisfaction.......please feel free to complain to the Admin. They will assist you in any way possible......as myself and Sue would. :)
 
I am a real scientist, that's why I'm entitled to write B.Sc after my name. I don't often bother.
I didn't go on to get higher degrees, because I married and supported my husband through his higher degree.
I did however do valid research work on the spread of diseases in barley crops. Which was, at the time of considerable importance to the farming industry.
Plus
why,if saturated fats cause high cholesterol [as we are told] do those people who go onto lowcarb/high fat diets have such low cholesterol. And how clear is the evidence that high cholesterol is harmful to the cardio-vascular system?
My total cholesterol, with NO anti cholesterol medicaion has been in the rrange 3.0 -3.5 for ages.
Hana
 
viviennem said:
Hi Cugila

I may have over-reacted to your last post a little, because it seemed to assume that I hadn't read round and evaluated evidence before making my decision on diet.
I have always found it is never good to make assumptions, as you did here. As explained earlier, I was just picking up on a point you made in a discussion and giving an opposite view. My research is also extensive and still ongoing. Some of my conclusions obviously differ from yours and others, that's life. I don't have a problem with that.

There's a lot of very good info on the web, it's just a matter of being able to identify the dross. The National Nutritional Database, for instance, is an official US Government department, and they publish detailed nutritional values for many (all?) foods. Journals are available - eg the American 'Journal of Lipid Research' - and even if I can't understand the really detailed science, they publish executive summaries and are peer-reviewed. Not that means they are always gospel truth, of course, and new research is always changing things - eg eggs.

Don't get me wrong.....all information needs to be evaluated, that's what I have always done. I just prefer to use the UK based sites which is where we are (me) rather than all the American stuff. The information is available her so I think that is what we should use, unless of course it is specific to a particular area of expertise.

Every single human being is different, and I believe that a one-size-fits-all approach is very dangerous, whether it's to diabetes, diet or dandruff. If I sound didactic I'm sorry - I'm used to writing for publication and my style is maybe too formal for a forum discussion. I think everyone has a responsibility to know as much as possible about their own health problems. I got myself here, and it's up to me to do the best I can with the situation. I'm happy to share what I know and believe, but I know I don't know everything, and I'm hoping that everyone else will help me too.

Viviennem

. . .but what do I know?
Click to expand...

When I read your last paragraph I could almost have written it myself.......pretty much encompasses much of my own thinking. even down to the last comment......but what do I know. :)

ATB.
 
Dr Atkins?, didnt he weigh over 250lb when he died?

His diet didnt do him much good as far as I can see :?
 
Well.....the way I've been eating fat (of all kinds bar trans), I will soon establish its effects on me, unless I keel over before then. In which case remember me as a martyr for the cause....lol

I tell you, sometimes it really does feel like we have to largely 're-imagine' the biology of health with respect to many widely accepted notions. I can recall only a few years ago that nuts were considered to be bad, until they got some idea about the different types of fats.

One thing I was thinking was if we have hypercholesterolemia occurring naturally with some people then surely the opposite will also exist with people who naturally produce little cholesterol despite their diet?

Maybe our lipid/cholesterol levels are more closely related to our metabolism than diet? This is not to say that diet has no impact but rather the specifics of our biology has a greater sway? So a fatty meal for one person may have little effect whereas the same meal for the hypercholesterolemia inclined could be dangerous?

Who knows? Fascinating stuff though, especially now that it may kill me. lol
 
My personal experience......

As a child and younger adult I ate a lot of fat. Ended up overweight and with a nasty Gall Bladder problem. Eventually after ending up in hospital said Gall Bladder was removed. Result...no more pain and crawling about on the floor in agony.

Now, however I cannot eat much fat at all. As a Low carber that then could be a big problem you would think....not for me it seems.

I eat low carb and low fat and have lost 3 stone in weight. I do not feel hungry between meals and my levels never rise much above 7 after meals.

For me there is NO option to replace carbs with fat , but I still manage my Diabetes very well because I am still not on any diabetic medications 3 years on.
 
I think cholesterol levels can naturally vary in individuals - ie what would be high for someone else eg 5 might be okay for me. But that really is only a thought - I don't know. :? Just like I have a sneaky suspicion that somewhere down the line they're going to find a correlation between large-scale use of statins and the increase in Alzheimer's. But I have no evidence at all for that, so don't anyone bite my head off! I'm very anti-statin because they are the reason I can't walk more than 100 yards at the moment, so I'm afraid I'm biased. Someone is making a lot of money from statins. I had to give up a job I loved.

As for Atkins :( - I believe he died of a severe brain injury after tripping and hitting his head on the pavement. His body was very bloated at the end because they were pumping him full of drugs and fluids to try to keep him alive, and they weren't being drained/excreted properly. That's what his wife said, anyway. But both versions were in the tabloids so they're probably both wrong. :wink:

Sorry to hear about your gall bladder, Sue - again, one size does not fit all!

Viviennem

. . . but what do I know?
 
I have successfully used Statin's for years......only had a side effect from Simvastatin which was quickly changed. The cheapest and the worst culprit !

Now take Atorvastatin with no side effects at all. There are many the same as myself, however that is not to say that everybody will not have a problem. As with ANY drug there can be adverse effects.......it isn't just a Statin.

As for the Alzheimer's effect.........I agree somewhat, however it's all anecdotal, so we will have to wait for conclusive studies. I have read the scare stories on the net, I have also seen the results. I'm prepared to take my chances. Choices you see.
 
I've never come across anything about statins/Alzheimers on the net, except that some research about 5 years ago suggested that statins in fact protected from Alzheimers, which is why I agreed to take them in the first place. 25% of our cholesterol is in the brain, apparently, doing useful things.

My myopathy side effect from statins is supposedly rare, about 5%, though I'm not the only one I know who's had it. Just out of interest, does anyone know anything about statins and blood glucose? Since they act on the liver and affect (eg) the production of CoEnzyme Q10, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they affect other processes. But I've never seen anything about that - not that I've looked, but I would have thought it would have been one of the first things diabetes researchers would have looked at.

Cheers

V
 
The link about Statin's and Alzheimer's is documented here in Nov 2010 :

Statins are the most commonly prescribed medications used to lower cholesterol in the United States. In addition to their cholesterol-lowering properties, scientists have also been aware that they possess other benefits, such as reducing inflammation and reducing the risk of heart disease. Now, another benefit may be added to the list of taking statins: prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.
Click to expand...

http://cholesterol.about.com/od/statind ... statin.htm

I've also read total rubbish in other places where Statin's were shown as a possible cause for Alzheimers.......all anecdotal and not proven. I think some people just read stuff and then put 2 + 2 together and come up with 5 !!! Those are the scare stories put out to justify not taking a Statin.

There's this one from a way back about Statins and possible effects on Bg levels in Diabetic's :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835466

In Japan, a few case reports have noted a potential adverse effect of atorvastatin on glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus; however, seven clinical trials have showed no such effect of atorvastatin although these studies were relatively small in size and short in follow-up. Only one of the two observational studies suggested a possible adverse effect of atorvastatin on glycemic control. Evidence is extremely limited regarding atorvastatin use and deterioration in glycemic control, and further studies are needed to draw a conclusion on this issue.
Click to expand...

There are more but that was just a quick look.......most saying the same thing, so they have looked at it.
 
I've just found a very interesting article by a lady called Stephanie Seneff who's at MIT. If you google her and find her home page there's a very interesting list of papers, all fully referenced, on a number of subjects. I don't intend to go any further with this one at present.

Cheers

V
 
On a related note I've noticed some credible looking research suggesting that Chinese people are able to ingest a comparatively higher level of fat in their diet without the associated complications by simultaneously taking green tea. A similar thing is claimed with the French and red wine. What do you guys make of this?


hanadr said:
How many people really know what a saturated or an unsaturated compound is?
Hana
Click to expand...

I always thought they differed in how they were connected at a molecular level with unsaturated fats being connected in pairs (or more), hence poly. Presumably no such molecular connection is present in saturated fats (hence mono). Or more likely, I've got a bunch of things jumbled up and don't know what I am talking about?

Over to you.....
 
Definitely confused.
Whether something is monounsaturated or polyunsaturatedis to do with the number of unsaturated bonds in the compound. Saturated fats have no unsaturated bonds. that's what makes them chemically stable.
Hana
Ps I can't draw bond diagrams easily in "Word"
 
Back
Top