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

Swedish low carb study - 44 months

Status
Not open for further replies.

IanD

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,429
Location
Peterchurch, Hereford
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Dislikes
Carbohydrates
Citation 13 of the DUK "Position Statement" makes very interesting reading. It's a follow up of Cit. 12 which was 22 months.

Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes: stable improvement of bodyweight and glycemic control during 44 months follow-up
Considering the solid evidence for the negative effect of hyperglycemia on diabetes complications as well as cardiovascular disease the present high-carbohydrate dietary advice resulting in unnecessary hyperglycemia and insulin resistance seems difficult to support [17-19] and for diabetes patients, current dietary recommendations seem to be a major part of their problem rather than being part of the solution. Carbohydrate restriction, however, reverses or neutralises all aspects of the metabolic syndrome [20,21].

The Low-carb diet was:
The method has previously been described in detail [5,6]. In short, the 16 patients, all with BMI>30 kg/m2, free of thyroid cardiac and renal disease – were advised to follow a diet containing initially 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women. The proportions of carbohydrates, fat and protein were 20%, 50% and 30% respectively. The daily quantity of carbohydrates was 80–90 g. The recommended carbohydrate consumption was limited to vegetables and salad. Instead of ordinary bread crisp/hard bread was recommended, each slice containing 3.5 to 8 g carbohydrates.

Excluded were starch-rich bread, pasta, potatoes, rice and breakfast cereals.

An interesting point is:
In addition, we assessed the performance of the two thirds of control patients from the high-carbohydrate diet group that had changed to a low-carbohydrate diet after the initial 6 month observation period.
They obviously saw the benefits of low carb!

Discussion

A summary of the implications of the current work:

1. This year, for the first time, the ADA accepted the value of carbohydrate-restricted diet for weight loss. The text of their guidelines, however, continues previous guidelines in finding fault with such diets and, in fact, does not cite most of the recent publications supporting their use [2]. Other health agencies have similarly insisted on low fat approaches. There is reason to believe that these guidelines are not followed in practice. A perusal of internet diabetes sites suggests that the major dietary emphasis is on carbohydrate control.

2. The major barrier to official acceptance is the stated lack of long term trials although it has never been stated what the features of successes in short term trials suggest that they would not be maintained.

3. The work presented here suggests the importance of funding large scale long term trials as well as the benefits and limited risk in using low carbohydrate diets now.

4. Several studies have shown that low fat diets can be successful but overall, it would be difficult to say they are inherently reliable.

5. In the studies reported here, patients in the two groups had, despite all possible support, failed in achieving an acceptable control of bodyweight and hyperglycemia on traditional low fat diets.

8. An important issue is the fact that some patients do become completely free of disease as soon as they are presented with a low-carbohydrate option. It is unknown what factors make these persons succeed now despite complete failure in the past.

In the low-carbohydrate group bodyweight and HbA1c is still significantly lower than before start. The bodyweight of 7 patients (43%) is still 10% below the initial weight, the original goal of the study. The success rate almost 4 years later is thus 43% as compared to zero in the control group.

Five of 16 patients in the intervention group have had stable bodyweight 38 months after the conclusion of the 6 months study period without any special follow-up. Weight increase has been preceded by an increased intake of carbohydrates in those cases where it has occurred. It is clear that the high-carbohydrate diet followed before the study has been an important, probably the central, contributing cause of their condition.

One rationale for a low-carbohydrate diet is the experimentally observed reduction in hunger [8] Patients generally reported that hunger was absent on the intervention diet and only after increasing dietary carbohydrates did it return.

The intensity of hunger has been reported to be positively correlated to the proportion of carbohydrates in obese men over a 4 week period [9].

We believe that the close follow-up was important. Patients had many questions at each meeting and concerns about the diet that might have hindered adherence were cleared up. In additions individual patients received support from the group.

There is now little evidence for the claim that a fat-reduced diet for weight reduction has any particular value beyond caloric counting [10]. On the other hand, six randomised studies have shown that carbohydrate restriction with ad-libitum energy intake confers a significant benefit with regard to weight loss in obese persons [11-16]. The current study is consistent with these reports and suggests that high-starch, high-carbohydrate diets excessively stimulate appetite and disturb energy balance in patients with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes [3]. A reduction of carbohydrates normalises the balance, reduces insulin concentrations and favours utilization of stored fat as fuel as well as significantly reducing insulin resistance [3]. Considering the solid evidence for the negative effect of hyperglycemia on diabetes complications as well as cardiovascular disease the present high-carbohydrate dietary advice resulting in unnecessary hyperglycemia and insulin resistance seems difficult to support [17-19] and for diabetes patients, current dietary recommendations seem to be a major part of their problem rather than being part of the solution. Carbohydrate restriction, however, reverses or neutralises all aspects of the metabolic syndrome [20,21].

Summary: A reduced carbohydrate diet is effective in motivated patients and can be recommended for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. There has been no sign of a negative cardiovascular effect.
 
So we are off to change the world on the results of 16 people :shock:

I've not had a good look at the study, to see all the in and out's, such as how many carbs are they determing as being low carb, 30, 40, 50 or 150! starting etc... how many dropped out or didn't improve or went back to their old ways...

Unless I've mistaken '16 patients' as being connected in some other manner other than to total size of group!
 
Try reading without prejudice, Jopar.

jopar said:
So we are off to change the world on the results of 16 people :shock:
And 15 controls

I've not had a good look at the study, to see all the in and out's, such as how many carbs are they determing as being low carb, 30, 40, 50 or 150! starting etc...The daily quantity of carbohydrates was 80–90 g. The 15 controls were advised on a diet with about the same caloric content at an introductory meeting., Proportions of carbohydrates, fat and protein for this group were 55–60%, 25–30% and 15% respectively. In the normal diabetes diet whole-grain products are recommended. Generous helpings of vegetables and several servings of fruits as snacks between meals are also recommended.

how many dropped out or didn't improve or went back to their old ways...Seven of the 15 controls switched to a 20% carbohydrate diet immediately after the 6 months follow-up period. For those we have data 32–34 months after the change.

Three more controls sought information and attempted to change diet later at various dates. The 5 remaining controls have not attempted a change of diet despite receiving additional information.


Unless I've mistaken '16 patients' as being connected in some other manner other than to total size of group! Experience in our diabetes school showed that advice to reduce fat and increase carbohydrates had a very limited effect on long-term weight reduction in our obese diabetes patients (unpublished data). We therefore decided to test a different approach in an observational study with a control group. We were interested in seeing the effect of the diet in compliant patients, who could be expected to adhere to it 3–6 months. This enabled us to measure the actual effect of a carbohydrate-restricted diet with little contamination of non-compliant subjects. To this end, all patients were well-informed of the diet and its rationale before they started. We considered a weight reduction of 10% of bodyweight to be of clinical significance.
 
"advice to reduce fat and increase carbohydrate"

Did they ever try to reduce fat AND reduce carbohydrate???
 
Albert said:
Did they ever try to reduce fat AND reduce carbohydrate???
the study participants were
...advised to follow a diet containing initially 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women.
... are you suggesting that they need to reduce their calories, or increase their protein?
 
pianoman said:
Albert said:
Did they ever try to reduce fat AND reduce carbohydrate???
the study participants were
...advised to follow a diet containing initially 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women.
... are you suggesting that they need to reduce their calories, or increase their protein?


Neither! Why can't you do what I said, not everybody needs to eat the recommended calories OR increase their protein. It's very sustainable to do both reduced fat AND reduced carbs. Don't believe all you read.
 
Albert said:
pianoman said:
Albert said:
Did they ever try to reduce fat AND reduce carbohydrate???
the study participants were
...advised to follow a diet containing initially 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women.
... are you suggesting that they need to reduce their calories, or increase their protein?


Neither! Why can't you do what I said, not everybody needs to eat the recommended calories OR increase their protein. It's very sustainable to do both reduced fat AND reduced carbs. Don't believe all you read.
I do not believe everything I read but I am not following your logic at all... there are only 3 macronutrients -- Carbohydrates, Fat and Protein. Among several nutritional requirements is the one for energy (calories). It is NOT sustainable in the long term to short change the body on any of its nutritional requirements. So given that we need energy and the two main macronutrient sources for energy are Carbohydrates and Fat... do the math.
 
What an arrogant response.

There are many that use the method (low carb/low fat) very successfully, remember Ken and Sue? They used the low fat and low carb method and achieved great results. You have been listening to our old pal Dr J I think? Unsustainable indeed. He too was arrogant in thinking there was only one way and that nobody else could possibly do anything different. Strange how people can do things differently and thrive on it, going against the mainstream advice. A bit like those low carb advocates who think that high fat is the only way. Tell that to those who don't use a lot of fat.

You really do need to get out more pianoman, the world is full of many and different things which defy logic!
 
Arrogant? How so? I'm not interested in this becoming personal attacks on my posting style, or the way you choose to interpret it. I said nothing about "one way". I have no idea who these people are that you mention. I am posting on behalf of me and based on my own experience and research.

The math is the same: low-carb/high-fat or low-fat/high-carb or even equal percentages of energy from both. The body needs as much energy as it needs.

Please explain where the energy comes from if everything is restricted? I'm no fan of counting calories but I'd need some convincing that we can survive indefinitely with a calorie deficit.
 
My grandad lived for many years on a low-carb/low-fat/low-protein diet. This was despite claims from many - including his GP - that it couldn't be done. Grandad always used to say, "People who say cannot it be done should not let it interrupt doing those who are."

It wasn't until the explosion at his cremation that we all discovered what a great source of calories alcohol is.
 
Lo carb - <60g per day
Lo fat - <30g per day

What do you eat? I cut out all the obvious carbs, & eat plenty of nuts, cheese, meat, veg & fruit. I use ground almonds & coconut powder in place of flour & cereal so get significant amounts of fat. Carbs still amount to about 100 g daily. My energy is sufficient to play tennis & table tennis without tiring, & normally with an after-exercise BG of 6-7.
 
Pianoman
Telling somebody who does something that it isn't sustainable is very arrogant. What do you know of me or any of those others who successfully restrict carbs AND fat. We dont need or use maths to do what we do, we just get on with it. Forget formulae! Trust me, it works. So, it is sustainable and I and many of my friends who use the same method have an abundance of energy, a zest for life, vitality. You have success doing what you do I presume, I believe you if that is what you say. I don't try to convince you that you are doing things that are not sustainable. I trust in what you say.

Therefore, you should trust me when I tell you what I do, what works for me and others. It IS sustainable, has been for several years now. I learned the method from Sue and Ken here. They helped me see what can be achieved by going a different path, a path which does work. It may work for others, I have no idea. It is up to them what method they use.

I don't have to justify anything that I do, suffice to say it is successful and VERY sustainable. I am not wasting away, not gorging on protein, not suffering any complications. So, if I am doing something wrong I would be interested to know where. All it took was a little faith and plenty of motivation to get to where I am today, a successful and well controlled diabetic.

As for your style, not really something I have ever thouight about, you are just another member who posts here, same as me and anybody else. WYSIWYG, as they say!
 
I do trust that what you are doing is working for you.

As for my statement being arrogant I'd suggest that your beef is with all the biochemists, physiologists, biologists, physicists etc... who would say the same thing. There is way too much empirical evidence of what happens to a body under sustained calorie deficit (POW and forced labour camps, for example) for me to think any other way -- the energy has to come from somewhere.
 
Pianoman.
Whoever the beef is with I do resent people questioning what I do. Wherever my energy comes from - it's a mystery, but it's there I assure you. Too much sometimes. Just goes to show how we are all different! :D

Just for the record I don't drink either!
 
It's either gin, "Peruvian marching powder", or magic.

Combine all three, and you have one of Paul Daniels' more memorable performances. :shock:
 
It's interesting where comes the energy from for a cat who eats meat mostly (wild cat, not a home cat) or any other animals surviving on meat or/and vegetables..Cows get energy while eating grass..don't tell me a cow has got no energy.. I really doubt they eat sandwiches, now do they? Or the occasional cake..
I'm not rying to prove anything, just thinking loudly..:)
 
Ausra said:
It's interesting where comes the energy from for a cat who eats meat mostly (wild cat, not a home cat) or any other animals surviving on meat or/and vegetables..Cows get energy while eating grass..don't tell me a cow has got no energy.. I really doubt they eat sandwiches, now do they? Or the occasional cake..
I'm not rying to prove anything, just thinking loudly..:)

Cats eat meat = fat + protein = energy.

Cows eats grass (in vast quantities) = carbohydrate

Next question?
 
There is a fourth food group outside of Carbs, Fat and Protein that people forget but give unlimited energy -
hobnobs!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top