• 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

The Low-carb diet was:
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!

 
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.

 
"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?
 


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!

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..
 

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.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…