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

To Low Carb or Not to Low carb

D

Dr H

Well-Known Member
Messages
62
Location
Coventry
Dislikes
- People without manners
- Being interrogated about non-low-carbing
Basically, carbs are important, in the sense that they can't really be replaced without some problems. For example, the Atkin's diet replaced carbs with protein. This led to fantastic weight loss and bg control, but there were problems with constipation, muscle wasting etc. etc.

And an ultra-low carb diet would be a very drastic approach to take. But since I myself, have discovered that I eat almost exactly two thirds of the guideline daily amount of carbohydrates then I feel I fit comfortably in the non-low carb area.

However, there are problems that are associated with low-carb diets. A lot of them manageable. And almost all of them to do with lack of vitamins or fibre.

So the best advice for you if you do go down the low carb route is to eat a handful of bran with your high-fat breakfast and have vitamin supplements.

Conversely, although a low-carb diet isn't usually terrible (except for a couple of possible effects) a high fat diet is almost always bad. Especially saturated fats. They tend to increase your level of cholesterol which in turn makes you more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/02/health/main640566.shtml

That's a link with the problems that have been linked with low-carb diets.

(This was all pretty much paraphrased from the Textbook Of Human Nutrition)
 
Re: friends trying to talk me out of low carbing

Dr H said:
Basically, carbs are important, in the sense that they can't really be replaced without some problems. For example, the Atkin's diet replaced carbs with protein.
Click to expand...
Atkins replaces carbs with fat, NOT protein. This is the first mistake the anti low carb authors usually make.

This led to fantastic weight loss and bg control, but there were problems with constipation, muscle wasting etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Been low carbing for 9 months, haven't had any of these issues.

And an ultra-low carb diet would be a very drastic approach to take.
Click to expand...
Is it? After you get over the initial carb addiction then it's plain sailing. The improvements in quality of life are staggering!
But since I myself, have discovered that I eat almost exactly two thirds of the guideline daily amount of carbohydrates then I feel I fit comfortably in the non-low carb area.
Click to expand...
Low carbs are needed to lower trigs and improve cholesterol.
However, there are problems that are associated with low-carb diets. A lot of them manageable. And almost all of them to do with lack of vitamins or fibre.
Click to expand...
I've yet to experience any of these 'problems' I have only benefited since low carb. a Hb1Ac of 5.3 with NO meds whatsoever is pretty impressive. As is improved lipid panel, increased HDL, lower LDL and decimated trigs. Total reversal of fatty liver disease within two months, the GP was staggered by that one. Reversal of sleep apnea within 2 weeks! And finally complete normal BP after years of high!

So the best advice for you if you do go down the low carb route is to eat a handful of bran with your high-fat breakfast and have vitamin supplements.
Click to expand...
No need if you eat plenty of nuts and fibrous veg.

Only in the presence of carbs, my lipid panel has improved in every area despite eating more fat than I ever have! Not to mention the dispute whether heart disease has anything to do with cholesterol levels!
 
Re: friends trying to talk me out of low carbing

Doczoc: Firstly I paraphrased most of my post from a textbook. Secondly, this isn't based on anecdotal evidence. They ARE some of the problems that have been experienced by low-carb dieters. That's not the same as saying that ALL low-carb dieters are going to suffer from them.

I agree that if you find something that works, then you shouldn't change. However, if serious problems are associated with something then I think you should revaluate. That's not to say that you should change because somebody told you too. You need to make the decisions for yourself.

Best wishes.
 
Re: friends trying to talk me out of low carbing


I've yet to find a single study that shows that a high fat diet increases cholesterol in the absence of carbs?
 
a high fat diet is almost always bad. Especially saturated fats. They tend to increase your level of cholesterol which in turn makes you more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke.
Click to expand...

Thats strange I was put on a High Fat diet by my Dietitian and yet my total cholesterol has gone down, my lipid panel has improved especially trigs down to 0.65, and I'm still not on any cholesterol lowering medication.

The most frequent complaints with low-carb diets are constipation and headache, which are readily explained by the lack of fruit, vegetables and whole grains, Astrup said.
Click to expand...

After over 12 months of LC I don't and have not experienced any of the above complaints, I eat plenty of veg, and fruit in the form of berries but don't consume whole grains.

Also, bad breath, muscle cramps, diarrhea, general weakness and rashes are more often reported on low-carb diets than on low-fat diets, Astrup found.
Click to expand...

Again none of above have applied to me in fact I feel healthier and have far more energy than on the starchy carb low fat diet I initially followed after diagnosis.


Graham
 
Graham, don't misconstrue me saying that the most common ill-effects of a diet will be felt by everybody. In fact, I highly doubt there's been a single person who's suffered from all of them at once. Especially when there's constipation and diarrhea.

Somehow I get the feeling that this thread is going to become another massive debate, but I must say that my above comments were taken out of context from another thread.

However, I stand by my guns. Ultra-low-carb diets have drawbacks (as does everything), and these drawbacks and mostly long-term. In particular, the research conducted in the 90's and early 00's after the Atkin's Diet was thrown into the limelight. The very short-term ill effects and quite long-term ill effects were shown.

Initially, lethargy and sickness etc. Then the long-term effects of the mitochondria in the body being starved of energy. This would be especially worrying if it occurred in the brain.

Fewer brain mitochondria has been linked with brain aging, Alzeimer's, Parkinson's, Lewy Body Disease etc.

Sorry, the above is just a rationalization from two separate pieces of literature: Nutrition Cultism and The Living End.

The latter I would advise to anyone who wants to be paranoid about dying, and it is the reason why I believe that euthanasia is ethical.

However, back onto the point at hand. Low-carbing in itself isn't necessarily catastrophic. It does use up reserves of glycogen, fat and eventually protein. This is good if you want to lose weight, but what you replace it with is key.

Fats aren't all the same. In fact, every different possible fat (and there's a lot) react differently in different people. So essentially, you have an incomprehensible number of possibilities of the effect a fat will have on the body.

Saturated fats, or hydrogenated fats for the posh, will normally increase the production of LDL (I have no idea why) but it does. LDL for those unaware carries the 'bad' cholesterol. So you avoid it because it's directly linked to cardiovascular disease.

Unsaturated fats are considered healthier, but a decrease in fat intake will increase levels of HDL. This contains 'good' cholesterol. Which apparently helps to prevent cardiovascular disease.

So, in conclusion, this would apparently mean that replacing your carbs with fat should result in an increase of cholesterol. But like everything else, it also relies on other factors e.g. exercise, underlying health problems etc.

However, it's been proven that eating over the GDA of carbohydrates results in a small increase of cholesterol (I don't know why on this one either). So all this proves is that in the eyes of science everything is bad for you.
 
Chemistry lesson - hanadr's very informative post in the sticky section
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5446
but this basic chemistry can be found in science books the world over.

Starchy carbohydrate becomes blood glucose. Starchy carbohydrate is found in bread, pasta, potato and rice. Even the brown versions.

Blood glucose poisons us because our bodies don't metabolise it properly. The serious diabetic complications result from high levels of blood glucose for extended periods of time. Although my headaches have been pretty immediate - testing when I have them shows that my sugar is running higher than it should be, rather than me having a dietary defficiency of paracetamol.

Low carbing makes perfect sense to me, with the bonus that the food is wonderful.
 
Of course low-carbing makes perfect sense to you because you're a low-carb evangelist.

But it seems that you're forgetting that you run on carbohydrates. Plus, you're also forgetting that glucose can be converted into glycogen which is the body's storage molecule.

The body doesn't work properly when you use anything other than carbohydrates. And I'm not going to go into the nitty gritty, because trying to change your opinion would be useless, so I'll leave it at this.

Lack of carbs=lack of glucose=less respiration=less energy=less mitochondria=(if in the brain) more aggregations (build up of dead matter in the neurons)=a speedy descent to various neurodegenerative diseases.

Also, this is not a theory, it is accepted scientific fact. Loss of brain mitochondria has been directly linked with certain degenerative diseases: Huntington's is sped up by it, as is Parkinson's, Alzeimer's may be caused by it. Then again, since we lose brain mitochondria as we age anyway, maybe we're all actually going down this road.

Also, the mountains of evidence against low-carbing seem to scream to me 'maybe I shouldn't put down my bowl of pasta... just yet'.
 
Dr H, this is a site for diabetics. You are a diabetic. In all your posts (I have checked) you have not once asked for advice or help to manage your condition and you tell us you have good control.

Instead of sparring with low carbers, perhaps there would be more mileage in convincing us there may be other ways that work. For example, if you were to share your numbers and dietary tips in the same detail as the rest of us.

These are the reasons I'm here, to talk with other diabetics about how we can take control of our condition and improve our health. I have learned a great deal about managing my condition from the other regulars here, even ones who don't low carb.

What can I learn from you?
 
It seems to me that the division between LC and non-LC is based on whether you are T1 or T2, although there are some exceptions to both circumstances? Unfortunately some also have a habit of twisting perceived evidence to suit their chosen dietary habit.
 
Spiral, you are the one I'm sparring with. Now I don't think you've noticed. But you seem to believe that low-carbing is the only way. I don't give dietary tips outside of eat sensibly. Get all your food groups and cut out the ****.

It's worked for me. But you're not going to see me ramming that down people's throats.

I'll give you my results shall I.

I didn't sleep last night. I've been up for almost 26 hours. But normally, my blood glucose is a steady 5mmol/l. Yesterday morning it was a bit lower than normal at 4.1. Yesterday 2 hours after lunch, it was 7.6. Then just as I was interrupted before going to bed, it was 7.1. But since I had to stay awake, I had a snack in the morning to keep me going. It was then 4.2 this morning, then 8.0 after my lunch.

Hope that satisfies you.
 
Dr H, I suppose the crux of the argument is this.

Which is more harmful over the long term, the effects of high blood sugar, or the effects of lack of carbohydrate in the diet?

I am on metformin and gliclazide, and even so there is no way I can keep my blood sugars under control without cutting out most of the carbs from my diet. I'm not particularly strict about it but try to keep under 8 - 9mmol after meals, and can only achieve this by cutting out grain and most potato. Are you saying this is wrong?
 
Parselmouth said:
Which is more harmful over the long term, the effects of high blood sugar, or the effects of lack of carbohydrate in the diet?
Click to expand...

You wrongly assume that anyone who doesn't low carb has high BG.....Wrong, smaller portion size, low GI carbs and exercise will also lower BG levels.

Diabetes is for life, a bit like a puppy LOL, I chose to pick a diet that I could stick to for life, not just so I could loose weight in the short term, although I have lost over 3 stones in almost as many months. Please don't assume that your way is right for everyone.

Are you saying this is wrong?
Click to expand...
No, are you saying my way is wrong for me, if your not, what is your argument if not a crusade to convert everyone to low carb.

Cant we all agree to disagree and debate things together for the good of all?
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Cant we all agree to disagree and debate things together for the good of all?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone could possibly disagree with that sentiment Sid.

are you saying my way is wrong for me, if your not, what is your argument if not a crusade to convert everyone to low carb.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately remarks like that don't help. Parcelmouth simply stated what his dietary needs are and asked what is wrong with it. Yet you accuse him of being on a crusade to convert everyone to low carb. If you are looking for zealots Sid, then I suggest that you look closer to home.
 
Dennis said:
If you are looking for zealots Sid, then I suggest that you look closer to home.
Click to expand...

Oh, Denis, wrong about the text size and now wrong about this.

Why am I a zealot? When I have posted several times in different threads that I don't care what other people eat, but I object to people assuming that their way is the only way.

I also object to being censored by not being allowed to post to the whole of a public forum, but that is for another thread somewhere.
 
I don't really want to get involved in this but I cannot see anything in Parselmouth's post that referred to anyone else only what worked for him/her?
 
Doc, it seemed to me from reading your post that you had found some research showing that low carb diets have proven long term ill effects, and I was just wondering as someone who is new to diabetes and not medically trained whether you thought these long term ill effects were more/less damaging than the long term ill effects caused by high blood sugar, for those of us including me who are not able to tolerate much carb in the diet and have to control BS levels by carb restriction.

Does that make things more clear?
 
gbtyke said:
I don't really want to get involved in this but I cannot see anything in Parselmouth's post that referred to anyone else only what worked for him/her?
Click to expand...
And in the eyes of some people apparently that makes you a zealot who wants to convert everybody!! :roll:
 
I was just browsing through the new edition of 'Sweet' magazine, in Tesco, just now. I didn't buy the mag. but read a good bit of the article about carbs. being necessary for diabetics. I'm sure it said that the advice from Diabetes UK is that HALF of our diet should be made up of carbohydrates.
It also said that they do not recommend anyone to follow a low-carb diet. :roll:
Has anyone bought the magazine and had more of chance to read this article in full?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…