type 2 medication advice please

It isn't just the type of carbohydrate that determines everything either. You can effect you BG by doing even a small amount of exertion after you've eaten.

Occasionally when I suspect I've eaten something a bit excessive I will do a one hour reading. If that looks to be going high I'll just do a warp factor 9 5 to 10 minute walk around the block. For that small amount of time you do need to actually exert yourself. That will interrupt BS uptake as some will be taken up for the energy needed to walk. I've also been told and can confirm that a hot bath can help as well as your muscles will again absorb the sugar.

xyzzy wrote:

my understanding is that all food stuffs can convert to carbs except dietary fibre. If you don't eat enough carbs the first response is your body converts your fat to carbs, if you have no fat then as a survival trait it will begin to convert protein (i.e. your muscles) to carbs as well.

Click to expand...

I think there's a slight slip of the pen here. Food stuffs are metabolized into glucose, I think, rather than carbohydrate.
All carbohydrate metabolizes to glucose; a percentage of protein metabolizes to glucose; I didn't think that fat changes to glucose - it doesn't contribute to blood sugar spikes. But I could be wrong! Excess dietary fat is stored as triglycerides, I believe.

If your body doesn't get enough carbohydrate for its energy needs, it goes into ketosis, and metabolizes fat to use for energy. It can use both dietary fat and stored body fat for this process. This is adequate for most of the body's needs; the protein in the diet produces enough glucose for the brain (which needs it) and for the liver to store for emergencies.

We don't actually need carbohydrate; at least 2 parts of our species used to live on a virtually carb-free diet - Eskimo and Maasai. I'm not sure about the indigenous people of southern Patagonia, but I doubt they got much carb down there. However, fruit and vegetables in the diet supply not only carbs but also essential vitamins and minerals, so it's best not to cut them out altogether.

Some people can cope with higher levels of carb than others. To lose weight and keep my BGs low, I try to keep to less than 50g of carb per day. Others can manage more.

Thats how I understand it, anyway. I'm no scientist (though very interested in all aspects of science), so I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure someone will tell me! :wink:

Viv 8)

We can run on alcohol, too - just like a Jeep! Drinking alcohol on a low-carb diet stops you losing weight. Believe me, I know! (anecdotal evidence, of course :wink: )

Thanks Viv of course you are correct it's glucose not carbs I should have typed

Was more interested in putting across the exercise and bath comments

Was late in the day is my excuse!

spaglemon said:

is there a point if your carb intake gets too low that it could begin to cause problems diabetes wise ? if you theoretically consumed no carbs at all would your liver compensate by producing more glucose ?

Click to expand...

Viv is right with her comments. (Of course!) Fact is, the blood only holds a small amount of glucose, the muscles store some more, and the liver stores the rest. When blood and muscles are all out of supply, the alpha cells in the pancreas produce glucagon, a bit like the opposite of the insulin produced by the beta cells. The glucagon instructs the liver to release glycogen into the blood which brings our sugar levels back up. As the liver only stores a certain amount, it can only release what it has. It can't manufacture it. That's why you see untrained marathon runners approaching the end with legs gone to jelly - no stores left. As pointed out, when the stores are gone, the body can burn fat instead. Problem is, it's far less efficient at producing energy than carbs and it can't produce enough energy quick enough for our runner.
I don't know, but I imagine that a zero carber would have issues in producing enough fast-acting energy.
That's my understanding anyway!